Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DAWproject: Open exchange format for DAWs

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: DAWproject: Open exchange format for DAWs

#81

Post by AlecSchueler »

elihu wrote: post #75
AlecSchueler wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the issue that pitch bends in midi apply to every sound on that channel, so if you play a chord with a different temperament and send the bend data of each note the result is that the whole chord will be tempered as normal but with every note the same amount higher or lower? I've heard the recent midi 2 can get around this but it's still a pain with the 40 years of midi equipment that surrounds us.

Yes, that's a problem with MIDI 1.0. There are a few ways to work around it. Some synths support custom tuning tables, and there's even a MIDI spec for custom tuning tables called MTS that hardly anyone actually implements as far as I know. One way that works for multitimbral synth (which a lot of 90's romplers are) is to only play one note at a time on each channel, and use multiple channels for polyphony. This allo…

Thanks, that sas a helpful response and I'll surely have a fun time looking into these different potential solutions.

Re: DAWproject: Open exchange format for DAWs

#82

Post by dmoreno »

mxmilkiib wrote: post #51
lagniappe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitwig knocked it out of the park coming out the gate with Linux support. Can't say I'm surprised though, it's made by the original team that made Ableton Live.

On Linux it steals/hogs the hardware MIDI, so you can't connect to it with other JACK MIDI apps.

I am also very bothered by this. I developed rtpmidid just to be able to use rtpmidi on bitwig.. and I need to use the virtual midi device hack.

I was just thinking if there is a way to ask for features.. and there is! https://bitwish.top/c/features/5

I will add the request for ALSA sequencer devices, which I think should include Jack ones.. but I will investigate this further, as maybe I'm wrong. There is a bridge for sure.

Anyway just don't hijack the MIDI device and be nicer with the linux MIDI ecosystem is a must.

Re: DAWproject: Open exchange format for DAWs

#83

Post by thrtythreeforty »

pjmlp wrote: post #67
ckbishop wrote: post #9

Bitwig is quickly becoming my favorite DAW. Big fan of how they develop software.

And a very cool project of what can be done in Java based desktop software. Yes it has has C++ under the hood, which is also a good example of how not to go full into a single stack, rather mix-and-match.

It also has an LLVM-based JIT compiler for Grid devices. Which I would love to see a deep dive on, if Bitwig folks would like to write an engineering blog.

Re: DAWproject: Open exchange format for DAWs

#84

Post by mrMagick »

thomashop wrote: post #66
r9295 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I've been trying to write a VCS for Ableton projects but their schema is way too complex to try to make sense of it. Ableton is incredibly hostile to third party devs building upon their work. Eg: There is no official documentation for any of their Python APIs.

Although the python API could be documented, it was not meant to be a public API. And it seems the open source community managed to generate the documentation. I don't know any other DAW that allows as deep integration for third party devs through their Max for Live API.

FL Studio has a well documented python API to allows 3rd party scripts!

Re: DAWproject: Open exchange format for DAWs

#85

Post by stevehiehn »

gavinray wrote: post #79
thomashop wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although the python API could be documented, it was not meant to be a public API. And it seems the open source community managed to generate the documentation. I don't know any other DAW that allows as deep integration for third party devs through their Max for Live API.

REAPER has unsurpassed scripting and extension, every other DAW looks like a joke in comparison.

Ya, Reaper is the only DAW (I know of) that allows me to import midi, apply fx, and render tracks via scripts.

Re: DAWproject: Open exchange format for DAWs

#86

Post by Cloudef »

gavinray wrote: post #79
thomashop wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although the python API could be documented, it was not meant to be a public API. And it seems the open source community managed to generate the documentation. I don't know any other DAW that allows as deep integration for third party devs through their Max for Live API.

REAPER has unsurpassed scripting and extension, every other DAW looks like a joke in comparison.

Not really DAW but bipscript is interesting for this use case

Re: DAWproject: Open exchange format for DAWs

#87

Post by thomashop »

boffinAudio wrote: post #78
thomashop wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although the python API could be documented, it was not meant to be a public API. And it seems the open source community managed to generate the documentation. I don't know any other DAW that allows as deep integration for third party devs through their Max for Live API.

