azslow3

Anderton

SilverBlueMedallion

azslow3
Silver has heated the air so even nice people in fact started to defend something there is no reason to defend...
 
VST specification say nothing about how MIDI output from plug-in should be used.
The meaning of "Enable MIDI output" and its routing is up to Sonar. VST just say "Hey, I send C4 to you". I have not seen any way for VST to say "Hey, I send C4 to you, please send it too ALL MIDI tracks as an Input!". And that is Sonar default behavior as soon as VST can send something [snip].

 
understood.  so what you are saying is that if this BUG gets resolved, then I don't even need to worry about MIDI out:

http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3542635

 
He can clarify, but I believe he's referring to the "Omni" saying "None" issue you brought up. Registering/not registering a plug-in is not something that's conveyed over MIDI as far as I know, although if anyone does, it would be azslow3.

Silver is trolling... is some posts he has almost confirmed that explicitly.
He is using primary 2 real inconsistencies/bugs plus own observation of something as the ground for the conversations.
 
1) "Enable MIDI output" in insert plug-in dialog. I do not know what it technically really means for VST3, I have written only VST2 which process MIDI. But in all cases, there is THE SECOND (may be the only) effect from it: the MIDI output is used as Sonar MIDI INPUT! It is up to Sonar how to use Input/Outputs from VST, so VST3 specification can not be used as the reference for any behavior. I repeat, it CAN be that the flag also influence Sonar<->VST3 dialog. But ignoring the user wish to NOT enable the MIDI output as Omni input and NOT ask again, is at least misleading since all other options in the dialog are respected. That can not be forced by VST3 specification (as explained before), that can not be explained by "most users wish", since if the flag is respected when it is changed by user (can be "on" by default, but stay "off" once set so explicitly), all users will be happy. Sonar is NOT re-enabling other things "silently and automagically" in general (f.e. Audio/MIDI inputs), so that can not be "by design" either.
 
The workaround is to uncheck the flag every time a synth is inserted. The result is the same. No side effects. Two clicks per synth more (compare with the number of "clicks" to play the synth.... so negligible). It is EASY to check the project has no unwanted output by just looking at all available MIDI inputs for a track, one click.
 
So inconvenient, misleading, error prone, but it is not an important issue.
 
2) "None is Omni", so there is no "None" for MIDI. A bug, at least in naming. Inconvenient, misleading, error prone.
 
That is relevant in case of INTENTIONAL use of VST MIDI outputs only. So when the "Input echo" is permanently ON, to route VST MIDI output to some synth MIDI input during playback. The problem is escalated by Sonar itself, once it detects something wrong with MIDI routing (sometimes real, sometimes by mistake) it silently (!) and sometimes invisibly till project reload (!) reset MIDI inputs to "None", which is "Omni"... and so it makes the problem (like loops) worse instead of avoid them, up to Sonar crash.
 
The workaround is to have external "silent" MIDI input, silent Synth with MIDI output, use  specific MIDI channels. All that HAS SIDE EFFECTS. Because of "silent reseting to OMNI", such projects are hard to move between systems, they can be corrupted by attached/detached controllers, newly inserted VSTs, etc.
 
So, this problem is important for special use cases. Sonar is not supporting MIDI FX in VST form explicitly and has basic MIDI routing. So using such features, while possible, should be perceived as A WORKAROUND by itself. I mean, when using it, the user can expect they are not working good and use the software explicitly made for that for fluent experience.
 
 
So, why I write that OP is trolling?
a) he refused to specify his system configuration, even on explicit questions. It can be correlated with almost all observations published by OP in several threads
 
b) he is not specifying what he really wants to do, in different thread and in different posts, he claim mutual exclusive wishes, depending on response from other. F.e. in one thread he claims using VST MIDI outputs intentionally, since (2) is problematic in this (and only in this) case. In other he wants disable MIDI outputs with "do not ask again", so effectively avoiding VST MIDI output by default
 
c) he brings "Synth parameter not saved" observation into MIDI related threads. It CAN BE MIDI related, but all attempts to check that ends with "Wrong. That is 100% not this". If he is sure that is NOT MIDI related, why mention that in MIDI related threads?
 
d) the tone of most posts is provoking.
 
