From: "Sumit Das" <smeet@...> >What is the advantage of a multitimbral instrument over just instantiating >multiple instances of the instrument? I don't get it... There probably aren't any - it's simply a user interface issue, i.e. people are used to instruments behaving that way therefore it takes less time to figure out at first. I have to admit to being confused at first too, not that it took all that long to sort out. That's always been the knock on Logic: its fabled "steep learning curve." In truth that's been overblown all along - these are all fairly trivial issues and it's no more difficult to use than any other complicated piece of software. But multiply things like this by the number of features that aren't immediately obvious - and throw in that old wives' tale (tell someone something is going to be difficult and it surely becomes difficult) - and it's not hard to see how some impatient people get scared off before they get to Square One. Meanwhile I'm not sure how to use multitimbral Halions in Logic anyway - there doesn't seem to be a way to assign separate tracks in the Arrange window to different channels on the same audio instrument (if you switch one, they all change). Can anyone straighten me out? Theoretically you could use a Multi-instrument in front of the audio instrument to make this work, but I confess that even after all these years I've never taken the time to figure out where the audio instrument icons appear in the Environment. I've always just inserted them on mixer channels; I assume they do appear as icons? How embarrassing... -- Nick Batzdorf 818/905-9101, fax -5434, cell 818/601-4874

Thoughts from the mind of Nick Batzdorf, 02-10-2002: >From: "Sumit Das" <smeet@...> >>What is the advantage of a multitimbral instrument over just instantiating >>multiple instances of the instrument? I don't get it... > >There probably aren't any - it's simply a user interface issue In principle you're right. The oinlyproblem is thatin Logic you can't play more than one EXS-instance (or any other virtual instrument) at the same time without serious latency issues. So in our everyday Logic-practice there _is_ indeed a functional difference -- although the solution should not be having a multitimbral instrument, but Emagic fixing this annoying behaviour of virtual instruments -- thus negating the need for multitimbral instruments (except when the number of virual instruments you can use in Logic doesn't suffice of course, which would be a valid (although far-fetched, in the light of current CPU-power limitations) reason to want multitimbrality). >it's not hard to see how some impatient people get scared off before >they get to Square One. Hey... Square One... is that a new plugin in 5.3? Is it cool? :-) >Meanwhile I'm not sure how to use multitimbral Halions in Logic >anyway - there doesn't seem to be a way to assign separate tracks in >the Arrange window to different channels on the same audio instrument >(if you switch one, they all change). Can anyone straighten me out? You've already straightened yourself out: >Theoretically you could use a Multi-instrument in front of the audio >instrument to make this work, but I confess that even after all these >years I've never taken the time to figure out where the audio >instrument icons appear in the Environment. The channel strips in the audio mixer (= not track mixer) _are_ the "instrument icons". Open an audio mixer, from the New menu pick "multi-instrument", cable it into the channel strip of the VSTi, and you're done. Assign a track to any of the multi's sub-instruments (channels)... You could (somewhat clumsier) also set the channel strip's "Cha" parameter to "All" (in the parameter pane in the Audio mixer window). Then make sure the data on a track assigned to the VSTi has the proper channel. Or select a track assigned to the VSTi and make sure your master keyboard sends on the proper channel. The 1st solution uses Logic's autoamtic channelization. The 2nd avoids the channelization and makes sure the data has the proper channel to begin with. >I assume they do appear as icons? How embarrassing... Tsk, tsk... :-) -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

From: "Sumit Das" <smeet@...> > >What is the advantage of a multitimbral instrument over just > instantiating > >multiple instances of the instrument? I don't get it... > Meanwhile I'm not sure how to use multitimbral Halions in Logic > anyway - there doesn't seem to be a way to assign separate tracks in > the Arrange window to different channels on the same audio instrument > (if you switch one, they all change). Can anyone straighten me out? > Nick Batzdorf > 818/905-9101, fax -5434, cell 818/601-4874 Well, this is how I do it: first in the environment create a new Multi Instrument and enable the channels you want to use (1-16). Then cable this multi instrument to the audio instrument. Create a track in arrange and let it play through the multi instrument. That's it, now you can create tracks (Ctrl+Enter on Windows) and insert new parts. It will go to the same audio instrument. Regards: Darth -- +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++ NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Günstige DSL- & Modem/ISDN-Tarife!

