soens
A bit expensive ($149, $249, or $349) if you just want patch name capability, which Sonar already does.
 
I know it does a lot more but I already have a FREE patch/sequence editor for my rig.

I agree soens. Every device I own has its own free editor if choose to go down that path. 
US $369 for the version with VST editors. At that price you would think they could throw a few dollars at their website, last updated in 2004. Speechless! I cant help but feel they are having a laugh and milking the last rubles from us dinosaurs. PT Barnum was right:)
 
I guess if I was a power user like Graham and constantly editing hardware synths I may see more value in it.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the idea of this as a replacement for Instrument definitions a bit misleading? For one thing, it seems that this is in fact desgined to streamline the process of setting up definitions (patch name export), not replace it.
 
The other point I would make is that custom midi definitions are used for many live production purposes outside of synth patches. They are just a great idea. Fingers crossed S1 gets them sometime soon.

husker

abacab
and the majority of serious users are looking into DAW alternatives that do not have the same capabilities.  

Sweet!  Does this mean I'm a serious user?  Can I tell my wife that?  (I went through a little spending spree at Christmas)

You can tell your wife anything you want!  Heh heh...

anydmusic

abacab

soens
A bit expensive ($149, $249, or $349) if you just want patch name capability, which Sonar already does.
 
I know it does a lot more but I already have a FREE patch/sequence editor for my rig.

True, but Sonar is a dead-end now without further support, and the majority of serious users are looking into DAW alternatives that do not have the same capabilities.  This is an good alternative if you must have external patch support.
 
Having a patch editor is also a big plus for older eyes that tire of squinting at at tiny screens. 

OK as a Midi Quest I would say that if you only use it for Instrument Definitions you've missed the point. 
 
It can help you manage Instrument Definitions and the implementation in Sonar makes that a lot easier than Cubase a feature that I will miss.
 
Where Midi Quest comes into its own, assuming that you have enough supported hardware devices to justify the cost, that of course could be 1, is the ability to manage your MIDI devices sat by your computer. As already pointed out sound editing is made really easy and the ability to undo a change or save a version of the sound before you make another edit really help. 
 
Another feature already mentioned is the ability to save the current setup quickly then restore it at a future date. You could do this on a per song basis or use a timeline approach. Another trick that I liked with Sonar was copying SYSEX data from MIDI Quest and pasting it into the SYSEX View which is just so much easier that creating Dump Request Macros.
 
You can create libraries of sounds by device and these are great if you remember to tag the individual sounds otherwise you can end up looking for a needle in a haystack. If you have previously bought sound banks for your Synth you can normally open and manage these in their original format which is useful if you remember that the sound you want came with "that set".
 
Most of the Editors are pretty well laid out. There will always be some compromises because its Universal rather than product specific. There are also a few different styles so sometimes different elements are displayed alongside each other while for other Synths the Elements will be on different pages. I have learnt that when I can't see what I want there will be an option on the screen that will reveal it.
 
There are various randomisers and morphing features for times when you run out of ideas and are looking for some inspiration. You can also search for "similar" sounds which is useful but you have to remember that because it is basically a HEX data comparison you get some weird results as well as useful ones especially for S&S type modules. Note that there are also ways to limit/control these features.
 
What I find really great about it is that it enables you to focus on the synthesis process rather than the specific devices architecture. Want to alter an envelope? It will be there on the screen in a graphic form with editing options. Want to alter the texture of a sound that combines multiple samples? You can quickly isolate the individual samples to hear what their contribution is and decide which one, or ones, to change. Of course you can do this through the hardware but what Midi Quest does is let you focus on the what instead of the how.
 
They also made a point of collecting as many Public Domain sounds as they could find for the supported devices and creating their own online libraries that you can access via the web (assuming that you have not decided to keep your system offline). 

I have 9XL which no longer runs on modern windows, so I have not used it in years.  But my point was that there are options outside of the DAW to manage MIDI hardware.
 
I recall that you can take a "snapshot" of your entire studio with the current patches you have loaded (and/or edited).  No need for instrument definitions in that workflow.  Just reload that file for the respective song.  All instruments present and accounted for! 

tenfoot

soens
A bit expensive ($149, $249, or $349) if you just want patch name capability, which Sonar already does.
 
I know it does a lot more but I already have a FREE patch/sequence editor for my rig.

