I like the idea!

Having done time with the traditional MIDI file export/import faff, as Andi properly suggests above, I'm well chuffed that it's now looking possible to record any or all MIDI straight into Logic from Dorico, etc. I've been thinking about buying Dorico as a front end for Logic-with-VEPro. I've always wanted a pro score editor, but not at the price of not having Logic always readily at hand for familiar and convenient MIDI and audio editing, control, automation and mixing.

I see no need to have Logic send its received MIDI straight through to VEPro while recording that MIDI from the notation app. That would be irrelevant for my purposes of sending notation app MIDI to Logic. So the 'snag' described above doesn't bother me. However, I'm not so confident about how I'd get Logic's MIDI back into Dorico for final tarting up, but no doubt I'll find a suitable way.

It's looking very much like Apple are determined to make Logic Pro top DAW.

Have you quite finished insulting the intelligence of forum users and Logic users, and smearing 'old' Logic's capabilities as a DAW, dewdman42? And do you think we all believe that the only way we stand a chance of understanding the technical issues here is to be read into your top secret knowledge base of absolute truth (notwithstanding that Jedi know only the Sith deal in absolutes)? Spoiler alert! It's all there in the name of this feature of 'old' Logic:-

demix BY CHANNEL. 

But just so you don't feel left out, we'll disengage our Warp engines for now and see if we can manage to simplify the enormously complicated and profoundly technical concepts involved.

  •   Auto demix BY CHANNEL cannot demix multiple MIDI input streams if there's no difference in their channel number. Wow! Now there's a revelation! Not.

  •   Auto demix BY CHANNEL is pointless if a single channel input MIDI stream is routed to multiple MIDI destination channels.

  •   Auto demix BY CHANNEL is pointless if multi-channel input MIDI streams are routed to one destination.

There, I think that pretty much nails it. Not exactly startling news for most DAW users, I suspect.

Over the past couple of decades some Logic users have been applying perfectly legitimate workarounds that let them use the auto demix BY CHANNEL feature as they wish. To call these workarounds "fiddly" is as relevant as saying to a violinist that he or she should change to playing the piano because bowed instruments are too "fiddly". Is there any serious DAW that doesn't have numerous opportunities to get "fiddly" with it? Aren't those opportunities an important part of what endears users to their DAWs, and let them put their skills, craft and art to best possible use? Your smear tactics are obvious and tiresome, but they do let us gauge your standards of argument.

You didn't orginally mention auto demix as a posssible solution to Roger's problem. But once Macker introduced the idea you went ballistic trying to prove that "no way" could it possibly work. Erm ... yes way. It does work. And it can be made even more useful with two kinds of time-honoured workarounds, which I won't go into now; I've already made enough essential points for one post.

Here we go again Hahaha.

Dewman42, there is a now a very clear pattern. If you can't or won't admit you were just plain wrong in the face of clear technical evidence, that's one thing. But why launch into these long dogmatic obfuscations apropos of nothing that does anything to develop, let alone resolve the matter at hand in any seriously technical or even practical way; not to mention your attempts to smear everyone and everything that doesn't align perfectly with your opinions? Why not simply accept the technical evidence that's as plain as a pikestaff for all to see, and peacefully go about your business?

You need to explain yourself more accurately, clearly and precisely, dewdman42 - to yourself if no one else. You're not actually making sense here. I've said already the problem's been solved. So I'll ask again - what are you trying to prove or disprove, exactly?

What did you mean by "if its possible to record a multi port onto many tracks at once"? I don't think that's what Roger was asking. That's simply not a problem in old Logic. (Each of my MIDI controllers comes into Logic on a different port - how about yours?) Rather, wasn't it about how to get multiple MIDI channels recorded simultaneously across multiple ports in a multi-port VEP template? Macker's test result proves it is certainly possible. What was it you wanted to prove or disprove, exactly?

It looks to me very much like Macker has addressed Roger's very practical enquiry pretty thoroughly already - and backed it up with test results! I don't get why your tirade was necessary after that.

Hahaha, how many arms and legs do you have, dewdman42? Do you perhaps have a one-man-band type of MIDI controller rig with loads of levers and bits of string attached from every conceivable movable part of your anatomy to a vast array of MIDI controllers? Because you do seem to be getting a tad shrill about old Logic's 16 MIDI channel concurrent live recording limit.

