slartabartfast

Brian Walton

slartabartfast
The key element with MIDI is that it allows you to program a sequencer that can control an enormous variety of instruments, many simultaneously in what sounds like real time. Without a sequencer, you do not have a DAW, you have an audio editor.
 

You can still have a Digital Audio Workstation without MIDI.  
You have digital recording, mixing, effects, console, etc all without the need for MIDI.  
 
MIDI dramatically adds to the capabilities of the DAW, but it is not a pre-requisite to function as a digital audio workstation.  
 
I wasn't' even using MIDI until a few years ago when the VSTi could actually hang with hardware sound quality.  

I do not see how any of the not MIDI features you mention are not part of an audio editor. If you were going to claim that you can have a DAW without a sequencer, then you would have a stronger argument if you had mentioned the addition of automation recording for those features. Audio editors these days usually have automation as well. Even something as simple as Audacity can do what you have listed under recorded automation, and I do not think anyone is claiming it is a full fledged DAW. The simplest audio editors can usually do basic effects and mixing. It is easier to define a sequencer, of which there are not many any more, by saying that it does not record and manipulate audio than it is to distinguish what the difference between an audio editor and a DAW are, but MIDI capability seems to be a good place to start.

An Audio Editor if it has enough features can be a Digital Audio Workstation.  
 
(BTW:   Audacity does have the ability to play back MIDI files)
 
You are trying to make a distinction between "full fledged" DAW and a "normal" DAW?  That I think is the heart of where you are going.  
 
I argue that a Digital Audio Workstation allows the creation and manipulation of multi-track audio in a digital environment.  Some advanced audio editors fit into this category.  
 
In the past, audio editors were "stereo" programs, the lines have blurred as many of these programs added multi-track capabilities and became DAWs with lesser feature sets.  
 
 
Lets take the opposite as an example.  Reason used to be MIDI based Sequencer type of program (with specific audio types you could also import).  Even though it didn't record multitrack audio, it was still a Digital Audio Workstation, it just wasn't "full fledged" or in other terms, it was a limited DAW compared to some other products on the market as you would have to pull in audio files recorded in a different program.  

Jeff Evans
 Sonar's midi timing to me feels like it changes when the audio side of the program is working super hard.  (e.g. CPU resources being pushed) I maybe wrong but I always found that the midi timing was somehow linked to what the audio is up to.  When pushed super hard, it seemed to change. 
 

 
I don't know if it's the same thing, but anything above 512 samples and plugins which output MIDI (Cthulhu, Jamstix etc) are completely unusable in Sonar. The MIDI timing becomes atrocious to the point where Sonar sounds like it's drunk. It's not just a matter of the MIDI being delayed, i.e. latency (I could live with that), it's that the distance between notes is all over the place, like it has no sense of rhythm whatsoever. 
 

There are several advances in the works for MIDI. MPE was the tip of the iceberg. I think the question to ask isn't whether MIDI is the future, but which DAWs will be the first to take advantage of the enhancements.
 
I also recommend the midi.org site to keep up with what's happening. (Full disclosure: I consult to it pro bono.)

Anderton
There are several advances in the works for MIDI. MPE was the tip of the iceberg. I think the question to ask isn't whether MIDI is the future, but which DAWs will be the first to take advantage of the enhancements.
 
I also recommend the midi.org site to keep up with what's happening. (Full disclosure: I consult to it pro bono.)

Thanks fer the heads up, Craig! As always, u da man!

Just registered at midi.org... looks like a happening place! MIDI is alive and kicking.
 

Jordan Rudess talks MIDI!
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8t8HKHYzZM 

[

Anderton
There are several advances in the works for MIDI. MPE was the tip of the iceberg. I think the question to ask isn't whether MIDI is the future, but which DAWs will be the first to take advantage of the enhancements.

Agreed.
Looking forward this.
 
For myself , I am a duo performer who is heavily into editing midi to suit our particular requirements and sound preferences.When Live, we use a Roland SD50 sound module and VanBasco as a lightweigt Lyrics Prompt. Has worked magnificently for years..and Sonar's timely , seamless load from windows explorer with a double click,and quick running of the MIDI files is why we prefer SONAR.
SONAR has the ability to make edits and save without losing our preferred GS Format and without losing our mostly, personally loaded lyrics (ie: per Serenade )
I tried a plethera of other DAWs over the past months.....even purchased a couple ( largely under sufferance).
To me.....as far as my quick editing needs........the others appeared clunky or too complicated ....and OH Boy...I missed SYSX & Event List, bigtime as it was absent or badly diminished in many of them.
Many trial DAWS seemed,shall we say...not as MIDI friendly. Admittedly my time with them was limited - but enough to assess our critical needs.
BUT that's for my use..............But let's face it..... it really is 'Horses for Courses'.
I suggest Sonar has a very wide appeal ......let's not set adrift what is possibly a huge MIDI user base.
 
PS: Glad to be back home.

Bit of a silly question by the OP in my opinion.  I'm a 95% audio guy who does maybe 5% or less in Midi these days.  But a DAW that either had no or poor midi implementation would not interest me at all.  There are some times when the ability to interface with and edit midi is an absolute must, and the lack of good midi integration would be an absolute show-stopper.  If ever I'm recording keyboard, even via audio, I capture the midi - the possibility to do all kinds of interesting stuff would be lost without it.  More and more now, I am putting triggers on drum kits and capturing midi data along with the acoustic performance.  And how many controller devices of all types rely on midi?  Pretty much all of them.
 
Losing capable midi editing would be a HUGE loss, even for me who does mainly audio-only projects.  Can't quite believe anyone would even ask the question.

BRuys
Bit of a silly question by the OP in my opinion.  I'm a 95% audio guy who does maybe 5% or less in Midi these days.  But a DAW that either had no or poor midi implementation would not interest me at all.  There are some times when the ability to interface with and edit midi is an absolute must, and the lack of good midi integration would be an absolute show-stopper.  If ever I'm recording keyboard, even via audio, I capture the midi - the possibility to do all kinds of interesting stuff would be lost without it.  More and more now, I am putting triggers on drum kits and capturing midi data along with the acoustic performance.  And how many controller devices of all types rely on midi?  Pretty much all of them.
 
Losing capable midi editing would be a HUGE loss, even for me who does mainly audio-only projects.  Can't quite believe anyone would even ask the question.

 Nicely Put !

From midi.org:
 
"Make Sure Your PC is Bluetooth 4.0 Compatible.
With recent updates in the Windows 10 OS, SONAR's DAW takes advantage of using Bluetooth 4.0 Low Energy (BLE) to connect Bluetooth enabled MIDI devices. Now, almost all operating systems have this capability, so the performance is only going to get better from here..."
 
MIDI is, like, cutting edge, yunno?