# Digital Performer 9+: User experiences?



## averystemmler (Nov 14, 2018)

So, I've used almost every major daw as my primary at one point or another. I'm currently on Cubase 8.5 (the past few versions haven't seemed necessary), but my eye has been drawn to Digital Performer again (which I used for a couple years before switching to Cubase) lately, and I realized I haven't heard much about the latest version. Anybody out there with experiences they'd like to relate? Positive, negative, entirely indifferent? I last used DP8, but I do find myself missing some of its more scoring-centric features. It may well be rose colored glasses at work.

Thanks!


----------



## Bender-offender (Nov 14, 2018)

Have you tried their 30 day demo? Since DAWs are so personal, the only one who can really compare the two is yourself. 

DP was my first DAW then later I switched to Cubase. I tried the DP 9.5 demo just for kicks, and I can give you my impressions, but they are just that: my impressions. Things I may dislike in DP you may really love and visa-versa. 

I apologize—I probably didn’t give you the answers you were looking for


----------



## averystemmler (Nov 14, 2018)

No apology necessary, but I was looking for more long-term impressions. The little frustrations you only uncover after years of use, the little performance quirks you don't really notice with a few demo projects. Or the amazing hidden feature you never thought you'd use but has become invaluable. That sort of thing.

But, that's also stuff that can also be hard to put into words, so it's a bit of an ask on my part to be sure. I'll download the demo some point and give it a whirl, but I'm just interested in what the "landscape" is like out there for the product, and the general consensus on MOTU as a company in 2018


----------



## reddognoyz (Nov 14, 2018)

DP 9 had a significant horsepower boost as well as some fantastic pitch shifting usung the zplane technology. also there are terrific view options that allow you to create track sets. You can see only tracks w midi datta or just the strings etc. very helpful for thw 1000+ track template crowd.


----------



## Bender-offender (Nov 14, 2018)

averystemmler said:


> No apology necessary, but I was looking for more long-term impressions. The little frustrations you only uncover after years of use, the little performance quirks you don't really notice with a few demo projects. Or the amazing hidden feature you never thought you'd use but has become invaluable. That sort of thing.
> 
> But, that's also stuff that can also be hard to put into words, so it's a bit of an ask on my part to be sure. I'll download the demo some point and give it a whirl, but I'm just interested in what the "landscape" is like out there for the product, and the general consensus on MOTU as a company in 2018



In that case, I’ll give you my impressions from the small amount of time of trying DP. 

I’ve gotten so used to MIDI being inside regions from using Cubase and Logic that when I use DP it gets frustrating quickly for me. I find the workflow in Cubase to be quicker with less mouse clicks than in DP. Logical/transformers/macros are a major plus for me as well as the Q-link function (alt-shift). And one of the biggest is Retrospective Record (in Logic too). 

I know a lot of DP users love the Chunks feature and v-racks. I recently did a performance test using Diva & Adaptiverb with DP, Logic, and Cubase, and DP’s PreGen engine seemed to handle more tracks than the other two (surprisingly). However, there may have been some variables that affected this which I’d like to retest. 

But like I said, you may sequence/record differently than myself so maybe you’ll enjoy DP more. I think DP is still a wonderful DAW, it’s just not for me anymore.


----------



## averystemmler (Nov 14, 2018)

Thank you both!



Bender-offender said:


> Logical/transformers/macros are a major plus for me as well as the Q-link function (alt-shift). And one of the biggest is Retrospective Record (in Logic too).



Now that you mention it, those were all reasons I shifted to Cubase in the first place, so it's good to be reminded of them. You start to take them for granted after a time.

I'm definitely interested in poking at the PreGen engine though. And that spectrograph view is mighty appealing!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 14, 2018)

all the daws have pros and cons including dp. Ultimately I can’t stand the absence of midi regions and I have come to rely on logic’s scripter. Dp has absolutely nothing for articulation management.

It has a lot of other nice features though but for me they aren’t enough because of the above, but:

V-racks, chunks, midi routing, film hit point calculation, etc... it’s got some interesting features. My overall impression is that dp is built by audio engineers for audio engineers and that it excels particularly in production and mixing tasks. Everything is straightforward and smooth to use for those kinds of tasks, but for the actual music writing and composing task I find other daws like logic to be far more intuitive. But I know musicians that have been using dp for years to write Music and they are used to it with no complaints. So there you go. It’s a subjective thing.


