mauriziodececco

This is not facebook, and for most of the people here 'likes' are something exotic and new. I do not think this forum has a whole has a like culture Maurizio

Any sound demo anywhere ? Maurizo

I just received 2 euros in royalties from the french association of composers and authirs (Sacem). Nice, but yet competitive with a large pizza Maurizio

The first of July 2019, at 10am, i was typing a mail on my beloved 2015 MacBook 12". When i typed an 'l' the screen went dark, the compute froze, shutdown and never restarted; this event, other than showing that computers *do* fails, was actually the origin of this thread; i bought a new laptop, powerful enough to use it in my home studio, and to stop using and finally selling my Mac Pro. At that point, it was logical to use it in rehearsals and concert, so i ended up posting the message at the origin of this thread. Last year, an USB cable failed on me, burning the USB hub i had; during a rehearsal. Without counting the endless days spent in managing the system, correcting human mistakes, finding solutions to bugs, solving problems created by an update or another. Or a RAID 1 having both disks falling at the same time. If laptop are so reliable, why people buy expensive insurances like Apple Care ? Why people keep two or better three different backup copies of their data ? The more complex a system is, higher is the risk of problems; hardware, software, or configuration. If you are a professional, and you have a dedicated system, you may afford the luxury to freeze it from the software point of view, and do not touch it other that for using it. But this do not protect you from hardware failures. Clearly, you have been lucky up to know. YMMV: personally, unlike you, i never had an keyboard failure, but plenty of computer related problems (expecially if i include my 37 years career in the sofware sector) . Maurizio

Oups, quick update: apparently, Ableton Live allows to do what i want, by saving an instrument settings and its mapping in a object called "Instrument rack", that be saved/loaded from/to a file independently of the others. Maurizio

Can you explain this please? What exactly are you doing that is not possible with a plugin host? OK, i'll try to answer in the following; i'll also try to answer another point you raised earlier, and to clarify some i said; then i'll shut up for a while . 1) Mapping management I am exclusively referring to Logic Pro and MainStage, not to every possible plugin host; i am just starting to look around for alternatives, being a Logic users i would prefer by far to find a solution or a strategy using Logic or MainStage. A few words about the context: i am not preparing a set with a fixed list of songs and their specific sounds; i play improvised music, and i think in terms of instruments: i prepare a coherent set of instruments for each song or group of songs, and i want to expose on the keyboard some controller to tweak the sound while i am playing. For example, for the last rehearsal i prepared a set with Noire (NI piano), a Falcon pad and a trumpet NI Session Horns Pro. For the next rehearsal, i want to add a set up in which instead of the piano i'll have an acoustic guitar. Then a third where i keep the piano, but i'll have a sax instead of the trumpet. So, i want to think in terms of a set of mappings for the piano, a set of mappings for the pad, and one for the guitar, one for the trumpet and one for the sax. I want to be able to mix and match these mappings as i wish. In Logic (*) and MainStage, mappings are in a global table; you cannot separate them, you cannot even copy/paste them. (*) Actually, in Logic you have some channel strip level mapping, the smart controls, that offer 8 pots for each channel; if you stay within this limit, this is a solution. In MainStage smart controls work differently, you can have a single set of smart controls for each patch. MainStage offer a hierarchical organisations of patches, where you can inherit settings from your 'parent' patch; this work in some case, but for example not in the case above, where the three different setups cannot be organised in a hierarchy. There are workaround: in some case you can handle MIDI controller mapping within the plugin itself, for example. Note also that the above have nothing to do with the fact i a have a SL MkIII; the only difference is that on the SL i have virtually more controllers; but the problem above exists (and i found discussions in various logic/mainstage related forums) even if you have 8 or 16 controllers. If i want to dedicate the first 4 to NI Noire everytime i have it in a patch i'll need to redo the mapping manually (at least in Mainstage). As a side note, i am aware that certain technologies allows me to design complete solutions to this problem; Max for example (sorry for the shameless plug, i couldn't resist), for the moment i am trying to keep it simple . 2) Keyboards and failures I see your point, but i think that the general principle is more "Have a plan B", and if you are a professional, "Have a plan B, a plan C, and the skills to build a plan D on the fly". Do having a plan B require not to rely on special keyboard features ? Well, it probably depends on what you do and how you do it. I understand that in your case it does. Personally, having a backup laptop is not justified, so i see an high risk in the whole setup, laptop, software, cables, external disk, audio interface and keyboard. My plan B, compatible with kind of stuff i do, is to switch off the laptop and use my Nord Electro. I think other people in the forum have this kind of strategy (using standalone keyboards as a backup to laptop based setup), but of course it depends on what you do. 3) Final rant When i say that VI Host/DAW developers and keyboard hardware developers should talk more, i mean that at the industrial level, not at the single developer level. As a software guy, with a past in the computer music area, I think that the whole discussion derive from the fact that there is an unsolved problem that the industry don't handle. You can go back home and say "Siri (or Alexia or Google or ..), switch on the light in the dining room and put on Kind of Blue". But i cannot say to a VI Host or DAW "map the first knob on the left of my controller to the Mini filter cutoff". And i cannot ask it to do it whatever controller i use. The technology interconnecting a MIDI controller to a laptop is primitive, it was already simple and primitive when the MIDI was defined in the early 80s. Things like MCU and HUI are still very primitives and the various ad hoc solutions (like automap, smart controls, and even NKS) are proprietary and of limited use. In the time of internet, solving these problems is technologically trivial, especially if the solution is restricted to the controller/computer use case. I am not up to date wrt MIDI 2, so i have no idea if the solution can be implemented in this framework. But the industry need a solution that rise the level of abstraction of the interoperability between these kind of equipement. Maurizio