Don't you think that over the many many years this limit has been there in Logic, either E-magic or Apple would have responded if hordes of users had complained, as you seem to be, that there's something desperately  inadequate about this 16 channel live recording limit?

Logic 10.7's very nice new MIDI input port & channel assignment faciliities in the Track Inspector address the old inconvenience that arose mainly when using a template in which hundreds of instruments are crammed solidly into every available channel, such that recording multiple channels of live MIDI using auto-demix typically necessitated having to change the MIDI controllers' internal MIDI channel numbers to match the template MIDI channels - for users who didn't fancy venturing into the Environment. But now it's a doddle. Even so, I'm still trying to conjure an image of you wearing your one-man-band MIDI controller rig and playing many dozens of MIDI channels into Logic all at once ... hahaha.

dewdman42, I stand by my word of caution on Logic's Scripter, trusting that users are able to use their own eyes and make up their own minds.

I'm reasonably sure most Logic users are well aware of the evolutionary step of 1 KS to 3 KS in Apple's recent introduction of Articulation Sets. So I guess I'm probably not the only one to be very curious to know more about your claim that the update from 1 KS to 3 KS was an "afterthought", rather than a legitimate and duly considered update of the functional design of Articulation Sets. Do you perhaps have insider knowledge on that particular update? Please do let us know. I'm also curious about your opinion that the additional 2 KS functionality was "tacked on to the GUI in an awkward way": what is it specifically that makes it awkward for you? Do let us know. I for one have had no problems in understanding and using the new GUI.

As for your opinions on the virtues of Logic's Scripter, I don't regard further elaborations on that topic as suitable or proper for this forum. So I'll just say this. Of course I do understand that one would want to promote one's own cottage industry in JS scripts, and be keen to identify as many apparent 'problem areas' as possible that would seem to make their scripts appear as 'absolutely great' solutions. But it's another matter altogether if that involves wilful neglect of technical realities and, even worse, groundless smearing of the perceived competition. No names, no pack drill.

For my part, I happen to be one of the minority who are JS skeptics and who tend to take a critical and objective stance towards today's very obvious push to expand frontend website programming thinking and practice into woefully unsuitable areas of application. I'm sure many people are familiar with the image of the proverbial "man with a new hammer looking for nails to knock in", but it seems to me more a case now of a man with a stapler looking for any kind of 'fixing' job whether or not the job actually needs a man with a hammer.

Stig, I've found Articulation Sets in Logic to be a mixed blessing - visibility being one of its awkward aspects, among others. Apple's choice of a maximum depth of 3 KS per Articulation operation might have something to do with the serious problem of giving easy, rapid, practical and convenient visibility to large numbers of selection possibilities - more than 8 possibilities at a time tending to give little if any workflow advantage over conventional KS-Dimension switching, as far as I've found.

I've tried using my own MIDI Scripter scripts that can stack more than 3 KS per operation, to make Articulation Sets work conveniently with Syz Dimension Strings - the ultimate test!! - but have yet to find any real advantage in actual practice.

After much experimentation I now use KSs conventionally for main Dimension Tree selections in Synchron Player, then use Articulation Sets only if and where I need some very fast, agile patch switching within the part of the tree already selected by conventional KSs. But in practice it's not often I need to do that.

A word of caution on Logic's Scripter - watch your CPU performance meter! I've noticed that scripts tend to be absurdly juicy, and can too easily introduce a serious CPU burden when running on many instruments - whether the scripts are Apple's or my own. Whatever the exact process used by Logic is to compile/interpret scripts, the resulting machine code is pretty obviously far from optimal for embedded realtime control tasks in a very fast DAW like Logic.

dewdman42, since your comment appears to have significant consequences for thousands of Kontakt/VE Pro users, would you please elaborate, including at least one citation of an authoritative source for the technical basis of what you've said.

To @Dewdman42,

You answered me by claiming I'm wrong. And you tried to back up your claim with some apparently technical points that don't make technical sense. Oh please, I'm no noob. All I spoke about was some testing I'd done, the fact that your spreadsheet gave answers way different from my test results. and that my test results agreed with Macker's numbers. Eventually you changed your spreadsheet, saying that a "fudge factor" seemed to be needed, instead of admitting you got it very wrong. And not a word of apology from you to anyone.

What's up with that?

