Mr Haydn are you there? The "track automation splitter" transformer works as expected if cabled to a single sub-channel of a Multi-instrument. OK, good. It doesn't work if cabled to the multi's "all channels" definition - any chance this will be fixed, so it won't be necessary to use 16 automation transformers per Multi-instrument? It's seems a bit of an oversight - a single track automation splitter transformer can correctly handle all 16 channels for an Audio object... Regards John Pitcairn

At 6:45 Uhr +0000 30.08.2002, johnpitcairn wrote: >The "track automation splitter" transformer works as expected if >cabled to a single sub-channel of a Multi-instrument. OK, good. > >It doesn't work if cabled to the multi's "all channels" definition - >any chance this will be fixed, so it won't be necessary to use 16 >automation transformers per Multi-instrument? It's seems a bit >of an oversight - a single track automation splitter transformer >can correctly handle all 16 channels for an Audio object... Cabling an automation splitter object to a multi instrument is not supported intentionally, as otherwise you would not be able to cable one splitter object to a multi and another to one of the multi's sub-instrument. The automation splitter object is for freaks. Users who don't want to fiddle with the environment should buy a Logic Control :-) -- Beste Gruesse - best regards, Michael Haydn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl.-Inform. Univ. Michael Haydn mhaydn@... SoundDiver Group Executive http://www.emagic.de/ Logic Developer (Logic Control integration) Emagic Soft- & Hardware GmbH - Germany Phone: +49 4101 495 0 Halstenbeker Weg 96, 25462 Rellingen Fax : +49 4101 495 199 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

--- In logic-users@y..., Michael Haydn <mhaydn@m...> wrote: > Cabling an automation splitter object to a multi instrument is > not supported intentionally, as otherwise you would not be > able to cable one splitter object to a multi and another to one of > the multi's sub-instrument. Why would you want to cable to a sub-channel if you could just cable to the main multi and channelize incoming data appropriately? In any case, I don't see a conflict there if controller data is channelized correctly... > The automation splitter object is for freaks. Hmm, yes, thank you... > Users who don't want to fiddle with the environment should buy > a Logic Control :-) We'll see about that... ;-) John Pitcairn

At 8:21 Uhr +0000 30.08.2002, johnpitcairn wrote: >Why would you want to cable to a sub-channel if you could just >cable to the main multi and channelize incoming data >appropriately? In any case, I don't see a conflict there if controller >data is channelized correctly... You might want to have a track with the Multi Instrument (playing sequences on multiple channels) and other tracks using sub-instruments (playing channelized sequences) in the same song. -- Beste Gruesse - best regards, Michael Haydn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl.-Inform. Univ. Michael Haydn mhaydn@... SoundDiver Group Executive http://www.emagic.de/ Logic Developer (Logic Control integration) Emagic Soft- & Hardware GmbH - Germany Phone: +49 4101 495 0 Halstenbeker Weg 96, 25462 Rellingen Fax : +49 4101 495 199 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thoughts from the mind of Michael Haydn, 30-08-2002: >The automation splitter object is for freaks. Users who don't want to >fiddle with the environment should buy a Logic Control :-) I did see the smiley, so I know you're making some kind of joke here, but still... Support of controllers that send standard midi messages in order to control Logic's automation seems to me to be a rather basic & obvious feature request, and not something for freaks alone. And given the price difference between the LC and your middle-of-the-road controller, there's quite some reason why some poeple would opt for the cheaper solution -- esp. non-pro's like yours truly. So all in all I tend to think the joke is somewhat misplaced and rather tries to avoid the issue... But then, I also know you now _can_ control Logic's automation with a 3rd party controller, and I don't care for a bit of environment cabling, so there really isn't much to complain about, is there? Which maybe is a bummer in itself :-)). BTW Michael (and the rest of the team), thanks a LOT for the amazing 5.2 update. This program is getting better and better... -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

> > The automation splitter object is for freaks. > > Hmm, yes, thank you... > > > Users who don't want to fiddle with the environment should buy > > a Logic Control :-) > > We'll see about that... ;-) > > John Pitcairn We LAW hobbyfreaks are really looking forward to have a preview of the controller environment Mr Pitcairn is working on, while we all (or almost some of us) are saving mony for a Mac & LC....and that saving may take some timewhen having to feed two tenagers, one young girlfriend and a horse ;-§) (I'm using VS-1680 as automation controller) Thor Mamen

At 14:28 Uhr +0200 30.08.2002, Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote: >I did see the smiley, so I know you're making some kind of joke here, >but still... Support of controllers that send standard midi messages >in order to control Logic's automation seems to me to be a rather >basic & obvious feature request, and not something for freaks alone. I did not write that "Support of controllers that send standard midi messages in order to control Logic's automation" is for freaks, but I wrote that the automation splitter object is for freaks. It is not an elegant solution, but at least it's a solution. We are aware of this issue. To get an idea how it should be, check out SoundDiver 3.0 (there is also a demo version). -- Beste Gruesse - best regards, Michael Haydn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl.-Inform. Univ. Michael Haydn mhaydn@... SoundDiver Group Executive http://www.emagic.de/ Logic Developer (Logic Control integration) Emagic Soft- & Hardware GmbH - Germany Phone: +49 4101 495 0 Halstenbeker Weg 96, 25462 Rellingen Fax : +49 4101 495 199 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thoughts from the mind of Michael Haydn, 30-08-2002: >At 14:28 Uhr +0200 30.08.2002, Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote: >>I did see the smiley, so I know you're making some kind of joke here, >>but still... Support of controllers that send standard midi messages >>in order to control Logic's automation seems to me to be a rather >>basic & obvious feature request, and not something for freaks alone. > >I did not write that "Support of controllers that send standard midi messages >in order to control Logic's automation" is for freaks, but I wrote >that the automation splitter object is for freaks. I know. But using the splitter is rather unavoidable when you want to use a faderbox to control LA's automation, isn't it? So there's pretty little difference between the one and the other... >It is not an elegant solution, but at least it's a solution. Here we agree, twice. That's why I said there's little left to complain about :). >We are aware of this issue. Okay, I knew we would be getting somewhere eventually :-). Looking forward to v5.3... LOL! >To get an idea how it should be, check out SoundDiver 3.0 (there is >also a demo version). Thanks for the hint. As soon as I have time I'll d'l it. -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

