PG Music Home
Posted By: pwarren BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/01/12 06:49 PM
I recently made a post on how to emulate the Jimi Hendrix sound for midi based guitars. I was asked to provide a link to a sound sample which I'll relink here . Please feel free to check it out. It's only a short sample so as not to infringe any copyright (fair use).

Ryzard commented that the sound sample showed midi is anything but dead or irrelevant even with the advent of RTs. I hearily agree. The ability to apply VST and DXi plugins to each track in BiaB has revolutionized midi and it's use in originals and even more so in covers.

What do you guys and gals think? If you thought midi was of no use would this change your minds?
Posted By: PRearden Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 02:55 AM
never thought MIDI was of no use. It's great for lighting and triggering pyrotechnics. Many act use synth access axes in the studio and it is used on virtually all boards for live sound too.
Posted By: Muzic Trax Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 03:22 AM
If a midi patch sounded as good as a Real Track, there wouldn't be a need for RT's, IMO. My old Tyros keyboard used patches called "Mega Voices," which had to convert regular patches to them. They were the Cat's Meow and sounded as good as a RT. You couldn't record with them though, they worked after conversion.

The Biab Midi Styles are fantastic. If you have a hardware synth to use with them, Biab sounds like a whole different program compared to the standard Forte/VSC. I actually prefer the Biab Midi Styles over the RT ones, but since I don't have my Tyros anymore, I prefer the RT's now because of the sound.

There is a night and day difference when using a synth that sounds and emulates a real instrument, compared to the standard GM palette. Plus, midi data allows much more control when creating a song with a Biab Style.

Trax
Posted By: Ryszard Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 07:23 AM
Quote:

never thought MIDI was of no use. It's great for lighting and triggering pyrotechnics. Many act use synth access axes in the studio and it is used on virtually all boards for live sound too.




Of course, we meant musically useful, but I had forgotten about other applications. I think another language/protocol has been developed for lighting though due to the occasional latency with MIDI and the need for ultrafast response from lasers and multiple other high-speed lighting instruments.

Note that, even though Synth Access instruments are labeled as MIDI, they aren't, repeat are not. They may indirectly produce MIDI output through a converter such as the new Roland VG-99, but all that is generated from the pickup is trigger, pitch, and dynamics--no MIDI data whatsoever. I bought my VG-88 thinking that I had pitch-to-MIDI capability, but the MIDI ports on the unit are for control only.

I've been out of live sound for so long I have never used MIDI there. Do you mean for control of effects or other automation? Please say more.

Signed,

Interested
Posted By: filkertom Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 10:17 AM
I do not know why people think MIDI is of no use. It's different. MIDI instruments often do not have the articulation that "real" instruments have, but I use both all the time, and often combine MIDI and RT both generated by the same song in BIAB. MIDI can be used to control other instruments, and it's of course possible to completely change the tone of a piece instantly merely by changing the patch.

Re: your sample -- sounds good 'n' Hendrixy to me. I'll go back and look at your original post.
Posted By: Tim Lawrence Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 01:22 PM
Back in the late 90's I was using a JV80 as my main external sound module.
Back then I really never thought that the pros were using midi in their completed productions till I started hearing the JV-80 being used in quite a few TV commercials and a soap my wife and I were watching.
That gave me a new respect for midi and how it could be used for other then just a hobby.
Even some 12 years back the sound quality of the higher end external midi equipment was amazing.
I use a Tyros 1 these days, but still have the JV-80 that I use for certain sounds.
Realtracks are great, but just don't have the versatility of midi yet.
Like others on here I use both midi and realtracks in my songs.

Tim



\
Posted By: ROG Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 01:42 PM
Sometimes when you're writing sound to picture, you can be working on a midi keyboard and composing without reference to either time signature or key signature and without being sure what the final sound is going to be. Having midi data to play around with in this situation is great and I can't think of another way it could be done which would be anywhere near as good. Long live midi!

ROG.
Posted By: Notes Norton Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 02:24 PM
PWarren - I enjoyed the clip. Definitely Hendrix-ish.

As many people here know, I'm a big MIDI fan.

MIDI only sounds as good as
  • The MIDI sound module and/or particular voice you are using (as we all know, MIDI has no sound, but synthesizers do)
  • The skill of the player or programmer who creates the MIDI file (or style)

Chart topping CD's and entire motion picture soundtracks have been produced with MIDI synthesizers. Virtually every modern synth has MIDI as it's core. I've even seen MIDI based synthesizers in international touring symphony orchestras.

MIDI is far from dead. It is alive in virtually every professional recording studio in the country. It is in movies, on stages, and in small lounges everywhere.

