Simplified MIDI routing in AUM, yay or no?

I have a question for all AUM users, let me know what you think! https://kymatica.com/forum/index.php/topic,407.0.html

«1

Comments

  • 51 Comments sorted by Date Votes
  • I think that I don’t even understand the question

  • Personally, I think it’s simple enough as is.

  • Yeah maybe it needs a diagram explainer :)

  • Yes more graphical details please.

  • I vote for keeping it the same. Once you get understand how the routing matrix works, it's one of the easiest to use. I personally use it for complex routing between my MBP and IPad, also with all these new midi generators it's easy getting a chain going. I'd be interested in what the simplified routing looks like. But for things like DerVoco we'd need midi routing to the effects slot at least. Either way, I'll still use AUM 👍

  • Never had any issues with the current setup and I'm a Midiot.

  • _ki_ki
    edited June 13 Vote Up0

    I use routing from different channels to several AU fx in one channel, i am not shure if all my current setups would work with the proposed simplification of a single destination per channel.

    For instance having dervoco or voicesynth on a drum channel requires two midi input streams, one for the drums in the input slot and one for driving the vocoders harmony. I think there are other fx that can react to midi notes (changing settings for instance)

  • Suggestion (long time desired feature):
    Make the midi matrix accessible from everywhere with a big shortcut button or by double tapping, making it easy to access/hide, you know, like apematrix.
    Playing with midi connections (and audio) is part of live music performance.
    The matrix should not be hidden in a sub menu period.

    Also: icons instead of text for app and visual feedback of midi events so one could see what is going out of what. It could be just a little dot under the icon or name or anything that highlight.
    The whole point is to make it quicker and clearer.

    Also: more than one keyboard and pitch and mod wheel, please.

    :)

  • I like the current options, would not be happy if everything were locked in to MIDI routing grouped by each AUM channel.

    I do like the idea of a more easily accessible MIDI routing grid.

  • edited June 13 Vote Up1

    I think it’s a fair compromise, especially since most MIDI receivers do (or at least should) let you select MIDI channels to help filter out irrelevant input.

    The channels would need meaningful names in that case to help identify them, preferably without forcing the user to always name them (so:auto-name them cleverly by default).

  • @_ki said:
    I use routing from different channels to several AU fx in one channel, i am not shure if all my current setups would work with the proposed simplification of a single destination per channel.

    For instance having dervoco or voicesynth on a drum channel requires two midi input streams, one for the drums in the input slot and one for driving the vocoders harmony. I think there are other fx that can react to midi notes (changing settings for instance)

    Right, so this is the only example I have heard of so far of routing different MIDI streams to different nodes living in the same channel strip. Let's not forget that we have 16 MIDI channels, so in theory up to 16 nodes could be controlled individually in each channel strip even with a single per-channel MIDI destination,

    I think it would simplify a lot for many users, even now I often see users thinking that MIDI is already routed to a channel strip and not the individual nodes. Most users only send MIDI to the source node (synth, etc).

    Note that this has nothing to do with the MIDI routing matrix (which I also plan to simplify, but that's another story). This change would in summary merge the MIDI destinations of one channel strip into a single per-channel destination, and include the AU parameter MIDI mapping there as well.

  • @Hmtx said:
    I like the current options, would not be happy if everything were locked in to MIDI routing grouped by each AUM channel.

    So do you have a real-world example where you've selected different MIDI sources for each node in the same audio channel strip?

    I do like the idea of a more easily accessible MIDI routing grid.

    I agree.

  • @brambos said:
    I think it’s a fair compromise, especially since most MIDI receivers do (or at least should) let you select MIDI channels to help filter out irrelevant input.

    There would still be need for a channel selector/filter per node, since the typical AU synth does not have such selection built-in. Also the note range filters would be kept, etc.

    The channels would need meaningful names in that case to help identify them, preferably without forcing the user to always name them (so:auto-name them cleverly by default).