Blocked. Forgotten.

 
about #1.  If you watch my latest video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9z1Lr2P5rQ&t=95s) - i stated how it requires you to be asked every time, so therefore maybe the option for "Enable MIDI Output" should be removed from the "Insert Synth Options" default dialog box since it really does NOTHING (unless when asked).   So what is wrong with having that removed if it does nothing?  How is that trolling exactly?

about #2.  why would it be standard to not have a "none" input?  why can't we have one?  It actually SAYS "None".  again, how am I trolling?

I never refused to give my system config. Not sure what is needed... i7, 16 GB Ram, MPK 225 MIDI Controller.  Thats it.

about the unsaved synth parameters.  It doesnt say when you freeze a track you have to save the preset, now I know. but I didn't.

Again, how am I trolling?   because I am pointing out some issues I have with Sonar?  

Seriously, I feel some people here can't handle criticism of their favorite DAW, its like I am criticizing their mother LOL.  See ya AzSLOW :)

gustabo
It's become obvious to me that your knowledge is not what you infer that it is. I learned about Notemapper in a Sonar fb group and I noticed on the CodeFN42 fb page that you put in a suggestion/request for"note duration %". You "want to map your notes to another track but with a shorter duration than the original".
How would that be possible??? It's a real time plug-in, it has not idea how long you're going to hold that note down.
Velocity is easy, changing a note off event into the past or future would be a process that would be applied after the fact, not in real time.
I also saw you post in that fb group that you're in the "industry", you are with a software development company.
Most people would assume that you are involved with the actual development, I'm starting to think that you may be a receptionist based on your expectations versus reality of software.
Watching you alienate seasoned users is becoming quite humorous in a sad way, especially your remark about the emotional iq of a four year old!
If this thread keeps progressing and you're actively involved in it, I'm going to have to pop some popcorn!!!

I did ask CodeFN42 if Notemapper can make a shorter duration, kind of like how in a Sonar drum map it has a Velocity Scaler, where you can have it play a percentage of your actual velocity.  I was simply asking if it is possible.  Is that a bad thing to ask?

Nope, I am actually technical, not a receptionist.

Glad to know I have a full-time stalker though.

gustabo

SilverBlueMedallion
 
Glad to know I have a full-time stalker though.

Just part time, your rants are hilarious but not worth full time attention.

 
i notice you keep avoiding my video,  afraid you wont be able to answer to my points?

https://youtu.be/M9z1Lr2P5rQ

Genghis
FWIW I've watched your video.  It looks like if you would just disable input monitoring on your MIDI tracks unless you are actually using it you'd have things under control and your point would be moot, but then again I'm not the MIDI power user here.  At least on my system it only seems to work as Omni when you have input monitoring on, which kind of makes sense.  I mean, why would you turn on input monitoring and expect it to monitor nothing?

but then I can't switch track to track seamlessly.   I get what you are saying, but it just adds another hinderance.  I do appreciate it.

gustabo

SilverBlueMedallion

gustabo

SilverBlueMedallion
 
Glad to know I have a full-time stalker though.

Just part time, your rants are hilarious but not worth full time attention.

 
i notice you keep avoiding my video,  afraid you wont be able to answer to my points?

https://youtu.be/M9z1Lr2P5rQ

What's the point? You believe you have bugs, you're right, everyone else is wrong...

nope. not if you can actually speaking to my 2 points in the video.  Again, you avoid it though.  I believe you are possibly scared I might have a point.

You NEED Sonar to be right lol   

Watch the video man, speak to my points instead of acting immature and saying "no whats the point".   just watch it and speak to it on a technical level.

Just started watching it but you specifically state it's for "Anderton" so I'll leave it for him "lol"
 

gustabo

SilverBlueMedallion
 
You NEED Sonar to be right lol  

That's just it, it is right for me "lol"

There must be a real reason you won't watch and respond to my video, I mean your are busy replying to me these stupid nonsense remarks, but won't actually watch the video.

Go ahead watch it... Speak to my two points.