I see your point guys, but i think there is basic misunderstanding: i am *not* doing anything fancy with the SL; i haven't touched the sequencer, scales, sysex to switch on or off the lights and so on. I am just stuck with two thing; 1) Willing to change sound by change MIDI channel on the keyboard 2) Having a reasonable set of controllers And the fact that i want to be able to reuse the configuration work i do on the computer side with an instrument/sound granularity. This is just not possible with MainStage, and only partially possible with Logic. Considering that the whole concept of MIDI channel is there just to be able to do what i want, it seems a pretty basic set of functionalities, that is available on every MIDI keyboard you can think of. Maurizio

1) If your "fancy" keyboard dies on stage, you're totally screwed! As i said before, i never used GP, so take the following as a general comment on VI Hosts. The point is that there is nothing fancy about a keyboard that offer split points and different MIDI channels; my first MIDI master keyboard, an Elka 88, bought in 1986 (or 7) offered 4 splits. My impression, as an amateur musicians, and as a software guy, is that there is something deeply wrong in the market: you have two great tools, VI Hosts and powerful MIDI controllers and keyboards, that instead of enriching each others require to make a choice, and either dumb down one or the other. Probably the keyboard people and the VI host people should talk a bit more . Maurizio

OK, i started to play around with MainStage, and about the first point, the tab is Assignements And Mappings in the Edit screen. On the action menu (little gear icon up on the right), there is a "New Assignement" item, that create an assignement where you do not need to put a on screen controller. So, that solve the problem. About the second point, there is also another trick, but have some limits: if you check the "Send unassigned MIDI to all channel Strips" and you do not have any keyboard on screen controller, note on/off messages are sent to all the VIs. This is useful only if you have less than 16 instruments, because all the MIDI inputs are merged together, *and* only if your VIs allow you to set the input MIDI channel (well, nothing that a small Scipter script cannot fix). What is strange is that while the Notes mapping is shown in the assignement list, you cannot create one manually. You need a widget to create the mapping. Anyway, this is not a big deal. The only problem i'll still have to resolve is the need to "package" the mapping in libraries (so to mirrow the SL MkIII template organisation); like having a mapping set for a VI (let's say for the NI Noire), one for another one (let's say the Arturia MiniMoog), and then compose them in a MainStage concert; i am aware of the hierarchical organisation of MainStage, but i this case it is more a matrix thing needed. Working on the subject Maurizio