    I'm thinking the routing in this case would mostly be done by tapping the channels name to bring up the channel menu, where one would select a MIDI source to control everything in that channel strip. The MIDI matrix would only be needed for the other destinations (Transport MIDI Control, CoreMIDI endpoints including virtual and hardware ports, etc).

  • edited June 13 Vote Up1

    Midi routed to the whole channel strip at once sounds very elegant to me and a intuitive way of routing.

  • I think thats an awesome idea if i understand it right i would load for example rozeta xox under ruismaker (same as an fx) and it would route to ruismaker automatically that would help get rid of all ”extra channel strips ”

  • @Hansson said:
    I think thats an awesome idea if i understand it right i would load for example rozeta xox under ruismaker (same as an fx) and it would route to ruismaker automatically that would help get rid of all ”extra channel strips ”

    No, that's an unrelated issue. To help with that, I'm planning to add special non-audio channels to hold MIDI-only plugin slots. Those slots would be stacked vertically to take up less space, and be scrollable like the fx-chain in the current audio channels.

    There would be no automatic connection, you'd still need to tap somewhere (probably the title-label of the channel holding ruismaker) and select "rozeta x0x @ chan2" as source. OR use the MIDI routing matrix, etc.

  • Ahh ok i see either way i think youre on to something and if we still have the connection mattix i dont see areason not to expand the options, those midi slots sure will be welcome :)

  • @Hansson said:
    Ahh ok i see either way i think youre on to something and if we still have the connection mattix i dont see areason not to expand the options, those midi slots sure will be welcome :)

    Actually it's not about expanding the options, but shrinking them :) See the diagram above!

  • edited June 13 Vote Up1

    @j_liljedahl said:
    So do you have a real-world example where you've selected different MIDI sources for each node in the same audio channel strip?

    Synth note input controlled by external USB MIDI keyboard.
    Channel Effects controlled by Lemur or MIDI Designer Pro.
    The simplified system makes this... impossible? Or just more complicated?

    Also, split USB keyboard controlling two AU synths on separate channels. Would this still be possible?

    It just feels like default over-simplicity makes complex routing less simple.

    What is the reason for the change? Are users finding the MIDI routing grid difficult? I think it’s brilliant.

  • I’ve personally never had any issues with sussing the midi in AUM, but I mostly use one midi source to each channel. I do however like @Hmtx above, consider that later on I may want to send different sources to the sound source and fx within the same channel. I’m presuming this would still be possible with midi channel filtering?

  • @j_liljedahl said:
    No, that's an unrelated issue. To help with that, I'm planning to add special non-audio channels to hold MIDI-only plugin slots. Those slots would be stacked vertically to take up less space, and be scrollable like the fx-chain in the current audio channels.

    There would be no automatic connection, you'd still need to tap somewhere (probably the title-label of the channel holding ruismaker) and select "rozeta x0x @ chan2" as source. OR use the MIDI routing matrix, etc.

    Great idea!
    As for your original question I have no opinion either way.

  • edited June 13 Vote Up0

    For maximum chaos just route all midi sources to all midi destinations and be done. :lol:

    Theoretically, if you take away the direct mapping of a midi source to an individual node, and then rely on channel filtering to limit which MIDI goes to which node....you can still pretty much do the same as you can with direct mapping....limitations could arise with MIDI Sources that do not have configurable channels.

    Would this also affect MIDI Out from nodes ? Will the MIDI come from the individual nodes as a source, or from the channel strip as a source ? If from the channel strip, if each node could send to a different MIDI channel all should still be good.

  • @Hmtx said:

    @j_liljedahl said:
    So do you have a real-world example where you've selected different MIDI sources for each node in the same audio channel strip?

    Synth note input controlled by external USB MIDI keyboard.
    Channel Effects controlled by Lemur or MIDI Designer Pro.
    The simplified system makes this... impossible? Or just more complicated?

    Still possible. You'd just select both the USB keyboard and the Lemur as MIDI sources for the channel strip, and then use two different MIDI channels to keep them separate.

    Also, split USB keyboard controlling two AU synths on separate channels. Would this still be possible?

    Same here, each AU node would still have the note range and midi channel filters as they have currently.