----------



## averystemmler (Nov 14, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> So there you go. It’s a subjective thing



One could make the argument that every word on this forum is a subjective thing, but I appreciate the perspectives all the same!


----------



## musicalweather (Nov 14, 2018)

User of DP for 15+ years here. I use it mainly for MIDI rather than audio (that is, most of my work is done using sampled instruments rather than live audio). I find it excellent for midi work and editing, though I probably don't work as efficiently as a lot of people. (I'm not sure what you all mean by midi region. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.). 

Chunks and V-racks are invaluable when it comes to film scoring. 

For a while, before I had VE Pro, I had the problem of DP suddenly quitting when I loaded it up with lots of plugins. That problem went away as soon as I got VEP. 

The MasterWorks plugins get a lot of use. Don't have much use for the guitar pedals and effects. 

The lack of articulation management is a weakness. That is one thing that makes me take a look at Cubase. It would be nice if MOTU would do something in this regard. 

I know this doesn't give you much insight. If you have specific questions, maybe I can answer them.


----------



## Bender-offender (Nov 14, 2018)

musicalweather said:


> User of DP for 15+ years here. I use it mainly for MIDI rather than audio (that is, most of my work is done using sampled instruments rather than live audio). I find it excellent for midi work and editing, though I probably don't work as efficiently as a lot of people. (I'm not sure what you all mean by midi region. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.).



Hi, MIDI regions are similar to a recorded audio file; all the MIDI info is contained inside a region (or container) for just that section of the music. For example, on a single violin track, you can have many regions with the different violin lines in it. These are handy because you're able to apply some kind of effect to just that region without affecting other regions on the same track. I know in DP, when you record in MIDI, it creates "boxes" of MIDI data, which is similar, but it's a bit different. I'm not really sure how to explain it correctly.  It basically makes MIDI editing/muting/etc a bit easier to work with because you're dealing with small "containers".

However, like I said, DAWs are very personal, and they all do pretty much the exact same thing these days, so the best option is to just stick with what you're the most comfortable with. Every time I get frustrated with Cubase I always start fooling around with other DAWs, and every time I end up back using Cubase just because I've used it the longest and know it the best.

I hope that helps even a little


----------



## musicalweather (Nov 14, 2018)

Bender-offender said:


> I know in DP, when you record in MIDI, it creates "boxes" of MIDI data, which is similar, but it's a bit different. I'm not really sure how to explain it correctly.  It basically makes MIDI editing/muting/etc a bit easier to work with because you're dealing with small "containers"



I was wondering if it was similar to DP's midi boxes in the tracks window. I find the boxes work well enough, though sometimes they include or exclude data a bit arbitrarily. But most of the time, I can apply affects to the regions I want.


----------



## brek (Nov 14, 2018)

musicalweather said:


> I find the boxes work well enough, though sometimes they include or exclude data a bit arbitrarily.



Ha.. that's what always has me looking over cubase's shoulder at DP. I hate that Cubase doesn't know that something played a millisecond ahead of the beat belongs in the later midi region if I make an edit at that point.


----------



## OLB (Nov 15, 2018)

musicalweather said:


> The lack of articulation management is a weakness. That is one thing that makes me take a look at Cubase. It would be nice if MOTU would do something in this regard.


Recently I managed to work out a system to change articulations in Kontakt via Program Changes. Shall we call it a poor man's Expression Maps system for DP?

Tracks Overview





Midi Editor





So basically it's sending a Program Change to Kontakt and I've made a custom multiscript that converts these Program Changes into Midi CC or Note Values.
This way you can control CSS for example or any library.

I've been working with Logic and Cubase/Nuendo but DP's workflow just clicks with how I write. It's so personal.
I desperately wanted to love Cubase (Macros and Expression Maps!) and while it's incredible I always ran into oddities and shortcoming for my preferred way of working. And I missed Chunks too much 

However, seeing these fantastic things Cubase could do I tried to make it work in DP. For example with Keyboard Maestro you can program macro's yourself. Key commands for velocity +10/-10, Midi CC increase/decrease, Quantize presets, Set Note length etc etc etc.
Wizard @jononotbono has tons of ideas for these macros.

Editing CC's are a breeze as well:





I could go on and on  but DP is an incredibly deep that has so many different workflows. Every week I come across something and think, gosh I didn't know that was possible.


