Auria not so pro

Anyone else find editing midi in Auria pro to be a total abomination? Sick to death with it, notes changing length and position, can't paste or duplicate a region without it moving the notes around etc. What's the point in them having the nice fab filter synths if you can't even program a few notes without it going to shit? Raaaaaaaa!

«13

Comments

  • edited July 2017

    @Extnctn6
    May be worth doing your midi bits elsewhere then bringing them into Auria?
    I'm fairly new to using Auria extensively, but I feel it is a must for finishing tracks to a professional level.
    A lot of people on this forum appear to use various daws for building songs, but finish them in Auria.
    Personally, I love building stuff in Cubasis, especially midi stuff.

  • Yes there's definitely bugs there. I would like to see them fixed as well.

  • That is why people recommend Auria for mixing.

    It can be good to seperate composition process from the mixing process.
    Some people like this seperation some don´t. I like it.

  • Thanks for the tips! I have actually been doing exactly that using cubasis and other programs to write and record and then mixing in auria..

    When I first moved my set up to iOS I started out with auria pro and lost 2 projects and my temper due to bugs and then this project I decided to give it another go as there's been an update since and I need the tempo track. Also I want to use twin 2 but it can't handle basic midi editing without me having to spend ridiculous amounts of workflow killing time re aligning all the notes. Every other program can handle this so why can't auria "pro?"

  • Yup

    I do all the midi stuff in Modstep or Cubasis and then finish tracks in Auria

  • What do you guys do if you want to use the fab filter synths? Do you just fire up a similar patch in cubasis or whatever, program the midi in there and then export the midi dat to auria?

    I need a better work flow, I can't keep wasting time messing around with auria. I want to like it but it has me pulling my hair out just trying to sequence a bloody baseline. Trouble is I often need the tempo track for my projects which cubasis hasn't got and it's a workflow killer writing each section of a song in different projects in cubasis to then import them to auria to get around the lack of tempo automation..

  • I fail to understand your frustration with the piano roll in Auria. It's not my favorite, but it works and isn't anywhere near as frustrating to me as it is to you. I wonder there are some nuances of how to use it that you haven't fully understood. I've never has a single bug or crash in all recent versions. Maybe I just don't use it as heavily as you.

  • There are two MIDI bugs that might be what the OP is so frustrated about:

    • overlapping MIDI notes, the note after will be deleted. Unfortunately this is not a bug, but the way it was designed to be: Rim seems to think this is the best solution. There is no workaround: you'll have to pay attention when you add notes so they don't overlap;

    • joining MIDI regions overdub mode: sometimes joining two or more MIDI regions will result in one or more notes being deleted or resized. In extreme cases, entire sections can be deleted, but usually it happens with just the first note or notes (and in this case, the first bug or "feature" is the presumptive cause). Auto overdub mode can result in the resulting MIDI region to be shifted one or more measures back or forth in the timeline. Workaround: never merge MIDI regions and turn off auto overdub mode.

  • And yes, other than these two bugs, I'm a huge fan of Auria's piano roll, one of the best in iOS.

  • For me auria is better if i don't try to make it what it's not. A lot of what i do on ios os beat driven step pattern based and if i try to do in autiawhat i do in gadget i want to kill myself. But it works for me recording a midi performance i just need tightening up with quantize etc.

  • Cubasis first , THEN Auria indeed!

  • You know, I actually prefer the auria midi editor to the cubasis midi editor. Otherwise, cubasis all the way. But the way the keyboard and auv3 open in movable windows is great and the midi-editing seems less janky in auria.

  • I dislike the midi editor in Auria as well. Thankfully midi exported from modstep can be imported into Auria pretty painlessly so it's not too big a hassle for me.

  • @DefRobot said:
    May be worth doing your midi bits elsewhere then bringing them into Auria?
    I'm fairly new to using Auria extensively, but I feel it is a must for finishing tracks to a professional level.
    A lot of people on this forum appear to use various daws for building songs, but finish them in Auria.
    Personally, I love building stuff in Cubasis, especially midi stuff.

    Exactly. Auria Pro has a lot of good points, but it's also prone to niggling little issues that never get fixed.

    I do most of my building elsewhere, and put the results together in AP for finishing using FF plug-ins.

    It would be very interesting to see how AP fared if FF ever changed their mind about naming their products available across IOS.

  • edited July 2017

    Auria pro is more like pro tools. Most people just track mix in pro tools most people make there beat in another program because its not for making beats as fluid as other software. Auria is kind of the same beast great for mixing and tracking but workflow is not as fluid in making the music in app

  • @Shazamm : Yeah, that's pretty much it...

  • edited July 2017

    Cubasis is quicker and slicker but has a built in ceiling. Sternberg is only gonna let it get but so good as to not compete with Cubase. Auria Pro is chocked full of everything and not as streamlined.. Like a big husky runner with the killer endurance who gets the last baton passed to him to finish the race . The first baton gets passed to the sleeker runner who can get to the front quickly . At some point around the time of the mixing and mastering process Cubasis seems to wanna pass the baton. So take Cubasis to the point it really wasn't supposed to go beyond .. and let Auria cinch the race .

  • Or let cubasis take you to the desktop...

  • @BiancaNeve said:
    Or let cubasis take you to the desktop...

    Cubase on desktop used to be such a hot mess when you used a ton of vsts that I just deleted and wiped all traces of ever having used it. I can never go back shivers in horror

    Unless of course you mean any desktop daw. Then yes. Ableton, Bitwig, Studio one and Reaper are always a good choice :)

  • Was thinking of Logic actually.