With this extremely basic test, anyone still in any doubt can and should try this:-

With Master Volume set a max, start some sustained sound going forever. Pump up Synchron Player's output by any method until it's just tickling 0 dBFS on Synchron Player's output meter. Then drop Master Volume to half way, at CC level 64.

What do you read on the output meter? Is it about -6 dBFS,  as the spreadsheet says it should be? Or does it actually read about -12 dBFS, as predicted by Macker's figures? (Spoiler: it'll actually read about -12 dBFS)

It's ok Dewdman42, I don't need an answer from you because the empirical facts speak loudly and clearly without any help. Anyone can run this very simple test and see for themselves. It's really not rocket science.

Dewdman42, I'm going to stand by empirical evidence. Empirically, I found that your solution does not work.

The simple tests I did on your solution produced a result that speaks for itself and can very easily be reproduced and inspected by others. If you would kindly address that result, I'd welcome your explanation of it.

Ok I've found good info in a thread called "A Graph of MIDI CC vs dB for Vol & Expr Faders" by @Macker.

That info agrees with my first test run. I've done some more test runs at different fader settings and they all agree too. So the spreadsheet is out of whack. Macker's formula is 40*log (ratio) but the spreadsheet's formula is 20*log (ratio) which doesn't match the fader scaling. Solved! Props to Macker!

I suppose the secret to mixing with Synchron Player is to ignore the MIDI CC settings on the Master Volume and Expression faders. When listening doesn't tell me enough I'll rely on the dBs shown in the DAW automation.

Slowly getting the hang of working with VSL's beautiful instruments. Just a matter of care, patience and knowing what's what and who's who - just like always 

Hermann

Greetings to all,

I'm new to VSL, but been using other virtual instrument libraries for quite a few years, so not a complete noob. Having just bought several of the superb Vienna Synchron libraries, I've been learning to drive the excellent Vienna Synchron Player. Among other queries, I was wondering how most people here use the two sliders called Master Volume and Expression so I came to this forum to read up on the topic. Unfortunately I've found some confusing information here about how these sliders are supposed to work. If I may, I'd like to ask for help here so I can get a clear understanding. Specifically, I'm wondering how others get around the problem of not having any direct means of seeing gain changes as relative dB, and how to reconcile some of the advice given in this thread with results I'm getting from simple test runs with the Vienna Synchron Player.

My test-drive setup:- In my first very simple test runs with the standalone Synchron Player I've used the 02 Horns-12 - VelXF Preset and the 02 Horns-12 Classic Room-Mix Mixer Preset. I start with Master Volume, Expression, Vel XF (enabled) and Dynamic Range all at maximum, and Timbre Adjust disabled. With Articulation set at Long Notes and Type set at Regular.

My first test drive:- Playing and holding C4, the output level meter at the top reads about -6 dBFS. Then when setting Expression half way down so it indicates 64, the meter then reads about -18 dBFS. With Expression back at maximum and Master Volume set half way down at 64, the meter again reads about -18 dBFS. So far so good. Then I set both sliders half way down. So, totting up both their relative gain reductions of -12 dB gives -24 dB, then I looked for the meter to confirm the initial level of -6 dBFS is now reduced by 24 dB, giving -30 dBFS. And hey presto! That's what the meter indicated. All good.

That was an easy case just for test purposes. But knowing what gain reduction these two sliders give at any other settings is not obvious. The MIDI CC setting readouts on the sliders give no clue about their dB gain reduction. Also, like many others I'm used to working in dB up or down relative to a common working point set for mixing. Much closer to the final mix bus, dBFS levels become important. So on its own the Synchron Player's dBFS meter, though a welcome aid, is not what I'd usually find convenient for mixing. I'm also wondering if these two sliders are intended for mixing directly, rather than being buried in a host that would use other faders and with automation. Is the latter way how most people here generally use them? I'd guess so.

On the topic of dBFS, and the main source of my confusion, I see a post here by @Dewdman42 suggesting that we use his spreadsheet for calculating dBFS from MIDI CC setting. I've tried it but unfortunately it doesn't match up even approximately with the dBFS meter reading test I described above. That spreadsheet seems to use a very different scaling factor from the two faders in question - looks to me to be different by a factor of 2. Has anyone else tried to use the spreadsheet? Has the spreadsheet been verified, or even tested? Is the Synchron Player's output level meter out of whack? Or have I missed out something important in my test run? Something somewhere has to be very wrong.

Thanks in advance for any help on this knotty problem.

All the best,

Hermann