----------



## richhickey (Nov 15, 2018)

OLB said:


> Recently I managed to work out a system to change articulations in Kontakt via Program Changes. Shall we call it a poor man's Expression Maps system for DP?



Hi. Your images aren't coming across, maybe dropbox permissions?

Yes. Program changes are handled pretty well in DP. We could do more with them if DP allowed for arbitrary patch maps for virtual instruments and offered a MIDI effect like Logic's Scripter.


----------



## vewilya (Nov 15, 2018)

OLB said:


> Recently I managed to work out a system to change articulations in Kontakt via Program Changes. Shall we call it a poor man's Expression Maps system for DP?
> 
> Tracks Overview
> 
> ...


Oh Yeah! I'd love to see more! Sounds amazing! Would you share the multiscript?


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 15, 2018)

Bender-offender said:


> Hi, MIDI regions are similar to a recorded audio file; all the MIDI info is contained inside a region (or container) for just that section of the music. For example, on a single violin track, you can have many regions with the different violin lines in it. These are handy because you're able to apply some kind of effect to just that region without affecting other regions on the same track. I know in DP, when you record in MIDI, it creates "boxes" of MIDI data, which is similar, but it's a bit different. I'm not really sure how to explain it correctly.  It basically makes MIDI editing/muting/etc a bit easier to work with because you're dealing with small "containers".



They can also be easily copied, moved, aliased, looped, linked to the arrangement track, etc.. DP is clumsy in comparison.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 15, 2018)

musicalweather said:


> I was wondering if it was similar to DP's midi boxes in the tracks window. I find the boxes work well enough, though sometimes they include or exclude data a bit arbitrarily. But most of the time, I can apply affects to the regions I want.



no, DP does not have midi regions. There are some visual representations that they paint that kinda look like it, but they are not actual midi regions. This is a well known issue with DP.


----------



## Bender-offender (Nov 15, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> no, DP does not have midi regions. There are some visual representations that they paint that kinda look like it, but they are not actual midi regions. This is a well known issue with DP.


Yes, Dewdman knew how to describe it better. He’s much wiser than I am, so do heed his word. (No joke)


----------



## OLB (Nov 15, 2018)

richhickey said:


> Hi. Your images aren't coming across, maybe dropbox permissions?
> 
> Yes. Program changes are handled pretty well in DP. We could do more with them if DP allowed for arbitrary patch maps for virtual instruments and offered a MIDI effect like Logic's Scripter.


Ok strange. Have a look again!


----------



## OLB (Nov 15, 2018)

OLB said:


> Recently I managed to work out a system to change articulations in Kontakt via Program Changes. Shall we call it a poor man's Expression Maps system for DP?
> 
> Tracks Overview
> 
> ...



@vewilya Sure here are the Kontakt multiscripts! One is Program Change to CC and the other Program Change to Note. 






So I guess it's self explanatory. Incoming Program Change (PC) translates to the midi cc you enter. And you can set the port it goes to. Midi CC58 in this picture. 
Now you can send it to 2 cc values as I've done with CSS for example to select sustains or legato (requires 2 CC's). 

One thing is that the incoming PC from DP is one higher (I think.. I always confuse this..) than the Kontakt value. 

Hope these pictures work now btw!


----------



## averystemmler (Nov 15, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> They can also be easily copied, moved, aliased, looped, linked to the arrangement track, etc.. DP is clumsy in comparison.



I'm of two minds on this subject personally. On the one hand, having discrete midi regions does allow for certain conveniences, and is easier to conceptualize. On the other hand, I almost always end up making project-length regions anyways to consolidate things in the editor. In those instances, sometimes I need to add or remove something in the middle of the project, and then having to split those regions on the gridlines ends up splitting or missing midi notes, or not capturing CCs properly. That sort of thing. It's always a trade off, and there are always workarounds.


----------



## clisma (Nov 15, 2018)

OLB said:


> @vewilya Sure here are the Kontakt multiscripts! One is Program Change to CC and the other Program Change to Note.



This is very generous of you, thank you for sharing it! Your system looks great and almost makes me want to dust off my copy of DP 8.5 on my drive! Almost. I never really loved it for CC editing.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 15, 2018)

averystemmler said:


> I'm of two minds on this subject personally. On the one hand, having discrete midi regions does allow for certain conveniences, and is easier to conceptualize. On the other hand, I almost always end up making project-length regions anyways to consolidate things in the editor. In those instances, sometimes I need to add or remove something in the middle of the project, and then having to split those regions on the gridlines ends up splitting or missing midi notes, or not capturing CCs properly. That sort of thing. It's always a trade off, and there are always workarounds.