I did speak to your points, just not the answers that you wanted.
I think I got you figured out snowflake.
You are tech phone support (script reader) for the software development company you work for and you get yelled at a lot.
This is your way of venting! "lol"

gustabo
I did speak to your points, just not the answers that you wanted.
I think I got you figured out snowflake.
You are tech phone support (script reader) for the software development company you work for and you get yelled at a lot.
This is your way of venting! "lol"

Nope. But I am starting to consider you harassing. Personal insults and guessing my career is not what this forum is for.

I suggest you refrain from it.

Adam I must say you do stand your ground. I admire that.  I can also see why you are saying the things you say. It may behoove CW to change how none and omni work in the input for MIDI tracks. That said, to me its not a problem. Never has been. There is no good reason to have a MIDI track that is empty with no input available for it. When i create a new MIDI track I always set it up to receive MIDI from my MIDI keyboard or my wind controller. I do have a CS as well as hardware synths, 3 of them. All can send out MIDI. Sonar works just fine for me.
 
I recall using Cubase some years back It was SX 1, 2 and 3. On occasion my CS would produce notes sounding on MIDI tracks. One reason was is there was no clear way to prevent Cubase from routing MIDI output to the MIDI tracks. Clearly an annoyance. Where here I really don't see a real problem. After all this has been the way Sonar has worked for as long as I can remember. Also it would seem that if it were a really awful bug don't you think the board would be lit up with complaints from the early days? It just doesn't bother us much. 
 
I would end this discussion here and send a bug report to CW or a feature request. We forum members are not equipped to do anything about it. This is a peer to peer forum not a way to contact Cakewalk.      

Thats good to hear. 

gustabo

SilverBlueMedallion

gustabo
I did speak to your points, just not the answers that you wanted.
I think I got you figured out snowflake.
You are tech phone support (script reader) for the software development company you work for and you get yelled at a lot.
This is your way of venting! "lol"

Nope. But I am starting to consider you harassing. Personal insults and guessing my career is not what this forum is for.

I suggest you refrain from it.

Harassing? I went out of my way on fb to try to help you with something that was happening to you that no one else could reproduce and you say I'm harassing you?
Personal insults? What personal insults? If you are referring to "snowflake", isn't that an indian representation of a snowflake on your avatar?
Guessing your career? I bring that up because you infer a technical capacity yet you needed help finding three config files that I suggested you rename.
I'm done responding to you but I don't want to block you because the drama you create and how you alienate people is fun to watch...

 
lets see... my posts are all technical, your posts are all emotional.  Infact you refused MANY times to watch the youtube video, until you finally did with stupid comments like 

"Just started watching it but you specifically state it's for "Anderton" so I'll leave it for him "lol"


or that its not worth your time.

Now cut the crap. Keep it technical or stop talking.  We are not here to evaluate ones personalities or careers.   

Anderton
<<Sonar is NOT re-enabling other things "silently and automagically" in general (f.e. Audio/MIDI inputs), so that can not be "by design" either.>>
 
Well azslow3 I don't have you blocked, so I can answer. 
 
The reason why I think it is by design is because Noel said it was in his blog post on VST3 implementation (which actually contains a lot of useful information). He said:
 
Enhanced VST MIDI Out functionality
 
VST plugins that support VST MIDI out are directly supported without needing to register them as a synth first. A MIDI out port is enabled automatically when a VST plugin supports MIDI output.
 
To me that sounds like a conscious design decision. This is why I maintain the OP is wrong in calling it a "bug," because it performs, repeatedly, as the developer designed and intended it to perform. The OP can say he disagrees with that design decision, but not that it is a bug. 
 
Few instruments support true MIDI out. Therefore, it was probably assumed users would appreciate that upon inserting an instrument that did have MIDI out, it would be automatically available. The OP doesn't want that to happen. Fair enough, but I doubt he represents the majority of users. 
 
This is why I keep saying that reporting it as a bug, or doubling down on claiming it's a bug, is wasting everyone's time. What Noel says above is unambiguous. SBM needs to submit a feature request. By insisting it is a bug, his bug report will be ignored (after wasting someone's time to look it over) because he has not identified a bug. 
 