  • @Shazamm said:
    Auria pro is more like pro tools. Most people just track mix in pro tools most people make there beat in another program because its not for making beats as fluid as other software. Auria is kind of the same beats great for mixing and tracking but workflow is not as fluid in making the music in app

    Exactly. @Shazamm has said it previously, @theconnactic Dmitri too, I have several times: To understand iOS DAW's it's sometimes necessary to compare them to desktop DAW's as a real world illustration.

    Auria Pro is exactly like Pro Tools innthatvit excels at mixing and audio recording. It does MIDI, you can make beats with it if your that type of producer but there are easier tools to do the job. It's also genre based, like it or not. I write a lot of pop/rock stuff, drums, bass, guitars, vocals and SOMETIMES MIDI/synths/keys, etc. Auria Pro really complements that type of stuff.

    Cubasis is very much like Logic & Cubase in that while it can record audio and you could make any type of music with it, it's MIDI functionality and less fussy UI make beats or MIDI tracks easier to craft.

    BeatMaker 3 has sort of assumed the iOS version of Ableton Live, a strong MIDI influence and ease of use for beats, hip hop, etc.

    Of course cats make complete tracks with Blocs, iMaschine, Beathawk, Groovebox,etc. There are several I'm missing, but to me taking the stereo export mix from any of those to Auria to be mastered is a professional workflow yielding pro results.

    Or export individual tracks from Cubasis, BM3, etc into Auria for mixing & mastering. Again, sounds like a lot of work, but it really isnt and truly, it will bring dividends to those who try it.

    There's more than one way to do damn near anything, so these are just the goal posts in my head, many just record jams into AudioShare and call it a day. Whatever works. But if something isn't working for you, don't blame the tool, especially if there are as many laying around as there are here in this yard....

  • edited July 2017

    My problem with the MIDI editing is that when entering notes the snap function moves them to the next 'cell' if you tap anywhere from the middle to the right of the previous cell. For a touch screen, I think this is very bad UI.

    Rim (the dev) was kind enough to explain the behaviour to me, as I originally thought this must be a bug. It's not. He said that the grid isn't based on cells and the snap works the same way as many desktop DAWs. However, it seems pretty obvious to me that it should work like Cubasis or Gadget, where if you tap inside a cell (cos that's effectively what each grid section is), the note has to go in the cell you tapped somewhere within, not anywhere else. It's way, way too easy to tap somewhere on the right side of a cell and have your note jump to the cell adjacent to where you wanted it. Way too easy. It makes MIDI editing a chore, and the problem gets worse the more you zoom out, which makes entering a notes an exercise in frustration as you're always having to zoom in much more than is comfortable to see what you're doing.

    If I try to enter notes quickly, at least 2 in 5 taps will result in the note going in the wrong place. No such problem in Cubasis or Gadget.

  • Step sequencing on IOS is excellent, but piano roll editing sucks on iOS generally. ModStep and Gadget probably suck the least. I bought Auria when it introduced midi editing and immediately wished I hadn't.

  • @Telstar5 said:
    Cubasis is quicker and slicker but has a built in ceiling. Sternberg is only gonna let it get but so good as to not compete with Cubase.

    I really doubt that's the reason. It seems to me they're aiming to seek the right balance between features and usability in order to keep Cubasis instantly accessible to as many users as possible. If that's your design goal then sometimes you have to make the decision to leave stuff out (because it would otherwise complicate workflow or get in the way for the majority of your intended user base).

  • @brambos said:
    If that's your design goal then sometimes you have to make the decision to leave stuff out (because it would otherwise complicate workflow or get in the way for the majority of your intended user base).

    So why not take a page out of the Auria book, and release a Cubasis Pro version? Both markets are then covered, and those who want more functionality can get it.

  • @Zen210507 said:

    @brambos said:
    If that's your design goal then sometimes you have to make the decision to leave stuff out (because it would otherwise complicate workflow or get in the way for the majority of your intended user base).

    So why not take a page out of the Auria book, and release a Cubasis Pro version? Both markets are then covered, and those who want more functionality can get it.

    I don't know, I'm not Steinberg. But I can imagine that the business case for spending a lot of resources on an extra version for a really tiny target audience is not that interesting. Just guessing.

  • @brambos said:

    @Telstar5 said:
    Cubasis is quicker and slicker but has a built in ceiling. Sternberg is only gonna let it get but so good as to not compete with Cubase.

    I really doubt that's the reason. It seems to me they're aiming to seek the right balance between features and usability in order to keep Cubasis instantly accessible to as many users as possible. If that's your design goal then sometimes you have to make the decision to leave stuff out (because it would otherwise complicate workflow or get in the way for the majority of your intended user base).

    I think this is spot on and why Cubasis is such a delight to use

  • edited July 2017

    @brambos said:
    I don't know, I'm not Steinberg. But I can imagine that the business case for spending a lot of resources on an extra version for a really tiny target audience is not that interesting. Just guessing.

    A lot of resources? Surely, with Cubasis already well established, and code already written for Cubase, adding those pro features to an IOS version shouldn't be like starting from scratch. I don't suppose we'll ever know. ;)

  • @Zen210507 said:

    @brambos said:
    I don't know, I'm not Steinberg. But I can imagine that the business case for spending a lot of resources on an extra version for a really tiny target audience is not that interesting. Just guessing.

    A lot of resources? Surely, with Cubasis already well established, and code already written for Cubase

    Well.. it doesn't make that much difference if they already have the code sitting somewhere else. Apps don't write themselves, and GUIs don't design themselves. Neither do they test themselves and market themselves. A boatload of work goes into producing and supporting a fully featured app like Cubasis. And Steinberg have quite a broad product portfolio so they can't spread their team too thin.

    But anyway.. it's all conjecture because I don't know the inside details.

Sign In or Register to comment.