Nick Batzdorf had the temerity to assert: <snip> > That's always been the knock on Logic: its fabled "steep learning > curve." In truth that's been overblown all along - these are all > fairly trivial issues and it's no more difficult to use than any > other complicated piece of software. But multiply things like this by > the number of features that aren't immediately obvious - and throw in > that old wives' tale (tell someone something is going to be difficult > and it surely becomes difficult) - and it's not hard to see how some > impatient people get scared off before they get to Square One. I like to assume I am pretty smart. Where Logic loses me is when I see that something is more complicated than necessary, like the issue with recording controllers as fader objects (and Yes, Hendrick, I looked at your demo. It demonstrated that the whole thing is much more tricky than it should be -- thanks for the effort though). With things like this, the incompletely explained transformer object (For example, I cannot find a lucid discussion on those router paths between the selector and operator modules), banging, fader objects (when used for something other than fading), etc, etc. When I encounter things like this my mind makes a full stop. I wonder what's on TV. Bob

--- In logic-users@y..., "bob_vandiver" <bobv@s...> wrote: > Where Logic loses me is when I see that something is more > complicated than necessary, like the issue > with recording controllers as fader objects (and Yes, Hendrick, I > looked at your demo. It demonstrated that the whole thing is much > more tricky than it should be -- thanks for the effort though). Hi Bob - you might want to check out the Fadermapper demo - http://www.revolver.co.nz/fadermapper - all set up, ready to go, no environmental messing required. > With > things like this, the incompletely explained transformer object (For > example, I cannot find a lucid discussion on those router paths > between the selector and operator modules), Check the manual section about the Transform Window (not the environment). > what's on TV. Rots yer brain... John Pitcairn

Thoughts from the mind of bob_vandiver, 02-10-2002: >I like to assume I am pretty smart. Where Logic loses me is when I >see that something is more complicated than necessary, like the issue >with recording controllers as fader objects (and Yes, Hendrick, I >looked at your demo. It demonstrated that the whole thing is much >more tricky than it should be -- thanks for the effort though). Fully agreed. And you're welcome. You're right though that having to do some fancy environment cabling and seting up transformers and all should *not* be necessary when wanting to record simple track automation. >With things like this, the incompletely explained transformer object (For >example, I cannot find a lucid discussion on those router paths >between the selector and operator modules), banging, fader objects >(when used for something other than fading), etc, etc. Selector and operator modules? Huh? The transformer basically is a rather simple object, at least in principle. The Conditions determine which events will be affected, and the Operations determine _how_ these events will be affected. The top popup in the transformer determines various modes of operation -- e.g. pass only events that match the Conditions (and are thus being transformed), or pass all events, or process matching events _and_ make a copy of the original, send matching events out the top outlet and the rest out the 2nd outlet, etc. >When I encounter things like this my mind makes a full stop. I wonder >what's on TV. Probably yet another boring "Friends" episode. To quote Pink Floyd, "30 channels of sh*t on the TV to choose from"... Really, Logic's transformer is way more interesting... -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

At 9:04 AM +0200 10/3/02, Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote: >>With things like this, the incompletely explained transformer object (For >>example, I cannot find a lucid discussion on those router paths >>between the selector and operator modules), banging, fader objects >>(when used for something other than fading), etc, etc. > >Selector and operator modules? Huh? The transformer basically is a >rather simple object, at least in principle. The Conditions >determine which events will be affected, and the Operations determine >_how_ these events will be affected. The top popup in the >transformer determines various modes of operation -- e.g. pass only >events that match the Conditions (and are thus being transformed), or >pass all events, or process matching events _and_ make a copy of the >original, send matching events out the top outlet and the rest out >the 2nd outlet, etc. ...and those "router paths" allow you to link different conditions to different operations. For example, if you have a fader box set up to send volume on 16 MIDI channels, but you really want a different controller number for each slider, you'd click the bar above the -1- operation until it slanted left to the Cha condition, then set the -1- operation to "Use Map" and set up the map values for map positions 0 to 15 to the desired controller numbers. Len www.Swiftkick.com

Thoughts from the mind of Len Sasso, 03-10-2002: >At 9:04 AM +0200 10/3/02, Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote: >>>With things like this, the incompletely explained transformer object (For >>>example, I cannot find a lucid discussion on those router paths >>>between the selector and operator modules), banging, fader objects >>>(when used for something other than fading), etc, etc. >> > >Selector and operator modules? Huh? The transformer basically is a > >[...] > >...and those "router paths" allow you to link different conditions to >different operations. For example, if you have a fader box set up to >send volume on 16 MIDI channels, but you really want a different >controller number for each slider, you'd click the bar above the -1- >operation until it slanted left to the Cha condition, then set the >-1- operation to "Use Map" and set up the map values for map >positions 0 to 15 to the desired controller numbers. Ah, that's what he meant with "router paths"... Now, about "banging"... Oh, sorry, my girlfriend is calling me... :-) -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html