>I don't know any other DAW that allows as deep integration for third party devs through their Max for Live API. REAPER?

Ah makes sense. I was just thinking of the "big name" ones. I need to look into Reaper again.

Re: DAWproject: Open exchange format for DAWs

#88

Post by pdntspa »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #68
pdntspa wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idunno, half the instrument VSTs I have seem to support some form of microtuning or alternate tunings...

How do they achieve that?

I don't know the mechanics, my guess is they translate the MIDI notes to the scale given to them by a tuning file

Here's a pretty comprehensive-looking list of software instruments supporting microtuning:

https://en.xen.wiki/w/List_of_microtonal_software_plugins

Re: DAWproject: Open exchange format for DAWs

#89

Post by ano-ther »

thomashop wrote: post #66
r9295 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I've been trying to write a VCS for Ableton projects but their schema is way too complex to try to make sense of it. Ableton is incredibly hostile to third party devs building upon their work. Eg: There is no official documentation for any of their Python APIs.

Although the python API could be documented, it was not meant to be a public API. And it seems the open source community managed to generate the documentation. I don't know any other DAW that allows as deep integration for third party devs through their Max for Live API.

> it seems the open source community managed to generate the documentation

That would be terrific. Do you have more?

A while ago, I tried to cutomize a Novation Launchpad but couldn’t find coherent docs or an intro.

Some people have mastered it, as witnessed by this great extension [1]. But that’s example code, not a documentation.

[1] https://github.com/hdavid/Launchpad95

Re: DAWproject: Open exchange format for DAWs

#90

Post by elihu »

duped wrote: post #49
elihu wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, MIDI 2.0 has per-note pitch bend. They kept with 7 bits for note numbers, though, which is kind of inconvenient. If you have an instrument with more than 128 keys, you have to do a kind of dynamic allocation thing where you find the nearest unused key and bend it to pitch. I think for most use cases, MPE is actually simpler. (Also it's probably supported by more instruments and synths at this point.) All the mo…

Not per note pitch bend. Note On/Off messages support an extra 16 bits of "attribute" data that can optionally be used as an unsigned 7.9 fixed point pitch offset in semitones. Note numbers are also expanded to 256 since they can use the full 8 bits of the note number. MPE is a super limited hack, I doubt anyone is going to use it once MIDI 2 becomes available in synths (it's a future technology, fwiw - it will be a…

> Not per note pitch bend. Note On/Off messages support an extra 16 bits of "attribute" data that can optionally be used as an unsigned 7.9 fixed point pitch offset in semitones.

> Note numbers are also expanded to 256 since they can use the full 8 bits of the note number.

You might be right on the attribute data, but I thought they had per-note pitch bend as well. I'm skeptical that 8th note number bit is available, but I'm going off of memory since the MIDI association has decided for whatever reason to require a login just to see the specs as if the MIDI specs are some kind of secret, and that section of their website is throwing SQL errors right now.

> MPE is a super limited hack, I doubt anyone is going to use it once MIDI 2 becomes available in synths

Maybe MIDI 2.0 will be adopted, but so far it seems to be getting very little traction, at least in the hardware synth/controller space. I'm less familiar with software synths; maybe it's getting picked up there.

MPE is kind of a gross hack, but it works pretty well and is supported by most of the expressive controllers out there and at least some synths. The only expressive controller I'm aware of that uses MIDI 2.0 is Lumatone. I think Roland also makes a regular keyboard controller with MIDI 2.0 support. Other than that the major music incumbents seem to be staying away, and the smaller expressive instrument manufacturers seem to mostly be sticking to MPE.

I'd be in favor of just ditching MIDI entirely, and use a different protocol that's more like what MPE would be if it didn't have to be mostly backwards-compatible with MIDI 1.0. I'd also be in favor of using CAN-bus instead of 31.25 kbps serial for anything that's not using USB.

Post reply on HN