What's new

Now here...MOTU DP11

mjsalam

Active Member
Well I was also quite excited about DP11, especially with the new VST articulation system. But I haven't managed to find any in depth video about how to use the system. I know literally everything o_O about building your own maps in Cubase, and fell in love with Soundvariations in S1, but DP is always a little bit "in the dark" about many features, I think. Anybody know if there are any in depth videos about these things?
 

cuttime

Active Member
Well I was also quite excited about DP11, especially with the new VST articulation system. But I haven't managed to find any in depth video about how to use the system. I know literally everything o_O about building your own maps in Cubase, and fell in love with Soundvariations in S1, but DP is always a little bit "in the dark" about many features, I think. Anybody know if there are any in depth videos about these things?
And there is this, which I have not gotten to work, that apparently only works with certain VST3s, as far as I can tell:

 

stigc56

Senior Member
Well hardly an “in depth video”, I mean how to assign them? How to deal with the big maps - like all the VSL and Spitfire stuff. Can it be automated, can you record the ks after the initially recording? Don`t want to sound spoiled, but it doesn`t present a real world scenario to use a library with 2 art. in the woodwinds.
 

Dewdman42

Senior Member
One nice thing about DP's articulation map file format, is that its in JSON format, which is actually very easy to edit in a text editor, so you can copy and paste and do things that might be helpful if you're dealing with really large articulation maps.

DP's articulation map editor can also load Cubase Expression map files! But not all features of expression maps are supported, namely groups, but for most straightforward Expression Maps, you can load them up in DP, tweak as neccessary and be good to go if you already have a lot of Cubase Expression Maps.

It would not be hard to make a small script or program that could convert LogicPro articulation sets into DP articulation JSON files also, but I don't know if or when I would have time to do it...so...
 

Dewdman42

Senior Member
I am ecstatic to see Articulation Maps in DP, this addition is what is bringing me back to DP after a very long hiatus. I do think it could still use some refinement. I don't think its particularly any worse then the other DAW's, they could all use some refinement too! DP is at least on par with them as far as I'm concerned.

If you have suggestions for MOTU, make sure to send them to [email protected]

I think they are paying attention to this feature area right now and I hear down the grapevine that they are still taking in ideas and opinions, right now is a good time to make your desires heard.

The easiest and most obvious area it could use some refinement, IMHO, is in the GUI itself..the articulation lane. Its not making effective use of space in my view, its not hard to end up with a long list of articulations and a very very tall articulation lane that you have to constantly scroll through. Cubase and StudioOne share the same issue. I actually don't like the whole articulation lane bar concept that cubase, S1 and DP11 are all embracing now. MOTU and PreSonus just kind of copied Steinberg on this idea...and I think it could be much better using a lot less vertical space.

I'd rather see something like this where 127 different articulations can be shown in a more manageable amount of vertical space:

Screen Shot 2021-08-02 at 4.29.55 PM.jpeg


I do not like that it labels the articulation lane bars with note pitches, I wish they were labeled with the articulation name.

I had trouble selecting multiple events and assigning them to the same articulation, this only seems to be possible when they are multiple events of a chord. Would be an easy fix, I'm not sure why MOTU did that.

I'd like some control over colors and other ways to help identify articulations more easily when using the piano roll and looking at my notes.

Latency offset handling.

Channelizing behavior with chasing and following of expression events across channels where notes are being channelized on a per-articulation basis.

I don't think they will add groups, sadly, but something similar as Cubase groups, but with a much more intuitive way to use them, is really needed by all the DAW's, including DP. There are many situations where that can be used to cut down the vertical size of the articulation lane very substantially.


Anyway, I'm still loving my transition to DP so far. V-Racks and Chunks are just awesome. Track and folder organization is light years ahead of LogicPro. I'm still setting up a large template, which I never even bothered with LogicPro, but feel compelled to do with DP... The hardest part is figuring out which approach of track organization would suit me the best. There are many options.

I'm also making heavy use of Bundles and Midi Device Groups in oder to provide much better labels to all the midi and audio channels being sent/received to VePro. Once its setup I don't have to remember which channel or port per instrument, etc.. I really like this.

I'm also really liking the Track Selector window to quickly change which tracks or mixer channels I want to see in different views...can even save presets of this... Can easily re-arrange the mixer how I want...something unheard of in LogicPro really.
 

60s Pop Man

New Member
Anyway, I'm still loving my transition to DP so far. V-Racks and Chunks are just awesome. Track and folder organization is light years ahead of LogicPro. I'm still setting up a large template, which I never even bothered with LogicPro, but feel compelled to do with DP... The hardest part is figuring out which approach of track organization would suit me the best. There are many options.