Then you may love dp’s tapedeck approach


----------



## vewilya (Nov 15, 2018)

OLB said:


> @vewilya Sure here are the Kontakt multiscripts! One is Program Change to CC and the other Program Change to Note.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey Man this is so generous of You! I'm just seeing the actual graphics of your post now! Incredible really! I'll check this out for sure! Thanks so much! Greetings U


----------



## vewilya (Nov 15, 2018)

OLB said:


> Recently I managed to work out a system to change articulations in Kontakt via Program Changes. Shall we call it a poor man's Expression Maps system for DP?
> 
> Tracks Overview
> 
> ...


Hey OLB

Which Digital Performer file has to be edited to match the menus seen above?


----------



## richhickey (Nov 15, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> Then you may love dp’s tapedeck approach



Heh. It's interesting, and a matter of perspective. When you go up a level, it's DP and its chunks/songs that make others look and feel like tape (other than S1 with scratchpads) . Every time in other DAWs I have to go find some 'blank space' in order to capture a new idea I wonder why am I suffering from the limitations of tape, where's the non-linear mode? Arrange modes based upon pointing to different sections of a timeline just don't compare.

Also, I find that working in 4/8/16/whatever bar regions tends to encourage segmented music, since it is so hard to deal with anything that crosses region boundaries. So I appreciate DPs design - chunks for (larger) segments, linear within chunks, first-class non-linear arrangement via songs. I am grateful for the alternative to single-timeline DAWs.


----------



## OLB (Nov 15, 2018)

vewilya said:


> Hey OLB
> 
> Which Digital Performer file has to be edited to match the menus seen above?


My pleasure! 

It's the file 'Default Names.midnam' found Macintosh HD -> Library -> Audio -> MIDI Devices -> MOTU

You can edit between <PatchNameList></PatchNameList> and delete some other data. But I can upload mine tomorrow if you like


----------



## Robert Randolph (Nov 15, 2018)

OLB, I'd like to go through your setup and see if I can get it working myself.

Would it be ok with you if I wrote up an article about it (on my website) about how to set this up, assuming I manage to myself. Fully credited to you of course.

This is a really cool idea and I'd like to help make it easier for people to find out about and setup.


----------



## richhickey (Nov 15, 2018)

Robert Randolph said:


> OLB, I'd like to go through your setup and see if I can get it working myself.
> 
> Would it be ok with you if I wrote up an article about it (on my website) about how to set this up, assuming I manage to myself. Fully credited to you of course.
> 
> This is a really cool idea and I'd like to help make it easier for people to find out about and setup.



Robert, have a look also at the video I made about this approach back in August:

https://vi-control.net/community/threads/articulations-in-digital-performer.74163/


----------



## vewilya (Nov 15, 2018)

OLB said:


> My pleasure!
> 
> It's the file 'Default Names.midnam' found Macintosh HD -> Library -> Audio -> MIDI Devices -> MOTU
> 
> You can edit between <PatchNameList></PatchNameList> and delete some other data. But I can upload mine tomorrow if you like


Hey OLB

In the meantime I've already found my way to that file. I can set up banks and patches but somehow the articulation switch is not happening... Your Default Names.midnam-file would be instructive, so if you could share it that'd be awesome! So in Kontakt you just insert an empty instrument with the same midi channel as the VI and setup the scripter preset?


----------



## Geoff Grace (Nov 15, 2018)

I'm not a fan of regions either. When I was a Logic user, I rarely used the features that regions offer; and as a result, regions were—for me—mostly an inconvenient obstacle when I needed to cut, copy, and paste. I literally had to cut in order to copy/paste unless I was copying a whole region. My understanding is that the marquee tool has since made this simpler, but I believe that the region still needs to be (automatically) cut in order to copy part of it. DP and Pro Tools are more like word processors in that regard: select, copy, and paste.