Whow, the discussion become very dense, and contains a lot of information; thanks . Some more comments. For Deskew Tech, thanks for participating; i'll try to explain why i talk about "tracks"; the real question behind the discussion is: I got a Novation SL MkIII master keyboard; this keyboard have a richer set of features than many of the competitors (this does not means it is better or worse, it is just different); it propose a philosophy and organisation of the workflow; of course, you can ignore it, dumb it down to a basic keyboard and do what everybody else does, with MS or GP or something else. The point i am trying to understand is different; i like the workflow the keyboard propose, and i want to adopt it 100%. So, my quest is for a VI Host or DAW that fit this workflow, provide what this workflow needs and stay out of the way for the other stuff; for example, the workflow will be completely keyboard centred, i will not look or touch the laptop while performing; from this perspective, MS on screen controls are a nuisance, not a feature (i do not know GP, i cannot comment on its features). So, when i talk about tracks and midi channels, it derive from the SL MkIII workflow; yes, i know i am thinking the other way around wrt most of the other people . For EricBarker: thanks for your comments, this is something i was hoping to hear; OK, some homework for holidays, deep dive in MainStage. And yes, i *am* an average pretty dumb MainStage user; i invested a lot of time in Logic, but a lot less on MainStage, because up to now my needs where pretty basic. About DAW vs VI Host, there a number or more or less legitimate reasons to use a DAW: 1) Most obvious: because you want to have some part of the show driven by the DAW; for example, using Live Loops in case of Logic; most of the people using Ableton Live do just that. 2) Because you are less dumb on the DAW than on the VI Host, and may be you don't have the time to change this; for me, setting up what i needed for the first post-covid rehersal on Logic took 15 minutes; on MainStage, it will take a month. OK, the first time only. 3) Because your keyboard talk to the DAW, and not the VI Host (in the sense that provide built in integration with); this is also a matter of time, because you can make the keyboard talk as well to the VI Host. 4) Because your set is not based on many different patches for different songs, so the patch switching is somehow less important; personally, i still do not know if this will be the case. 5) Because you want to share setups between your studio/composition activity and your live activity; AFAIK, this is not really a point between Logic and MainStage, that can share data. Then, of course, there are a good number of reasons for not using a DAW; For me it is not a matter of being a Truck or not, or too many features; it is more in the little things, like plugin loading, record enabling tracks when you want to play them, a number of littles things that get on the way, other than patch switching, of course. Anyway, i'll go back to the MainStage documentation, and i'll report bak after holidays Maurizio

But in practice, would you try to manage 576 controllers? I'd probably want to dumb that down so I don't have to worry about switching "pages" in the heat of battle. Probably not :->; but just consider a reasonable set up (more or less what i plan do do): for each track, use the main encoders page for important parameters (for example filter cutoff, resonance, etc.), and the second page for "in case of needs" stuff, like envelops or other stuff; since the encoders have a nice display telling you the name and the current value of the parameter it would be a pretty usable solution. I would map the sliders to a fixed scheme, like level, a couple of sends and equalisation. I would probably use a few buttons for switching on/off insert effects. This would make something between 20 and 25 controller per track; that make 160 on screen controllers for an 8 VI setup. And this do not count the keyboard; if you want to use the SL MkIII native features, like lights guides for the splits, and switching between instruments by switching the SL track, you need 8 on screen keyboards. Note that i speak about an 8 instruments setup, that doesn't necessarily correspond to a single song. The point is not that i don't like MainStage, or that MainStage do not have the right features; it is just that the SL MkIII have a logic organisation that is *very* different from those of other keyboards (for example the Arturia stuff), and this organisation does not map very well to the MainStage organisation. Of course, nobody oblige you to use the all the different features of the SL; you can stay in a single track with a single panel, and MainStage will work just fine; but then you would probably buy another keyboard . Maurizio

As i said earlier, MainStage is not really an option, at least from the point of view of managing the MIDI controllers: the SL MkIII have an interesting approach: it is built around eight tracks (ok, there is a sequencer there, but even if you don't use the sequencer, you have to think in terms of these 8 tracks). Each track have a whole "virtual panel"; if you switch the selected track, you switch the virtual panel. So, in practice, you get 16 encoders (2 banks of 8), 8 sliders, 32 buttons (2 banks of buttons), and 16 pads for *each* track, so, if you use 8 VIs, and want to map all the controllers, you need to map a total of 576 controllers; unless i missed something on MainStage, in order to use a controller you have to map it to a Perform screen representation; just not possible. There is another important point: the SL MkIII use tracks preset, called templates, that you can program with the Novation Component editor/librarian. So, you can prepare a preset for your favorite VI or hardware instrument, and combine them in a complete setup (called Session), by assigning a template to a track. This means that you want a VI Host that can bundle together a VI with a his controller mapping, and that allow you to compose these bundles to create different setup. You can do that with Logic (and probably with any DAW) by just having the mapping in the VI track, but you cannot do it easily with MainStage (again, if i haven't missed something) because mappings are handled in a centralised way, not instrument by instrument. Other than the above, Logic have for me two obvious advantages: it is the DAW i use today, so i know it well, and i can use its vi and plugins; the other is the SL have some integration, like showing the track smartcontroller, and mapping sliders to track volumes. The SL have no such integration with MainStage . On the other side, to change setup you have to close the project and load a new one; take time and it is a pain in the ass :<, changing song on MainStage is a lot faster .... Maurizio

I am experimenting with a rig based on a Novation SL mkIII and my laptop, at least for one of the group i am playing in. I am very happy with the SL, paired with the laptop sum up to a nice multitimbral workstation, even if it need a good preparation before; still learning. I am wondering what to use as plugin host; i used MainStage before, but the paradigm "one physical controller -> one on screen controller" do not work when you have something around 24 continuous controller and 48 buttons for each of the eight track the SL can control. I am starting out with Logic (that have in theory a reasonable integration with the SL), but i wondering if there are more interesting solution out there. So, would you use a DAW or a VI host, and why ? Maurizio