I'm also making heavy use of Bundles and Midi Device Groups in oder to provide much better labels to all the midi and audio channels being sent/received to VePro. Once its setup I don't have to remember which channel or port per instrument, etc.. I really like this.

I'm also really liking the Track Selector window to quickly change which tracks or mixer channels I want to see in different views...can even save presets of this... Can easily re-arrange the mixer how I want...something unheard of in LogicPro really.
Then there's the power of temporary groups and automation snapshots to activate the visible automation, short cuts for all visible or selected tracks to make automation changes across many tracks very quickly!

My consolidated window is setup to only show one row in the center. The use of Shift + a letter (T, S, G, Q, M etc.) get's around to full screen editors and the mixer very quickly while avoiding the clutter of two rows.

My window sets are based on the function or task-driven contents of the side bars which are easy to show or hide, as the center is alway one big open area.

DP's guitar pedals and Live Room B and G are the coolest plug-ins for guitar players available among the DAW I have. The MasterWorks plug-in for the most part sound great. I just recently discovered that the MW EQ can generate pink noise to help the ears hear how a Q contour shapes the tone. Very cool!

There's so much that is making sense to me now compared to when DP v4.5 and 5 was my only DAW. Big on that list is the interaction of the beat detection engine and the Conductor track, especially useful when importing legacy mixes with varying tempo with a decent percussion component.

Logic has Smart Tempo. Record without a click and the tempo is automatically generated. This does work very well. But DP can do this as well. With the automatically analyze beats and tempo preference active, I can record without a click, and then with adjust sequence tempo to SB command, the tempo appears in the conductor track.

So at this point, I'm full in with DP11 as my primary DAW.
 
Last edited:

stigc56

Senior Member
The easiest and most obvious area it could use some refinement, IMHO, is in the GUI itself..the articulation lane. Its not making effective use of space in my view, its not hard to end up with a long list of articulations and a very very tall articulation lane that you have to constantly scroll through. Cubase and StudioOne share the same issue. I actually don't like the whole articulation lane bar concept that cubase, S1 and DP11 are all embracing now. MOTU and PreSonus just kind of copied Steinberg on this idea...and I think it could be much better using a lot less vertical space.
I sure disagree with you that S1 and Cubase is equal in this respect. S1 is so much easier to use in every aspect of the process. Building the map, selecting the map, using the map, they are incomparable, in my opinion. Furthermore there is "the speed of evolution"! S1 literally created a system AND even made an update in a periode of 6 months. In the same time Steinberg did, eh what?

I like DP11 quite a lot, it's deep and capable, but I fear that the concept with separated MIDI / VI tracks are a bit too old fashion to me. Dorico introduced the concept with "the musician" in score writing, certainly a useful feature in my world, making it a effortless to create a score with a musician alternating between a banjo and a viola - (Tom Waits), and this idea could be the core in building a template, unless the whole template way of thinking is "so yesterday"??

Nevertheless, DP11 is a big step forward, but is it enough if you don't have the skills or time to enjoy edit JSON based articulation maps in a texteditor?
 

richhickey

Active Member
The easiest and most obvious area it could use some refinement, IMHO, is in the GUI itself..the articulation lane. Its not making effective use of space in my view, its not hard to end up with a long list of articulations and a very very tall articulation lane that you have to constantly scroll through. Cubase and StudioOne share the same issue. I actually don't like the whole articulation lane bar concept that cubase, S1 and DP11 are all embracing now. MOTU and PreSonus just kind of copied Steinberg on this idea...and I think it could be much better using a lot less vertical space.


I had trouble selecting multiple events and assigning them to the same articulation, this only seems to be possible when they are multiple events of a chord. Would be an easy fix, I'm not sure why MOTU did that.
Yeah, copying Cubase on the 2D articulation lanes UI was a mistake. It doesn't scale to large articulation sets in Cubase, and similarly doesn't in DP 11.

And yes, assigning multiple events (esp. that don't already share an articulation) to the same articulation in the 2D lane UI is absolutely maddening, as if they never actually used the feature. The articulation picker on the Info Bar disappears when multiple notes are selected. And the right click menu has no option for articulations. The only thing that works is the menu - Region|Set Articulation, but it is clunky to have to use a popup dialog and keyboard+mouse every time.
 

Dewdman42

Senior Member
@stigc56 I did not mean to say that all three daws are exactly the same they are not. I meant to to say that all three can use refinement generally in some way related to articulation mapping, including S1. This thread, however, is not about S1; i have pointed out some of its issues on other S1 related threads. Daw vs daw “conversations”on the internet are generally not productive and lead to fan club mis-information IMHO.