At this moment in the evolution of music, MIDI still offers thousands of times more editing power than pre-recorded loops do. Listen to This Clip or This One keeping in mind (1) they were recorded in a live gig using an old Archos Juke Box through its internal microphone and (2) ripped at 56k so the sound quality isn't nearly as good as it is live. But even with the lowered sonic quality, they still sound like sax and guitar solos. Other than the bit of vocals, they are 100% MIDI, and the solos are 100% my notes, not someone else's.

I posted the guitar solo on a Guitar Player's forum as an example of my playing. I got dozens of comments on how well I played guitar, one even told me it was "Jeff Beck-ish" (to me the ultimate compliment). After a few pages of 100% positive comments, I confessed I was really playing wind synthesizer. Pages of comments followed telling me how real it sounded, and only one person said in retrospect there was something about the vibrato that sounded a little funny to him. It doesn't get any more real than that!

The lead instruments (synth sax/synth guitar) are my improvisations playing a wind MIDI controller through a Yamaha VL70m MIDI tone module and over the chord progressions to copyrighted songs. The backgrounds are edited BiaB MIDI files (the sax clip uses a PG style the guitar clip uses one of mine). Since you cannot copyright a chord progression, and since the improvised melody is my own creation, I am not violating anybody else's copyrights. If there is a small fragment of the original song as the lead-in or exit of the solo, it is short enough to be considered OK under the fair use laws.

These solos would have been impossible using loops.

MIDI isn't dead, in fact, it hasn't even reached its full potential yet.

When I want to listen to someone else's music, I put a CD in the player. When I want to play music I prefer to play my own notes, not someone else's. For that I use my MIDI synths/controllers/tools, sax, guitar, and/or flute.

Insights and incites by Notes
Posted By: John Conley Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 02:37 PM
I am so tired of the issue. I use midi. I have some Norton stuff. But the posting just to justify the clip slinging of a few weeks ago, and to drag up the free advertising ad(vertising) nausum, is getting to me.

I think himself has been too generous. It's his sandbox. The constant questioning and re-hasing of this tired horse is starting to smell.

All this has just been said. I feel like I'm in kindergarten.
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 05:28 PM
Quote:

never thought MIDI was of no use. It's great for lighting and triggering pyrotechnics. Many act use synth access axes in the studio and it is used on virtually all boards for live sound too.




I don't think anyone ever said midi was of no use, even in the numerous discussions of midi vs RTs. The main comments have been that midi sounds too artificial compared to RTs. Others have responded to that by insisting midi blended with RTs sounds good. There were even a number of comparisons posted by Peter Gannon in one thread to which there were comments both pro and con.

The point I'm trying to make is that with soundfonts and VST FX, not to mention various editing techniques, you can get a midi track to sound good enough that many, maybe most, people wouldn't realize they were listening to midi especially when mixed with RDs and RTs.

Your point about other uses for midi is a good one that I hadn't considered. That alone would seem to make midi a continued necessity.
Posted By: Ryszard Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 05:34 PM
Quote:

All this has just been said. I feel like I'm in kindergarten.




There, there, John. It's nap time. Right after cookies and warm milk.
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 05:40 PM
Quote:

If a midi patch sounded as good as a Real Track, there wouldn't be a need for RT's, IMO.




'As good as' is very subjective. I only claim midi can be made to sound quite realistic and, when combined with RDs and RTs, can be good enough for covers. And that's something I didn't find possible with BiaB before the 2012 version.

Quote:

The Biab Midi Styles are fantastic. If you have a hardware synth to use with them, Biab sounds like a whole different program compared to the standard Forte/VSC. I actually prefer the Biab Midi Styles over the RT ones, but since I don't have my Tyros anymore, I prefer the RT's now because of the sound.

There is a night and day difference when using a synth that sounds and emulates a real instrument, compared to the standard GM palette. Plus, midi data allows much more control when creating a song with a Biab Style.

Trax




I basically agree with all this. You need to use the appropriate synth and patch or soundfont for the job. Some work better than others for a particular job.

For guitars in particular I was never able to get a convincing result before using soundfonts combined with plugin FX. Now I can create what I consider really good covers of songs that used to be impossible.
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 05:55 PM
Quote:

I do not know why people think MIDI is of no use.




I certainly don't think so either. However, I was never able to get a convincing guitar sound from midi in the past. Even with the Ketron, guitars always sounded like a weak facsimile of the real thing. This no matter what controllers had been used. Now I find you can have midi guitars that rival the RTs if they are used appropriately.

Quote:

...MIDI instruments often do not have the articulation that "real" instruments have...




I agree, and that continues even with the ability to use soundfonts and plugin FX. But I think we are much closer than before. I respectfully submit that if a good guitarist played a midi guitar with all the controller events for bends and expression and that midi was then treated as I did in the clip you would be able to fool most people. And to me that is a new pinnacle in midi based music.

Quote:

Re: your sample -- sounds good 'n' Hendrixy to me. I'll go back and look at your original post.




While I didn't emphasise it in the original post one point I was trying to pass on is how good the Camel Crusher distortion and Juicy77 amp were. I like amplitube and have been able to get some good sounds with it, especially 'clean' guitars. But the Juicy77 amp blows Amplitube out of the water for overdriven lead.
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 06:03 PM
Quote:

Back in the late 90's I was using a JV80 as my main external sound module.
Back then I really never thought that the pros were using midi in their completed productions till I started hearing the JV-80 being used in quite a few TV commercials and a soap my wife and I were watching.
That gave me a new respect for midi and how it could be used for other then just a hobby.
Even some 12 years back the sound quality of the higher end external midi equipment was amazing.
I use a Tyros 1 these days, but still have the JV-80 that I use for certain sounds.
Realtracks are great, but just don't have the versatility of midi yet.
Like others on here I use both midi and realtracks in my songs.

Tim



\




I think the majority of posters agree with you. I certainly do. The few who don't are entitled to their opinions. I just wanted to offer some ideas that might make midi more useful to those who didn't like it.
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 06:11 PM
Quote:

PWarren - I enjoyed the clip. Definitely Hendrix-ish.




Thanks Notes. Hendrix would have been the last guitarist who I thought could be emulated resonably well using midi. I was very surprised that it worked.

Quote:

As many people here know, I'm a big MIDI fan.




I wouldn't have guessed...

Quote:

Listen to This Clip or This One




I would not have known that was midi myself, although I'm no expert. Another convincing argument that midi can rival RTs directly and, by extension, works really well combined with RDs and RTs. Thanks for the clips.
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 06:14 PM
Quote:

I am so tired of the issue. I use midi. I have some Norton stuff. But the posting just to justify the clip slinging of a few weeks ago, and to drag up the free advertising ad(vertising) nausum, is getting to me.

I think himself has been too generous. It's his sandbox. The constant questioning and re-hasing of this tired horse is starting to smell.

All this has just been said. I feel like I'm in kindergarten.




I'm not sure I follow this John. However, I'm not trying to rehash anything. I was trying to offer a way of making midi guitars sound better and stimulate discussion on that subject.
Posted By: bobcflatpicker Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 08:37 PM
John,

Quote:

I am so tired of the issue. I use midi. I have some Norton stuff. But the posting just to justify the clip slinging of a few weeks ago, and to drag up the free advertising ad(vertising) nausum, is getting to me.

I think himself has been too generous. It's his sandbox. The constant questioning and re-hasing of this tired horse is starting to smell.

All this has just been said. I feel like I'm in kindergarten.




I think you're being more than a little cranky and unjustified in your comments to Bob.

Since the topic is MIDI and BIAB, who's better qualified than Bob to comment on it? Especially since he makes his living playing live music while using BIAB and MIDI as a backup band.

Add to that the fact that he's created thousands of arrangements using BIAB and MIDI and created numerous styles, and then we have an inescapable conclusion. "Notes" is more qualified to talk about the subject than any of us. He also freely shares his knowledge with those of us on the forum.

For the record, I don't have any of "Notes" stuff, but it's only because I can't afford it right now. Bob is a valued member of the forum and he shouldn't be discouraged from sharing what he knows about BIAB and MIDI just because you're tired of reading it.

Here's a tip just for you...... Don't read it.

I feel safe in saying that most of the rest of us would like to read what "Notes" has to say.
Posted By: Tommyc Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 10:49 PM
I don't hate MIDI ,but the examples I listened to don't sound like real instruments at all. Maybe if you are drunk in a bar it would be OK. I sent the links to a Real Studio and he said you must be kidding if you think it sounded like real instruments. But to each his own said the old lady kissing the cows behind. So I bow out of any more threads discussing the merits of MIDI or lack there of. Thanks to all that brought out the examples it has confirmed my thoughts of MIDI and since I have no products to spam to PG costumers as some do I hope you are happy with the sound of your music. I will still listen to your examples and just chuckle to myself.
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/02/12 11:32 PM
Quote:

I don't hate MIDI ,but the examples I listened to don't sound like real instruments at all. Maybe if you are drunk in a bar it would be OK. I sent the links to a Real Studio and he said you must be kidding if you think it sounded like real instruments. But to each his own said the old lady kissing the cows behind. So I bow out of any more threads discussing the merits of MIDI or lack there of. Thanks to all that brought out the examples it has confirmed my thoughts of MIDI and since I have no products to spam to PG costumers as some do I hope you are happy with the sound of your music. I will still listen to your examples and just chuckle to myself.




Did you listen to the Hendrix style clip I posted? It's in the first post of the thread. If you did you still don't think that sounds good?
Posted By: Tommyc Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 12:33 PM
Yes I listened to all the links on this page ,it did not sound like a real guitar. It didn't sound awful just not like a real guitar,it was better than the Sax though. Over the years I have played guitars that were MIDI controllers they all sounded better as a piano than a guitar. If PG didn't think the same they would have stayed a MIDI only program,don't you think they changed for the better?
Posted By: MikeK Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 01:22 PM
Yep, Tommy. Agreed. For the better for sure. At the same time, I do respect either side. You can make crappy music with MIDI and RD's/RT's, or good with either or both. I do prefer the real stuff, though

Cheers,
Mike
Posted By: Notes Norton Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 03:14 PM
As long as the tone is 'in the ballpark' you can emulate the instrument. After all, what is good tone? (We've been here before, but for the newbies). Is good guitar tone Hendrix, Stevie Ray, Jimmy Page, Joe Pass, Eric Gale, Slash, Jeff Beck, Vai, EVH, Kessell, Wes Montgomery, George Harrison, Brian Setzer? And on which guitar? Which amp? Which FX pedal?

The trick to making a MIDI file sound like the instrument you are emulating is to use the continuous controllers available to copy the nuances and articulations of the instrument in question. This requires:
  • Analytically listening to the instrument to hear how the particular instrument gets its expression - if you play a guitar patch like a piano you aren't going to fool anyone
  • Exploring the patch you are using to see which expressive nuances of the instrument you are emulating you it will reproduce (play these)
  • Exploring the patch to see which parameters of the patch will definitely not sound like the instrument you are emulating (avoid these)

It's a little like a comedian/impressionist emulating a famous person. When you hear the comedian 'doing' George W Bush, Obama, or any other famous person, you hear the famous person, not the comedian. Now the comedian does not have the same voice as the person he/she is 'doing' so why do you hear the President (or whoever else he/she is emulating)? Because the comedian has reproduced the nuances of the famous persons speech pattern, repeated the nuances he/she can reproduce and avoided ones he/she cannot.

In emulating an instrument, you can't just plug in the notes. Saxophones often 'scoop' up to notes in the beginning of the phrase and other stressed notes, vibrato on a sax is usually greater below zero pitch than above it, vibrato is often delayed and variable, longer notes are seldom held at the same volume for the duration of the notes, the dynamics of a phrase are never constant, phrases need to breathe, slight distortion can be added at times, etc., etc., etc., depending on the song and part you are playing.

Most guitarists use vibrato from pitch zero to higher and back, unless they are using the whammy bar, then for most guitars it's below zero pitch and back, guitarists use hammer-ons/pull-offs often, other expressive elements are slides, bends, etc., etc. Listen and copy.

There is an art and science to it. But if you want to play your own music instead of someone else's music, these are the things you should learn.

There are a couple of benefits to this
  • This will open your ears to music, you will listen to music in an entirely new way and get more pleasure out of music knowing how the instruments got their expression
  • It will make you a better musician on your own 'home' instrument.
I know that learning to emulate guitars, saxes, and other instruments have even helped me get more expression out of my 'pure synth' patches. I use tricks playing acoustic saxophone that I learned while trying to emulate a few things Jimmy Smith did on B-3 organ. When I learned to play lead guitar, I brought along things I learned on saxophone, like leaving room for breaths in my phrasing.

True I get a little defensive when people say that MIDI cannot sound like "the real thing". What you are really saying is that you cannot make MIDI sound like the real thing -- and with an attitude like that, you will never learn to make MIDI sound like the real thing. But remember, over half the MIDI sound modules on the market use digital samples of the instruments to make their sounds. The digital sample is as real as the sound on the audio loop. It is a recording of a real instrument. The reason why it doesn't sound right is because the player hasn't acquired the skills to make it sound right.

Music is a lifelong learning process. When I was in school, according to the Florida Bandmaster's Association I was the best saxophone player in the state each and every year that I went to state contest. I'm not saying that to brag. The point is this, I have learned new things about saxophone and/or music constantly since then. Sergei Rachmaninov said, “Music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is not enough for music.” What I think he meant and what I agree with is that if you live to be 120 years old, there are still things you can learn about music.

Learning is growing, and when you quit growing, you are dead.

Those clips I made in my last post were done on a synth module that was made in the 90s. It doesn't even use sampled voices but relies on Physical Modeling synthesis. But yet I could fool dozens of guitarists on a guitar forum into thinking it was a real guitar.

And even if the sounds were inferior, that doesn't matter to the audience. After all, does Dr. John, Madonna, John Lennon, Stevie Nicks, Rod Stewart and dozens of other stars have great voices? No, but they have great expression for their targeted audience. Expression is much more important than tone.

So don't say that MIDI sounds are inferior and then expect me not to debate the point with you.

So repeat after me:
  • MIDI has no sound
  • Synthesizers have sounds and are played by MIDI messages
  • Some synths sound cheesy, some sound excellent, some use digital samples of 'real' instruments, others us different froms of synthesis
  • There are 128 continuous controllers available to make the articulation and expression of the synthesizer sound emulate the instrument you want to play
  • Movie soundtracks, blockbuster recordings, virtually modern synthesizer, bands from local venues to national exposure, and even symphony orchestras use MIDI and they wouldn't use it if it was in any way inferior
  • The audience doesn't care about the finer points of tone, they want to hear the song and they want to hear it expressed well
  • With MIDI you can play your own music, with audio loops you can only assemble what others have played
  • There is more than one right way to make music, and MIDI is not inferior to any other way.


Using MIDI I have played on Cruise Ships, 5 star hotels, Television (ABC, NBC, CBS, MTV and BBC), Yacht Clubs, Country Clubs, and in a dozen or so different countries. I make my living doing music and nothing but music, and MIDI is a major part of that. In other words, there isn't anything wrong with MIDI. It is one of the finest tools in our musical toolbox.

There, I've said it again.
Posted By: Tommyc Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 03:38 PM
You could buy a cheap guitar and save a ton of money, time and it would sound just like a real guitar. My used Strat Ultra cost $200 my 65 Vox amp $350 but you can find even cheaper stuff on eBay. If I was a Sax Player I would play a real one. If real instruments sounded worse than MIDI instruments you would never see anything else in a real studio. All real studios have a disproportional amount of equipment geared towards real instruments and real voices. They all have what they need to make MIDI sound great also,but in all the 100's of sessions I've ever done no one has ever said why don't you play your MIDI guitar it sounds better than your real guitar. I have played piano parts on a MIDI guitar,but I still would rather have the real piano that it was trying to emulate. People that want to use MIDI should use it, when all else fails I use it. It's just not my Biab go to guy and until PG made Real Tracks I saw no need to update just to get more MIDI, I would just edit it to get what I wanted or just make a new style. I would think the average user would save a fortune just using Real Tracks by not having to keep buying something to make MIDI work for them. You can get some very Pro sounds and never leave a PG product start to finish just by using their latest and greatest RT's. But for me I need a lot more to make MIDI passable for me. PG must have paid a small fortune to accomplish this Incredible new RT lineup, musicians of this quality in a real studio would be more than most could ever afford. Just ask your local studio how much to get these guys and have them wait while you write a song!
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 04:24 PM
Quote:

Yes I listened to all the links on this page ,it did not sound like a real guitar. It didn't sound awful just not like a real guitar,it was better than the Sax though. Over the years I have played guitars that were MIDI controllers they all sounded better as a piano than a guitar. If PG didn't think the same they would have stayed a MIDI only program,don't you think they changed for the better?




Ok, I see where the disagreement lies. You are saying the Hendrix style guitar doesn't sound like a 'real' guitar and on that I agree. I never claimed it did. What I did claim is that it sounds 'good'. And I maintain that claim. The sound that's possible now with BiaB midi tracks is orders of magnitude better than it was with prior versions.

Furthermore, I have said all along, and many others have said the same, that when mixed with RTs and RDs these guitar tracks can fool a non-musician. As a bassist I might not be fooled by a particular midi bassline even dressed up with good FX and emulation since I'd likely spot the problems with articulation and expression. But I'd quite likely be fooled by a good sax line since I know nothing about sax. To me that means midi has become far more usable than it was in the past.

Since I use BiaB mainly for backing tracks to play bass or sing to the holy grail of midi is not whether it sounds absolutly 'real' but whether it creates the illusion of jamming with a great musician like Hendrix and IMO it does that.
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 04:35 PM
Quote:

If real instruments sounded worse than MIDI instruments you would never see anything else in a real studio.




Once again this is where the difference in opinion lies. I'm sure nobody ever meant that midi can sound better than a real istrument played by a real player. If you were doing this intentionally, which I don't think you are, that would be a strawman argument. Easy to dismiss because no one is really claiming this in the first place. I think it's just a misunderstanding of what is really being claimed about midi, that midi can now sound good enough to give an illusion of a real player and instrument especially when combined with RTs and RDs and especially to a non-musician.
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 04:39 PM
Quote:

I do prefer the real stuff, though




So do I. But you can't do covers with RTs alone. That's why the improvement to midi is so startling. I find I can now do a signature guitar lick using midi and have it sound good enough to give the illusion of a real player.
Posted By: MitchC Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 05:08 PM
It's not really midi that has improved is it ? It is the availability of better VST's etc. for rendering the generic midi data.

The 'Hendrix' experiment is really to tout the Amplitube plugs more than the midi. It's the rendering that makes it sound 'good' (matter of opinion though).

As a guitar player, I would never use midi for guitar parts. What I need it for is horns, strings, occassional acoustic bass guitar, percussion. If these were available as RealTracks, by all means I would use them instead of rendered midi parts (except where I needed a signature line, lick...but NEVER midi guitar in my case)

On a side note, I find it amusing that this topic is so polarizing ! Almost as much fun as political or religious doctrinal threads elsewere.
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 05:33 PM
Quote:

It's not really midi that has improved is it ? It is the availability of better VST's etc. for rendering the generic midi data.




Yes, that's what I was really emphasizing in the original tip. Strangely (or not) the discussion soon turned to the value of midi itself.

Quote:

The 'Hendrix' experiment is really to tout the Amplitube plugs more than the midi. It's the rendering that makes it sound 'good' (matter of opinion though).




Actually, while I like Amplitube a lot, I couldn't get the Hendrixy sound from amplitube with any of the free presets. I used the Camel Crusher distortion pluggin and the Juicy77 amp (plus a little phaser) to get that sound.

Amplitube is great for cleaner sounds but Juicy77 is miles ahead for overdriven guitar leads IMO.

Quote:

As a guitar player, I would never use midi for guitar parts. What I need it for is horns, strings, occassional acoustic bass guitar, percussion. If these were available as RealTracks, by all means I would use them instead of rendered midi parts (except where I needed a signature line, lick...but NEVER midi guitar in my case)




Agreed. As a bass player I wouldn't use midi for bass even though I generally suck.

Quote:

On a side note, I find it amusing that this topic is so polarizing ! Almost as much fun as political or religious doctrinal threads elsewere.




I know. I guess midi advocates are liberal and RT advocates are conservative. Those on the far left or right will never agree because they don't even hear each other. Only moderates can have a coherent conversastion.

Yep, it does sound a lot like politics.
Posted By: Tommyc Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 05:37 PM
Quote:

Quote:

can fool a non-musician.



I think there are a lot of musicians on this site, some quite good.
Posted By: MitchC Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 05:41 PM
Sorry, I thought the Camel Crusher and Juicy77 were patches available in Amplitube. I'm sure the full blown version of Amplitube would have the distortion sounds desired... not willing to invest the $239+ for it however.

A thread title of 'New VST's enhance midi..' might have diffused the midi debate a tad (I doubt it though) ;-)
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 05:51 PM
Quote:

Sorry, I thought the Camel Crusher and Juicy77 were patches available in Amplitube. I'm sure the full blown version of Amplitube would have the distortion sounds desired... not willing to invest the $239+ for it however.




Try Juicy77 and Camel Crusher. Both are free. Camel Crusher requires registration but that's all. You'll like them. Not suggesting they replace amplitube though.

Quote:

A thread title of 'New VST's enhance midi..' might have diffused the midi debate a tad (I doubt it though) ;-)




I think you may be correct. I'm lousy at thinking up titles.
Posted By: Tommyc Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 05:58 PM
That would be an excellent Topic Mitch ,one where people could share Ideas on how to make MIDI sound better. Very Constructive Idea 1+!
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 06:01 PM
Quote:

Quote:

can fool a non-musician.



I think there are a lot of musicians on this site, some quite good.




I'm not quite sure what you mean here but I included the phrase non-musician because many people on these forums do gigs with BiaB and they would only need the audience to accept the midi not other musicians. Still, whether you like/use midi or not is entirely up to you. For my purposes I find it very useful now.
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 06:02 PM
Quote:

That would be an excellent Topic Mitch ,one where people could share Ideas on how to make MIDI sound better. Very Constructive Idea 1+!




And I'd be happy to join in. I have found a number of useful ways of using VSTs to enhance midi.
Posted By: Cornet Nev Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 10:43 PM
MIDI is not responsible for the sound that eventually comes out of the speakers.
However, Real Tracks, VST's and other enhancements can't work without MIDI, MIDI is the means of controlling the sounds, whether from a real tracks sound font, a VST sound font or the plain and simple GM sound font. MIDI is what it say it is, Musical Instrument Digital Interface, and that is all it is.
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 11:14 PM
Quote:

whether from a real tracks sound font




Sorry, this is incorrect. RealTracks are complete phrases recorded by real musicians. The phrases are copied from a master file in lengths of one or more bars (possibly less when needed). They are not fonts at the note level.

Midi is not needed to create or control RTs and they will not respond to midi edits even when they have midi notes associated with them. The midi notes are only there to show approximately what is being played.
Posted By: rharv Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 11:18 PM
Quote:

Midi is not needed to create or control RTs



Huh?
I always thought MIDI timing (and chord interpretation) was a pretty big factor. Using them in Realband seems to make this more likely. Play with your Resolution in RB and generate a section (taking the time to use the audio edit window to see the RT generation adjustment to MIDI resolution) ... interesting test.

If you generate a new section at 120 resolution and zoom in you'll se exactly where the new generated part starts. (If you don't, try another style just for this test; it'll be obvious)
Then change resolution to something higher (like 3940). Move one end of the highlited section to a slightly different number (one not divisible by 120 preferably). Hold shift and click just off the original start point to set a new range. Regenerate, open audio edit window and look at the new section. It helps to just leave the cursor where it was (don't play it during the test) for reference.

Then open the event list for that track and note the triggers for the Realtracks. They will be in MIDI terms at the new resolution.
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 11:33 PM
Quote:

Quote:

Midi is not needed to create or control RTs



Huh?




RealTracks are audio. Where would the midi come in?
Posted By: rharv Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 11:38 PM
^ Look up; I edited above response..
Posted By: pwarren Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 11:47 PM
Quote:

^ Look up; I edited above response..




Ok, I didn't know that. I realize there must be a way to match tempo. However, I don't think it's in any way correct to call RTs soundfonts. They don't work that way at all.
Posted By: rharv Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/03/12 11:51 PM
No, RT's are not soundfonts. That's for sure.
But I think they are pretty closely tied to MIDI in their 'create and control' aspects.

To me, RT's are recorded tracks with the ability to use them intelligently as samples of varying length, and with nice variation (vs exact repetition). That's a unique combination in music software.
Posted By: John Conley Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/04/12 03:48 AM
I personally think you are close to the 'truth' here.

Realtracks can operate without midi.

A Newbie has enough on their plate with music terminology when all they remember is a few licks from stairway. Learning terms, general music etc is ENOUGH. The company (pg), in my opinion, would be crazy to develop things expecting hobbyists with racks of old midi hardware making one phrase all day. Sure they do that in the movies. We/They want to make music.

I can spend 4 hours a day on the keys, some time on piano, and I don't give a hoot which it is, but 99 percent of the tracks are substituted with realtracks. I mute the piano and the melody, play the thing looped for about 10 minutes and move on.

Just thing this through. You own the joint. The new technology allows you to get very good sound, and have great guitars and drums etc. Or you throw midi at the newbie. Really.

The poor new guy comes in here with a Yamaha keyboard from Radio Shack and in 10 minutes some one tells him he has to hook it up and here we go again. And we need to explain ASIO. Not again.

The fact that the software can be used by someone who spends all day on the signature lick for Fever, and gets 2 bars done, great. I don't care how it sounded at first. I played it with drums only the 1st time through, the bass only then both. Use a cool organ sound. I can ad lib. No need for midi at all, except wait for it...my Korg uses midi inside.

Thus midi is insidious, and often hideous. That's a problem I've not had with Real Instruments, and it seems obvious that each release and beta things get better as the software that interprets those phrases matures.

The bottom line is if Joe shows up with his Yamaha and he can't play it through so he can duplicate Toccata and Fuge in Dm and see the score, so darn.

But in the end he's happy because without any interface, without knowing a cc from his backside, Joe Newbie made music with his new band and Liked It. Wow.

I know you all are waiting for the next midi hardware release, but I just bet it runs as packets on the internet, so that the lighting control market isn't left out. And I bet they call it something else, like a production data transport packet. Cool.
Posted By: Notes Norton Re: BiaB 2012 revolutionizes midi... - 02/04/12 03:00 PM
Quote:

<...> If real instruments sounded worse than MIDI instruments you would never see anything else in a real studio. All real studios have a disproportional amount of equipment geared towards real instruments and real voices. <...> but in all the 100's of sessions I've ever done no one has ever said why don't you play your MIDI guitar it sounds better than your real guitar.<...>




So then you've never seen a synthesizer in a studio? MIDI drums? --- I have.

I have even been hired to play wind synth in a studio. A guitarist/vocalist hired me to play this MIDI guitar part on his CD http://www.nortonmusic.com/mp3/_personalchoice.mp3 (used with permission from the copyright holder). Both he and I play guitar. But he thought guitar synth was right for the lead on this song.