...
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the idea of this as a replacement for Instrument definitions a bit misleading? For one thing, it seems that this is in fact desgined to streamline the process of setting up definitions (patch name export), not replace it.
 
...

I certainly don't see Midi Quest as a replacement for good instrument definitions, I like that it makes managing them easy in Sonar but the fact that the process is convoluted in Cubase to the point where keeping them updated will require a bit more manual effort is not going to stop me using them and start having Midi Quest active when I don't need to.
 
I use Instrument Definitions to help me quickly find a sound that I can use that is already loaded in one of the modules that I have.
 
I use Midi Quest to edit the sounds and manage what is loaded in the modules.
 
If I have understood correctly Jeff is advocating a different workflow where sound selection is handled outside of the DAW using an Editor accessed by switching programs. Even though using Midi Quest I would only need one Editor that approach would not work for me.
 
I have Midi Quest version  11.0.3 which is the latest and is dated 2013 so a few years since the last update. I would agree that the website looks dated.

abacab

anydmusic

abacab

soens
A bit expensive ($149, $249, or $349) if you just want patch name capability, which Sonar already does.
 
I know it does a lot more but I already have a FREE patch/sequence editor for my rig.

True, but Sonar is a dead-end now without further support, and the majority of serious users are looking into DAW alternatives that do not have the same capabilities.  This is an good alternative if you must have external patch support.
 
Having a patch editor is also a big plus for older eyes that tire of squinting at at tiny screens. 

OK as a Midi Quest I would say that if you only use it for Instrument Definitions you've missed the point. 
 
... 

I have 9XL which no longer runs on modern windows, so I have not used it in years.  But my point was that there are options outside of the DAW to manage MIDI hardware.
 
I recall that you can take a "snapshot" of your entire studio with the current patches you have loaded (and/or edited).  No need for instrument definitions in that workflow.  Just reload that file for the respective song.  All instruments present and accounted for! 

Agree that the snapshot is a great way to make sure that you have everything that you need if you want to go back to something and play it back the way that it was.
 
Where this does not work for me is in the actual recording, I guess it's an example of the 80/20 rule where it is more efficient to capture the idea using a sound that is close to what you want that you can locate quickly. For me switching to Midi Quest to find a sound would probably result in me finding the right sound but forgetting the idea I wanted to capture. So I guess you could say that Instrument Definitions protect me from myself.

I would say SO3 has intermediate  midi function. The midi part of that program isn't child's play. It isn't an afterthought. In fact it's quite usable for most. There isn't anything wrong at all. Calling it intermediate is really doing it a diservice unless Fruity loops, Ableton, Bitwig, Mixcraft and others are also intermediate. IOW there are only a few programs that could compete with Sonar in midi. The standard was higher than most of use ever needed to reach.
 
It will probably be a cold day in hell before I'll ever consider Cubase which is one daw some say comes close in many areas when it comes to midi. I have no reason to do that. I have a working copy of Platinum on two computers with more midi editing capability than I'll ever need.
 
Things tend to get over hyped in my opinion when trying to classify a daw. It was Cubase for awhile and now it's Sampltude. People seem to be jumping where ever they perceive the crowd to be going. A popular poster says, " Hey I really like ****** and there a deal on it right now" People flock to that. 
 
I won't be buying Samplitude either. Happy with what I have right now. I'm sorry if some frustration is boiling over here. People are overthinking it all. Just get one you like and start making music man 

soens
A bit expensive ($149, $249, or $349) if you just want patch name capability, which Sonar already does.

For sixty bucks, REAPER can read Sonar's instrument files directly and let you select patches by name.
 
That's what I did before retiring all my hardware MIDI devices one by one over time.

abacab

husker

abacab
and the majority of serious users are looking into DAW alternatives that do not have the same capabilities.  

Sweet!  Does this mean I'm a serious user?  Can I tell my wife that?  (I went through a little spending spree at Christmas)

You can tell your wife anything you want!  Heh heh...

Awesome.  I told her Abacab said I needed both the Fabfilter Everything and Spitfire Everything collections!

The other thing about MQ is it doesnt support half my hardware and they arent updating it or accepting requests. IOW, for me it's incomplete and not worth the price of a new DAW.

Does anyone know if Studio One 3 supports MIDI VST's ?