I used Performer, and later DP, regularly from 1990 until about a decade ago. My main issues with the program are 1) the small size of the print for the main MIDI tracks window (which may or may not be a problem, depending on your monitor and eyesight) and 2) the fact that a VI requires two tracks (instrument and MIDI, or VE Pro and MIDI) instead of one.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Robert Randolph (Nov 15, 2018)

richhickey said:


> Robert, have a look also at the video I made about this approach back in August:
> 
> https://vi-control.net/community/threads/articulations-in-digital-performer.74163/



Excellent, thanks. This is such a neat idea, I'm amazed it's the first I've heard of it.


----------



## OLB (Nov 15, 2018)

richhickey said:


> Robert, have a look also at the video I made about this approach back in August:
> 
> https://vi-control.net/community/threads/articulations-in-digital-performer.74163/


That's right Rich! Thanks again!


----------



## musicalweather (Nov 15, 2018)

Geoff Grace said:


> 2) the fact that a VI requires two tracks (instrument and MIDI, or VE Pro and MIDI) instead of one.



If you're using a plugin within DP, you will need two tracks -- the instrument and the midi. But if you're using VE Pro, you'll have just _one_ instrument/audio track for an instance of VE Pro, with up to 128 midi tracks.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Nov 15, 2018)

musicalweather said:


> If you're using a plugin within DP, you will need two tracks -- the instrument and the midi. But if you're using VE Pro, you'll have just _one_ instrument/audio track for an instance of VE Pro, with up to 128 midi tracks.


I think we're on the same page: it's one instance of VE Pro _and_ 1-128 MIDI tracks that reference it. Yes?

Granted, in the case of VE Pro, it's one extra track that gets used repeatedly, which greatly reduces the clutter; but it's still one extra track.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## musicalweather (Nov 15, 2018)

Geoff Grace said:


> I think we're on the same page: it's one instance of VE Pro _and_ 1-128 MIDI tracks that reference it. Yes?



Yes, we are -- sorry. I don't mind the extra track but can see how people who are used to other setups may dislike it.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Nov 15, 2018)

That makes sense. If I were already a VE Pro user, it would reduce this gripe to an almost moot point; but for those who aren't, they have to choose between adding the expense of VI Pro and doubling their VI track count.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## AlexRuger (Nov 15, 2018)

Bender-offender said:


> I’ve gotten so used to MIDI being inside regions from using Cubase and Logic that when I use DP it gets frustrating quickly for me.



Yup, this is it right here. I simply cannot stand working in DP due to how it treats MIDI, arbitrarily chopping up its "regions." Unusable IMO.


----------



## Robert Randolph (Nov 15, 2018)

AlexRuger said:


> Yup, this is it right here. I simply cannot stand working in DP due to how it treats MIDI, arbitrarily chopping up its "regions." Unusable IMO.



FWIW, it only does this in the track overview, and it's configurable. I'm sure you know this but I want to make sure it's clear for non-users that may be reading.

MOTU is definitely aware that people want regions, but it's up to them if they want to do anything about it.

I work in various DAWs frequently, and I've never once minded how DP does things. I actually tend to prefer it in many cases.


----------



## OLB (Nov 16, 2018)

AlexRuger said:


> Yup, this is it right here. I simply cannot stand working in DP due to how it treats MIDI, arbitrarily chopping up its "regions." Unusable IMO.


That's totally cool, everybody's brain is wired differently. I'm glad DP doesn't use regions. When using Cubase I was endlessly deleting and cutting empty parts of regions. But hey that's me. Anyways! 

@vewilya Here is my version of the articulation file so far: Default Names.midnam
Let me know if that works!


----------



## vewilya (Nov 16, 2018)

OLB said:


> My pleasure!
> 
> It's the file 'Default Names.midnam' found Macintosh HD -> Library -> Audio -> MIDI Devices -> MOTU
> 
> You can edit between <PatchNameList></PatchNameList> and delete some other data. But I can upload mine tomorrow if you like





OLB said:


> That's totally cool, everybody's brain is wired differently. I'm glad DP doesn't use regions. When using Cubase I was endlessly deleting and cutting empty parts of regions. But hey that's me. Anyways!
> 
> @vewilya Here is my version of the articulation file so far: Default Names.midnam
> Let me know if that works!


hey OLB

Thanks so much. I will check tonight!
U


----------



## averystemmler (Nov 16, 2018)

So far, I've had a few spare hours with the DP 9.5 demo, and I have mixed feelings about a lot of it. My memory has carried me through most of the initial weirdness with the DP workflow, but there are definitely little things I immediately miss from Cubase.