God help us if the reaper cult joins this thread about DP11 too

Regarding the separated midi tracks I hear you but it’s not as bad as you are making it sound when you start using vracks and also vepro together with dp, then the mid track separation is perhaps more clear and certainly more flexible. In fact you generally end up using this same model when using cubase with vepro, for example.

The only thing I wish is that motu would provide a way to use plugin automation between sequences and vrack instruments

It’s also quite easy in dp to show/hide various tracks types, there are numerous different ways to see only midi tracks or only instrument tracks or any combination you want, and very flexible folder organization.
 

Dewdman42

Senior Member
Regarding JSON i was only pointing it out as an alternative for large maps which you seem to feel are difficult to do in dp for some unstated reason. If you are not comfortable or proficient with a JSON or text editor then by all means don’t try it
 

ka00

Senior Member
Well hardly an “in depth video”, I mean how to assign them? How to deal with the big maps - like all the VSL and Spitfire stuff. Can it be automated, can you record the ks after the initially recording? Don`t want to sound spoiled, but it doesn`t present a real world scenario to use a library with 2 art. in the woodwinds.
Not a video, but pages 331-335 cover Articulation Maps: https://cdn-data.motu.com/manuals/software/dp/v11/Digital+Performer+User+Guide.pdf
 

mjsalam

Active Member
@stigc56 I did not mean to say that all three daws are exactly the same they are not. I meant to to say that all three can use refinement generally in some way related to articulation mapping, including S1. This thread, however, is not about S1; i have pointed out some of its issues on other S1 related threads. Daw vs daw “conversations”on the internet are generally not productive and lead to fan club mis-information IMHO.

God help us if the reaper cult joins this thread about DP11 too

Regarding the separated midi tracks I hear you but it’s not as bad as you are making it sound when you start using vracks and also vepro together with dp, then the mid track separation is perhaps more clear and certainly more flexible. In fact you generally end up using this same model when using cubase with vepro, for example.

The only thing I wish is that motu would provide a way to use plugin automation between sequences and vrack instruments

It’s also quite easy in dp to show/hide various tracks types, there are numerous different ways to see only midi tracks or only instrument tracks or any combination you want, and very flexible folder organization.
My struggle with the MIDI track / Instrument track in DP is that I have grown accustomed to (spoiled by) the disabled track template approach in Cubase. I love being able to have as much as I want in the template with a high level of granularity over resource usage. In DP I would have to have a huge number of v-racks (1:1 with midi tracks) in order to leverage them in this way. Unless I have multiple instruments per v-rack in which case I would have to audition them by enabling/disabling using that little arrow in the v-rack mixer. Not very workflow friendly. Of course I could have pairs of midi and respective instrument tracks ...but then I've got double the tracks - which isn't a huge deal but still the auditioning process has more friction.

I also tried to emulate this in S1 - all the pieces are there it just gets way too slow to be usable at a certain number of tracks.
 

Dewdman42

Senior Member
So the problem there is not the fact that DP has midi tracks separated from instrument tracks. the problem there is that DP does not provide a convenient way to enable/disable instrument tracks, as you said, only a little arrow at the bottom of the mixer strip, and I agree, its not a convenient way to enable/disable instruments.

Not an issue for me since I am mainly using VePro and doing the enable/disable inside VePro.

I also don't particularly like the workflow of using a seperate VRack for every instrument, but I guess that is the only way to make it reasonably convenient in DP...but anyway that is still a seperate issue from the whole midi track seperation thing in my view.

Also for the record I personally would like to see DP add instrument tracks that work like Cubase and LogicPro.... as an available option. I don't understand the pushback to not do it from DP fans. But I am just saying, when you start using VRacks and especially if you're using VePro, then it becomes a moot point and the midi tracks are quite fine and simple and preferable. In my case, using V-Racks and chunks was a primary motivator to even use DP at all. I say if you aren't using V-Racks at all....then perhaps one of the other daws will be to your liking better for numerous reasons. One of the biggest advantages of DP is in fact Vracks and chunks...if you aren't using those in DP, then you're not using the complete power of this DAW. When you do start using them, then you will want midi tracks and will care nothing about integrated instrument tracks with midi in the same track.

But as you said, they need to make an easier way to enable/disable instrument tracks, regardless of whether they are in a VRack or not. having to use the mixer pulldown menu is not convenient at all. A very decent point.
 

Tren

Member
I sure disagree with you that S1 and Cubase is equal in this respect. S1 is so much easier to use in every aspect of the process. Building the map, selecting the map, using the map, they are incomparable, in my opinion.
They're largely the same. I have both Cubase Pro and Studio One Pro. You're exaggerating.

I also think Cubase's lanes for Articulations are superior, and you also have the option of using Attribute Articulations.

Building, assigning, and using is easy in both of them. These things are unremarkable to discuss, frankly.

The only DAW that has done an appreciable improvement over Cubase (that affects workflow in a positive way) is Cakewalk, with its groups. I like that addition to them.

That being said, I am expecting Cubase to move to Dorico's Expression Maps System in the next version or so.
 

Tren

Member
So the problem there is not the fact that DP has midi tracks separated from instrument tracks. the problem there is that DP does not provide a convenient way to enable/disable instrument tracks, as you said, only a little arrow at the bottom of the mixer strip, and I agree, its not a convenient way to enable/disable instruments.

Not an issue for me since I am mainly using VePro and doing the enable/disable inside VePro.

I also don't particularly like the workflow of using a seperate VRack for every instrument, but I guess that is the only way to make it reasonably convenient in DP...but anyway that is still a seperate issue from the whole midi track seperation thing in my view.

Also for the record I personally would like to see DP add instrument tracks that work like Cubase and LogicPro.... as an available option. I don't understand the pushback to not do it from DP fans. But I am just saying, when you start using VRacks and especially if you're using VePro, then it becomes a moot point and the midi tracks are quite fine and simple and preferable. In my case, using V-Racks and chunks was a primary motivator to even use DP at all. I say if you aren't using V-Racks at all....then perhaps one of the other daws will be to your liking better for numerous reasons. One of the biggest advantages of DP is in fact Vracks and chunks...if you aren't using those in DP, then you're not using the complete power of this DAW. When you do start using them, then you will want midi tracks and will care nothing about integrated instrument tracks with midi in the same track.

But as you said, they need to make an easier way to enable/disable instrument tracks, regardless of whether they are in a VRack or not. having to use the mixer pulldown menu is not convenient at all. A very decent point.
I really don't like the way DP handles this. I don't think I could ever get past the way it handles tracks.
 

mjsalam

Active Member
So the problem there is not the fact that DP has midi tracks separated from instrument tracks. the problem there is that DP does not provide a convenient way to enable/disable instrument tracks, as you said, only a little arrow at the bottom of the mixer strip, and I agree, its not a convenient way to enable/disable instruments.

Not an issue for me since I am mainly using VePro and doing the enable/disable inside VePro.

I also don't particularly like the workflow of using a seperate VRack for every instrument, but I guess that is the only way to make it reasonably convenient in DP...but anyway that is still a seperate issue from the whole midi track seperation thing in my view.

Also for the record I personally would like to see DP add instrument tracks that work like Cubase and LogicPro.... as an available option. I don't understand the pushback to not do it from DP fans. But I am just saying, when you start using VRacks and especially if you're using VePro, then it becomes a moot point and the midi tracks are quite fine and simple and preferable. In my case, using V-Racks and chunks was a primary motivator to even use DP at all. I say if you aren't using V-Racks at all....then perhaps one of the other daws will be to your liking better for numerous reasons. One of the biggest advantages of DP is in fact Vracks and chunks...if you aren't using those in DP, then you're not using the complete power of this DAW. When you do start using them, then you will want midi tracks and will care nothing about integrated instrument tracks with midi in the same track.

But as you said, they need to make an easier way to enable/disable instrument tracks, regardless of whether they are in a VRack or not. having to use the mixer pulldown menu is not convenient at all. A very decent point.
Ya I think I was hoping that v-racks could entirely replace VEP but I'm realizing that's not the case. Because I move so much between my stationary setup and my mobile setup I have really grown to like the flexibility that the disable template approach gives. I just have this awful hangup about dongles - primarily because the number of times I've found myself on my mobile rig without one (yes that is entirely on me - I just can't be relied on here 🤦🏻‍♂️).
 

Dewdman42

Senior Member
Ya I think I was hoping that v-racks could entirely replace VEP but I'm realizing that's not the case. Because I move so much between my stationary setup and my mobile setup I have really grown to like the flexibility that the disable template approach gives. I just have this awful hangup about dongles - primarily because the number of times I've found myself on my mobile rig without one (yes that is entirely on me - I just can't be relied on here 🤦🏻‍♂️).

I think for some people V-Racks definitely could replace VePro....but not for me either. But you actually want to use both V-Racks AND VePro. By putting your VePro instruments (one per instance) into a V-Rack, or multiple V-Racks if you wish, then you can switch around between sequence chunks at will....they can all point to the same VePro, via the V-Rack. No other DAW can touch this workflow.
 
Top Bottom