--- In logic-users@y..., Michael Haydn <mhaydn@m...> wrote: > You might want to have a track with the Multi Instrument > (playing sequences on multiple channels) and other tracks > using sub-instruments (playing channelized sequences) in the > same song. Sure - but a single automation splitter cabled to the main multi could handle this - you'd just channelize your controller input as appropriate for each subchannel. The only issue would be whether the resulting track automation appeared on the main multi track, or on each subchannel track. An elegant solution would be for it to appear on a subchannel track if there is one corresponding to that channel of controller input, and on the main multi track if not. Sort of like the way a channel splitter's "sum" output outputs anything not cabled from a subchannel. Oh well, it's a stopgap solution, I appreciate that. A request - when the SoundDiver-style controller-assignments arrive in Logic, it would be very good to still be able to patch additional environment processing in there, both before and after the assignment is made - to add extra capability like soft takeover if it's not suported natively, trigger assignment changes from the environment, etc. John Pitcairn

At 7:38 Uhr +0000 31.08.2002, johnpitcairn wrote: >A request - when the SoundDiver-style controller-assignments >arrive in Logic, it would be very good to still be able to patch >additional environment processing in there, both before and after >the assignment is made - to add extra capability like soft >takeover if it's not suported natively, trigger assignment changes >from the environment, etc. Currently, incoming MIDI events which match an assignment are not forwarded to the Physical Input object at all. Otherwise you would record the messages a Logic Control produces - this is definitively not what you want. -- Beste Gruesse - best regards, Michael Haydn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl.-Inform. Univ. Michael Haydn mhaydn@... SoundDiver Group Executive http://www.emagic.de/ Logic Developer (Logic Control integration) Emagic Soft- & Hardware GmbH - Germany Phone: +49 4101 495 0 Halstenbeker Weg 96, 25462 Rellingen Fax : +49 4101 495 199 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> Currently, incoming MIDI events which match an assignment are not > forwarded to the Physical Input object at all. Otherwise you would > record the messages a Logic Control produces - this is definitively > not what you want. why not? ... could be fun ! and help going back to OBA ... keep an open mind! could also help on reverse engeneering the midi-language of LC in case emagic will stay with keepping it "a secret" .

--- In logic-users@y..., Michael Haydn <mhaydn@m...> wrote: > Currently, incoming MIDI events which match an assignment > are not forwarded to the Physical Input object at all. Otherwise > you would record the messages a Logic Control produces - > this is definitively not what you want. Agreed... Perhaps the environment could include a new "controller assign" object which would route any events cabled to it directly to the controller assignment window? Any events from a supported control surface (ie with a control surface plugin) could still be tapped off prior to the Physical input. If no "controller assign" object exists in the environment (which would be the default), all incoming controllers matching an assignment could be tapped off prior to the Physical Input as they are now. But if the user creates a "controller assign" object, the controller assignment window would switch to getting its input from that, maybe? A thorny problem I know - how to provide controller mapping functionality for beginners, while still allowing seasoned environment users to add enhancements. The environment is Logic's real "secret weapon" in my opinion - it would be a shame if new areas of Logic functionality were inaccessible from the environment. A semi-related question: Is track automation supposed to be recordable by moving onscreen controls for midi instruments (ie the "assign 1-5" knobs in the track mixer)? It's not working for me for anything other than volume & pan... John Pitcairn (freak) :-)

At 0:33 Uhr +0000 01.09.2002, johnpitcairn wrote: >Perhaps the environment could include a new "controller assign" >object which would route any events cabled to it directly to the >controller assignment window? > >Any events from a supported control surface (ie with a control >surface plugin) could still be tapped off prior to the Physical >input. > >If no "controller assign" object exists in the environment (which >would be the default), all incoming controllers matching an >assignment could be tapped off prior to the Physical Input as >they are now. But if the user creates a "controller assign" object, >the controller assignment window would switch to getting its >input from that, maybe? > >A thorny problem I know - how to provide controller mapping >functionality for beginners, while still allowing seasoned >environment users to add enhancements. The environment is >Logic's real "secret weapon" in my opinion - it would be a shame >if new areas of Logic functionality were inaccessible from the >environment. Thanks for your thoughts. >A semi-related question: >Is track automation supposed to be recordable by moving >onscreen controls for midi instruments (ie the "assign 1-5" >knobs in the track mixer)? It's not working for me for anything >other than volume & pan... I'm not sure. -- Beste Gruesse - best regards, Michael Haydn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl.-Inform. Univ. Michael Haydn mhaydn@... SoundDiver Group Executive http://www.emagic.de/ Logic Developer (Logic Control integration) Emagic Soft- & Hardware GmbH - Germany Phone: +49 4101 495 0 Halstenbeker Weg 96, 25462 Rellingen Fax : +49 4101 495 199 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -