Quote desmond:

---

Use low buffer sizes for recording, and/or jiggle stuff around to get the feel you require. Also understand how PDC works and what it does for other timing dependent things. Run some tests if you're not sure.

Sometimes it's very easy to get caught up in the "OMG! My recorded guitar part is 15 ticks late!" when the timing inaccuracy of the notes you play might be *way* bigger than that.

You just need to know how this stuff works and especially the quirks that often aren't really manual topics, and develop a workflow that works for you.

And another reason some of this stuf gets overlooked is that where once MIDI instruments were a required necessaity for making electronic music, nowadays more and more people are junking their MIDI hardware, and a whole new generation of computer-based kids are working without ever having touched another instrument, let alone understanding what MIDI is.

Yes, in an ideal world you shouldn't have to do all this, and everything should be perfect - but the reality is life is one long series of workarounds...

(Or at least it feels like it sometimes...)

---

I find this answer unacceptable. It is irrelevant how old MIDI is or what current fad has people ‘junking their MIDI gear’. There are a multitude of valid and vital uses of MIDI - sophisticated realtime performance with wind instruments; serious MIDI keyboard performing, avant-garde music and dance requiring MIDI, or plain MIDI performances across the spectrum of music and not just kids playing around with software instruments. So MIDI is the current and only viable protocol for connecting the outside and real world of music and performance with the computer, with control in mind.

Hence - all DAW and computer-music manufacturers should have this firmly in mind. Furthermore, the future of computer music is no doubt in advanced tactile control and in this MIDI will play a major part. So there can be no accepting of the current debacle regarding MIDI capability of recording in current DAWs (and especially Logic), and your suggestion that we should live with it is to accept mediocrity and substandard. Instead, why are all musicians not screaming from the tree tops to demand better MIDI which - is a complete possibility. I'd suggest that the real reason why MIDI is so lousy in its current implementation within the likes of Logic is because of replies like this that suggest accepting the status quo and working around it. There's simply no incentive for manufacturers to improve the situation.

Into the bargain, Logic is about the worst DAW of all for MIDI. Firstly, even though it is owned by Apple, it actually bypasses core midi! Secondly, Logic cannot handle more than 16 tracks of MIDI recording at one go - whereas most other DAWS can handle as many discrete channels of MIDI as are available from the attached MIDI interface(s). So it would be impossible, for example, to record 16 MIDI tracks output from say a Korg M3 Karma Groove while also playing along on a separate keyboard (giving a total of 17 MIDI channels) - because Logic cannot distinguish beyond 16 channels. Thsi si just one example of how primitive it is.

Given these utterly ridiculous specs for MIDI in Logic, one could assume that Apple simply haven't looked at their MIDI implementation for years and any rubbish within how Logic manages MIDI persists to this day.

I've had a minimal experience with DP and Protools and both immetiately exhibited vastly superior MIDI recording capabilities. Certainly in Protools there was never, ever any time delays in MIDI recorded tracks. We'd simply play an external PC sample library via MIDI into Protools, then recorded that performance to a Audio Tracks and there were never any timing issues.

Logic used to claim that they were the best MIDI DAW but this was never actually the case. In truth, its utterly lousy for MIDI, so if MIDI recording is important to you then you should look at other DAWS.

Kevin.

Post Extras