Being able to middle-mouse button scroll around an interface is strangely important to me, and not being able to is almost a deal breaker in itself. Similarly, while I love being able to have multiple vracks and sequences (i like modularity), only being able to address one of those at a time in the mixer view is a drag. I'd love to have one mixer window for my stems, one for my reverb sends v-rack, one for my instrument vrack, etc. Cubase can do such things with minimal effort, albeit minus the wonderfully modular chunks.

Lack of vst3 support was almost a deal breaker, but then I remembered that VE Pro has a MAS version these days, so the multi port business works just fine. I do, however, prefer DP's way of routing outputs from VEP too. Being able to set up invisible busses to audio tracks means I can record any individual outputs I choose, rather than having Cubase do a bounce of every single output connected to that instance.

In general, I do prefer DP's way of handling routing. And I especially love the new (to me) track creation options. Being able to batch assign midi and audio and busses (and colors) makes templates WAY easier to make. My full template in Cubase took literal days of work, getting everything routed and organized. I think I could achieve the same result in a few steps in DP (not including track naming).

I haven't done a big enough test to really push performance yet, so we'll see about that. No troubles yet in that regard though.

Overall, though, my impressions are that DP is rigid, and the workflow really encourages large organized templates. Cubase is a bit more loosey-goosey. You can certainly set up huge, efficient templates (with some effort), but it doesn't make you worry about the continuity of your buss naming if you just want to add a damn synth and send it to a reverb.

The big draw to DP for me, really, are certain midi CC editing features. But those may be offset by the absence of proper articulation management. I would definitely be interested to hear from the DP crowd on the best way to handle midi across many instruments in a large project. My preference generally is to spend most of my time in a piano roll with all instruments displayed at once, so I can read and manipulate the entire thing like a score. Is this a reasonable way of working in DP?


----------



## Robert Randolph (Nov 16, 2018)

averystemmler said:


> Being able to middle-mouse button scroll around an interface is strangely important to me, and not being able to is almost a deal breaker in itself. Similarly, while I love being able to have multiple vracks and sequences (i like modularity), only being able to address one of those at a time in the mixer view is a drag. I'd love to have one mixer window for my stems, one for my reverb sends v-rack, one for my instrument vrack, etc. Cubase can do such things with minimal effort, albeit minus the wonderfully modular chunks.



I also find DP's lack of a 'graphics like' pan*/scroll to be annoying because it's such a common method of interaction.

However I think you'll find it useful to become familiar with the zoom tool (you can hold z to access temporarily, or double tap to switch to. Holding alt with pointer tool also switches to zoom), life is much nicer.

I then use the zoom tool combined with the "Zoom Back" and "Zoom Forward" commands (cmd-[ and cmd-]) to navigate the project. Open the Commands window and search "zoom" to see the other commands. I utilize the Zoom Settings a good bit as well. Zoom 1 is always set to "full project view" for me.

DP's workflow centers around zooming to what you want, rather than scrolling/panning* to what you want.

I have grown to like this workflow more than the pan*/zoom with middle mouse. With large projects I find it much easier to work with a very zoomed out view, and just select what I want to see. When I'm done I just back out.

When I use Cubase I get really annoyed at having to pan around for things. You can somewhat replicate the Zoom-based workflow, but DP does it better with more commands to utilize.

*pan in the graphical/visual terminology.


----------



## averystemmler (Nov 16, 2018)

Robert Randolph said:


> I also find DP's lack of a 'graphics like' pan*/scroll to be annoying because it's such a common method of interaction.
> 
> However I think you'll find it useful to become familiar with the zoom tool (you can hold z to access temporarily, or double tap to switch to. Holding alt with pointer tool also switches to zoom), life is much nicer.
> 
> ...


I can see that working decently. A hybrid that I enjoy from Reaper is the little "navigator" mini map thing you can place in a corner. It gives you a low detail view of the entire project and lets you jump wherever you please, while keeping your current level of zoom. But, I'm not opposed to the zooming, and I can see that working well with DP.s interface.


----------



## vewilya (Nov 17, 2018)

OLB said:


> That's totally cool, everybody's brain is wired differently. I'm glad DP doesn't use regions. When using Cubase I was endlessly deleting and cutting empty parts of regions. But hey that's me. Anyways!
> 
> @vewilya Here is my version of the articulation file so far: Default Names.midnam
> Let me know if that works!


I'll pm you OLB to not hijack this thread any further...


----------