"A rainbow in a curved air" is one of the records, together with the Tangerine Dream Atem, and the Klause Shultze Mirage, that impulsed my musical life in the repetitive-minimalist direction in the 70s .... Maurizio

I am a knob lover, for sure. In studio work, i am pretty satisfied working on on-screen knobs and controls; but i clearly prefer the user interface of something like Pigments or Massive X then Falcon (that i love for its sound and possibilities, but hate for UI, at least when i run it full screen on my 32" monitor). My gigging experience is with mostly improvised music: in that context, i want to be able to improvise with the sound; that's why i use a Nord Electro and i have an OB6. But, i am not happy with the state of the knobby world: as of today, when you play something just as complex as a OB6, unless you keep the manual button pressed, it is very hard to know what will happens when you touch a knob, unless you really *know* the current patch in depth, because you do not have an idea of the various parameter value; if you are good, and within certain limits, you know by ears, but not completely. So, to be really in conditions to improvise with a knobby machine with presets you would need more information shown to you, like the good old Nord Lead 3 interface, a huge screen, or in some other way. At the end, a computer screen ends up better for improvisation; i'll see this, i am buying a Novation SL mk3 to try to setup a hyper light laptop only rig for my ambient jazz group, i'll let you know. One last thing about Nord: yes, knobby is good. Shift button, no good. If i decide to switch one of the NE effect to another source (Rotary to epiano instead of organ), i need two hands, i cannot do it while playing; this happens to me to every rehearsal. Maurizio

And now for some french modern contribution RIchard Galliano [video:youtube] Daniel Mille [video:youtube] And my preferred one, Marc Berthoumieux [video:youtube]

I cannot read this thread without talking about Castelfidardo (some more information here: https://www.museodellafisarmonica.it/en/) the center of the italian accordeon industry, a few kilometer away from my hometown. And the accordeon industry brought the analog organ industry in the 60s (the Farfisa Compact derived from a project of an electronic accordeon) and later a good part of the local music industry (a large part of the italian one). Guess where Guido and Crumar is ? Maurizio

What they mean by "Retro" ? It have the exact look of the last Akai product i owner (a S3000 sampler Maurizio

Also, check out the different movies from director Tony Gatlif, also. In particular, Latcho Drom musically follows the history of the gitan people from Rajasthan to Andalusia. Maurizio

Yes :-> And there were forums even before the Internet itself (at least, if we stick to the technical definition based on the IP protocol) Maurizio

Yes, as other said, i would usually suggest buy whatever you need know, because you'll get incrementally better model every 6/12 month, so there always be a good reason to wait. But this time is different; what is going on is not an incremental change in the lineup, but a kind of revolution, with Apple Silicon and other rumored changes, like the 14" screen or different connectivity. Up to now, Apple moved the entry level products to the M1 Apple processor, in all the product lines (Mac Book Air, Pro and iMac). Now they have to start moving the middle products, and the new high end Mac Book Pro may bring a substantial progress in term of computing power, thermals/fan noise, and as being more future proof, so it may be worth waiting. My personal bet is that they will use the WWDC keynote (7th of june) to announce these products; WWDC has been often used to announce pro level products, that is what developers like to use; last year they annonce the Apple Silicon transition, the year before the Mac Pro; i think the iMac Pro was also announced in a WWDC (but i am not sure, double check needed). This is also coherent with the rumours about the start of mass production of the next M series chip. But you never know, it may be later :-) ... Maurizio

It should also be said that the Raspebby Pi 4 have a USB 3 port connected thru a PCIe line to the CPU. While of course this is not the thruput of a thunderbolt port, it make a difference. I am playing with one of them with my 15 years old son; i have Ubuntu on a T7 Samsung SSD connected to the USB3 port, and the "feel" of the machine is that of a reasonable Desktop, using LibreOffice and Firefox. It may end up in a Zynthian kit if my son give up :-) Maurizio

Well, if i decided to spend my spare cash in buying Sequential, i would make sure Dave stay on board for a while; i think he is a big asset, both technically/strategically and as a symbol. Maurizio

Well, while i understand that it may make a lot of sense industrially, from some point of view it doesn't sound right. I mean, Dave Smith came from a time single people made a difference, and it was somehow symbolic that he could got his business back on feet and his Sequential name back. Maurizio

Probably the first "serious" by hear work was finding out the chords of the organ part the Pink Floyd "A saucerful of secrets" on my Farfisa Compat, i probably was around 14/15 Maurizio