I truly believe I have assessed the situation correctly, and offered useful advice about a potential way to resolve it: request that MIDI not always be enabled automatically, and that the MIDI out check mark can be override what happens automatically upon inserting a VST3 plug-in with MIDI out.
 
Or he could just clear the check box after the VST3 is inserted, but apparently he finds that too onerous a task. 

 
 
you realize this same behavior happens with VST2 instruments too, right?

Anderton, did you see this?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9z1Lr2P5rQ&t=157s
 
My questions/concerns are very clear in here.   You will see where I feel there is a break in logic in the software.  I lay it out VERY simply.   

I call it a bug because the checkmark does NOTHING if you don't have it ask every time.  If you could watch the video, maybe you will understand. 
 
Thank You,
Adam

Also, by design, it just takes two key presses to have it ask every time. As one poster pointed out, that's not a lot compared to the number of presses on mouse, keyboard or keypad needed to play/ program synth.

I would also point out that if you count the number of letters and spaces that you have typed in this thread and divide by two, you would have enough for a lifetime of clicking checkboxes...

Anderton
<<Sonar is NOT re-enabling other things "silently and automagically" in general (f.e. Audio/MIDI inputs), so that can not be "by design" either.>>
 
Well azslow3 I don't have you blocked, so I can answer. 

Thanks! I have not blocked you, so we can continue the discussion
 

The reason why I think it is by design is because Noel said it was in his blog post on VST3 implementation (which actually contains a lot of useful information). He said:
 
Enhanced VST MIDI Out functionality
 
VST plugins that support VST MIDI out are directly supported without needing to register them as a synth first. A MIDI out port is enabled automatically when a VST plugin supports MIDI output.

May be for you (some other users here also claims so) this section of the blog is clear and strait. For me it is not.
Before I continue with the explanation, I want to add the next statement in the section, it can be relevant for the explanation:

A future update will allow MIDI input/output on such plugins to be toggled at will.

So, what for me makes that section "questionable"? The text I have marked bold.
 
Lets remember what was the subject of many questions in this forum, had the text I have marked as bold and WAS IMPLEMENTED in X3?
Was that questions about Audio->MIDI converters, presented themselves as FX? I do not remember many such discussions. What I remember are GuitarFX/Soft Pedal boards/etc., which are FXes but also have MIDI INPUT. To use them with MIDI input, users had to change the option in the plug-in manager to register them as "synth".
In X3 that was implemented. VST plug-ins that support VST MIDI IN are directly supported without needing to register them as a synth first!
Was it a change which deserve a section in X2-X3 enhancements? I think yes. Do you see anything about it in the blog? I do not.
 
Now lets remember what was the change with VST MIDI OUTPUT between X2 and X3. The MIDI output was by default OFF and now by default ON. The users choice IS STILL NOT PERSISTENT. Does that deserve a separate section in the "enhancements"? Hm...
 
Then the quote I have added. CW was working with MIDI IN/OUTS, they have added input/output indication (and sometimes selection) to the "VST2/3" drop down menu. So they was touching the code also later. And it DOES mention that the user should be able to choose. There is NO explanation why the choice can not be persistent.
 
Also note that the whole change is NOT VST3 related, it was changed for all VST, including VST2. And I repeat, VST specification prescribe nothing about the use of inputs/outputs. VST3 has way more options to allow the plug-in EXPLAIN the host how it (plug-in) is using input/outputs. But still I do not see any words which describe how the host SHOULD use that information.
 
Now lets put all facts together:
1) in X3 was implemented many times requested feature to allow audio FXes also have MIDI Inputs. Real requested enhancement. Yet that change is not mentioned in the blog.
2) in X3 the default, (still) not persistent after users explicit choice, setting for MIDI Output is changed. And that change is represented as as separate section in the blog. Not as a "fix", not as "from users wishes", but as an enhancement.
That does not make sense for me.
 
And now my own SPECULATION: the blog has a typo! Replace "Output" with "Input", and everything makes perfect sense, including the text in bold!
 
May be Noel can comment who is right with the interpretation of his blog