    It just feels like default over-simplicity makes complex routing less simple.

    What is the reason for the change? Are users finding the MIDI routing grid difficult? I think it’s brilliant.

    Reason is it would make it a bit more intuitive and easier to grasp: Control anything in this channel with this source (or sources), instead of having to route MIDI to each node. Especially when taking into account the separate "AUM Control" destination that must be connected to control any parameters in the channel. This means that an AU with parameters kind of gets two destinations.

    Also, if each channel is a MIDI destination, it would be logical to have a "record MIDI as well as audio" toggle per-channel.

  • @j_liljedahl said:

    @Hmtx said:

    @j_liljedahl said:
    So do you have a real-world example where you've selected different MIDI sources for each node in the same audio channel strip?

    Synth note input controlled by external USB MIDI keyboard.
    Channel Effects controlled by Lemur or MIDI Designer Pro.
    The simplified system makes this... impossible? Or just more complicated?

    Still possible. You'd just select both the USB keyboard and the Lemur as MIDI sources for the channel strip, and then use two different MIDI channels to keep them separate.

    Also, split USB keyboard controlling two AU synths on separate channels. Would this still be possible?

    Same here, each AU node would still have the note range and midi channel filters as they have currently.

    It just feels like default over-simplicity makes complex routing less simple.

    What is the reason for the change? Are users finding the MIDI routing grid difficult? I think it’s brilliant.

    Reason is it would make it a bit more intuitive and easier to grasp: Control anything in this channel with this source (or sources), instead of having to route MIDI to each node. Especially when taking into account the separate "AUM Control" destination that must be connected to control any parameters in the channel. This means that an AU with parameters kind of gets two destinations.

    Also, if each channel is a MIDI destination, it would be logical to have a "record MIDI as well as audio" toggle per-channel.

    Yeah I don’t think it would cause any problems in real world uses then :)

  • @j_liljedahl said:
    Reason is it would make it a bit more intuitive and easier to grasp: Control anything in this channel with this source (or sources), instead of having to route MIDI to each node. Especially when taking into account the separate "AUM Control" destination that must be connected to control any parameters in the channel. This means that an AU with parameters kind of gets two destinations.

    Also, if each channel is a MIDI destination, it would be logical to have a "record MIDI as well as audio" toggle per-channel.

    Got it, thanks! I’m a little bit lost... but seriously I’m not worried. You are a musician and have a track record of getting this type of stuff spot on for us fellow musicians.

    So, do what you think is best :+1: because that “record MIDI” mention... outweighs any possible downsides. :o <3

  • @Hmtx said:

    @j_liljedahl said:
    Reason is it would make it a bit more intuitive and easier to grasp: Control anything in this channel with this source (or sources), instead of having to route MIDI to each node. Especially when taking into account the separate "AUM Control" destination that must be connected to control any parameters in the channel. This means that an AU with parameters kind of gets two destinations.

    Also, if each channel is a MIDI destination, it would be logical to have a "record MIDI as well as audio" toggle per-channel.

    Got it, thanks! I’m a little bit lost... but seriously I’m not worried. You are a musician and have a track record of getting this type of stuff spot on for us fellow musicians.

    So, do what you think is best :+1: because that “record MIDI” mention... outweighs any possible downsides. :o <3

    yep yep yep

  • In response to the OP, this is not a solution to a problem that I have, so I cannot express either a positive or negative opinion of it right now.

    A problem that I do have with AUM's midi is the difficulty in manipulating midi modulations live. If I want to disconnect a Rozeta LFO from a synth or an fx app, for example, it requires a menu dive. This is not conducive to live jamming. I do not know the solution. Perhaps being able to set up some buttons or sliders on the main page to control midi modulations?

  • Could it be optional? Maybe have a little button for each track to group everything in that channel to one Midi source. If you don‘t want it like that you can still ungroup the Midi. Haven’t had any problems with the way it works now, only I wish the grid could be expanded to full screen so everything can be seen at a glance without having to scroll around.

  • Midi record... drool :p

Sign In or Register to comment.