I've also been hired by another producer to play synth trumpet. And I've been in recording sessions where the drummer played an electronic MIDI drum set (Roland V drums if I remember correctly).

Which sounds better or worse? Neither. Use the right tool for the job. Because a MIDI sax sounds different from an acoustic sax, is no big deal -- Selmer sax with a rubber mouthpiece sounds even more different from a Keilwerth with a brass mouthpiece.

Acoustic does not sound better than MIDI any more than a Fender Strat sounds better than a Gibson Les Paul.

Does an acoustic piano player refuse to play a digital Rhodes voice because it doesn't sound like either an acoustic piano or an acoustic/electric Rhodes? Some perhaps, but not most -- as long as the digital Rhodes sound was appropriate.

Sometimes I prefer real acoustic instruments, sometimes I prefer MIDI instruments for the sound. When recording backing tracks for my duo in my home studio I generally prefer MIDI, even if the tone is not quite what I want (as long as it is close). Why? The audience doesn't know the difference and the ability to edit MIDI tracks far outstrips any tone issues.

Quote:

<...> As a guitar player, I would never use midi for guitar parts.<...>




In the wind synth community we call this HIB (Home Instrument Bias), and many people have it. However, most of us do not. My HIB is saxophone, I've been playing it for over 40 years. I use MIDI sax live on stage a lot, even though I bring my acoustic sax. The problem with HIB is that many players look to the synth pad and notice what the acoustic instrument will do that the synth patch will not do. And this is generally true. What many HIB people don't look at is what will the synth patch do that the acoustic instrument will not do. So when I play synth sax, I'm playing synth sax to play the sounds and/or nuances that my 'real' sax cannot reproduce. It's one more tool in the tool box and I feel that I would be foolish not to use synth sax when appropriate for the song.

I have 11 different sax patches that I have on my on-stage wind synth module, and I use most of them. They have different tones (one is a physical model of an alto sax that is made of glass instead of brass). Like guitars, saxophones are capable of producing a wide variety of sounds. Stan Getz sounds nothing like John Coltrane who sounds nothing like Clarence Clemmons etc., etc. Most of my synth sax sounds are closer to the 'universal' sax sound than Getz tone is to Coltrane tone.

MIDI is a very flexible and musical tool. I use it when I need it and I use physical instruments when I need them.

I don't do pre-recorded loops at all though (YMMV). Why? I am a musician and I want to participate in the creative process as much as I can. To me using pre-recorded loops is like painting by number while using instruments I play and/or edit myself (whether they are MIDI or physical) is more like oil painting. I am in complete control of the output.

  • What if I don't like the way the loop plays a note? In MIDI I can change it, in loops I cannot.
  • What if for a particular song I'd like the piano part to be an acoustic piano instead of a Rhodes? In MIDI I can change that, in loops I cannot.
  • What if I want to eliminate the tambourine on a track? In MIDI I can do that, in loops I cannot.
  • What if I want to change that held note to a sforzando followed by a crescendo? In MIDI I can do that, with loops I cannot.
  • What if I want to transpose one instrument up or down an octave so it doesn't 'fight' with another in the mix? In MIDI I can do that, with loops I cannot.
  • What if I want to eliminate a drum roll and put a non-roll measure in without interrupting the decay of the cymbal in the pre-roll measure? In MIDI I can do that, with loops I cannot.
  • What if I want to change the timing of the notes in a strummed or glissed chord? In MIDI I can do that, with loops I cannot.
  • What if I want to change that slow/chorus Leslie speed on a B3 sound to a fast vibrato? You guessed it.
  • There are literally an infinite number of other musically valid things I can do with MIDI that I cannot do with loops - and whey I get done editing and listen, it's rewarding to think "I did that!".

To summarize, there is nothing wrong with MIDI generated synth sounds. They may sound a little different from a physical instrument, but then two similar physical instruments can sound much more different. Physical instruments can do things that the emulative MIDI patch cannot, but then the MIDI patch can do some things that the physical instrument cannot. If the MIDI synth is good, the audience does not care if you are using a MIDI or physical instrument. The editing capabilities of MIDI are light-years greater than the editing of pre-recorded loops.

So for me, I'll play acoustic and synth sax, electric and synth guitar, acoustic and synth flute, plenty of MIDI instruments I cannot play (like trumpet, trombone, harmonica, etc.), MIDI bass exclusively (I even sampled my Faux-Fender-Jazz Bass), and for my backing tracks, good old editable MIDI (including some samples of acoustic instruments that I sampled myself). For my situation I am picking the best tool for the each task at hand.

So I guess I'm a moderate.

Once again YMMV.

Insights and incites by Notes
© PG Music Forums