MIDI signal flow; was it always like this?

[David Baay]

Soloing by muting only audio outputs and not MIDI works better because the synths driven by those other MIDI tracks are still rendering audio so that when you unsolo the  soloed track, the rest of the audio comes back in fully intact without dropped notes from note-ons or controllers that got 'muted'.  MIDI event 'chasing' can address that to an extent, but not as well as just leaving the rendering process running, and muting the audio output.

But nothing has changed with regard to these other 'odd' behaviors as far as I can tell. Muting a MIDI track still allows live-input to pass to the output though the MIDI meter doesn't show it.

[crazy sniffable]

On 7/23/2021 at 12:11 AM, David Baay said:

Soloing by muting only audio outputs and not MIDI works better because the synths driven by those other MIDI tracks are still rendering audio so that when you unsolo the  soloed track, the rest of the audio comes back in fully intact without dropped notes from note-ons or controllers that got 'muted'.  MIDI event 'chasing' can address that to an extent, but not as well as just leaving the rendering process running, and muting the audio output.

But nothing has changed with regard to these other 'odd' behaviors as far as I can tell. Muting a MIDI track still allows live-input to pass to the output though the MIDI meter doesn't show it.

Good point about the synths still rendering, but I'd expect that having the synths rendering silently and ready for unmute could still happen with the playback meters off, and would make the most sense to a user when they've solo'ed or muted.

[Starship Krupa]

I went into this in tl/dr detail in the thread in Q&A. The discussion helped me to understand it all better. I had a lightbulb moment.

Think of a MIDI track as being similar to a hardware notes-only sequencer. You have it set up so that your keyboard controller goes to its MIDI input jack, with a sound module connected to its MIDI output jack. If you muted it, the notes programmed into it would no longer go to the sound module, but it would still pass MIDI from your controller to the sound module ("Thru"). Any built-in "metering" would likely not register what was coming into it from the controller unless it was in record mode.

In order to have it not pass the notes, you would need to disable input echo, which is how it works in Cakewalk.

A MIDI track is not as similar to an audio track as the look of their channel strips and track headers led me to expect at first. Given Cakewalk's long history, the logic behind it seems appropriate.

Having said that, I agree that an option for MIDI track mute to disable input echo would be a good feature request.

[David Baay]

45 minutes ago, Starship Krupa said:

Think of a MIDI track as being similar to a hardware notes-only sequencer. You have it set up so that your keyboard controller goes to its MIDI input jack, with a sound module connected to its MIDI output jack. If you muted it, the notes programmed into it would no longer go to the sound module, but it would still pass MIDI from your controller to the sound module ("Thru"). Any built-in "metering" would likely not register what was coming into it from the controller unless it was in record mode.

That's a reasonable way of thinking about it except that MIDI track meters in CW are always metering the output regardless of the arming state. So anything coming out of the track should register in the meter regardless of the source.

[bvideo]

Strictly speaking, if you have your sound module connected to the sequencer's MIDI output, you don't have it connected to its MIDI thru*. Also, the MIDI thru jack is usually not programmable**. There would rarely be way to suppress (mute) the notes going through it***. In those ways it doesn't correspond very well with  Cakewalk's echo input.

Cakewalk's sequencer doesn't require a "thru" concept because it can deliver a single MIDI source to multiple tracks, hence to multiple synths****, without any notion of a daisy chain.

The requirement to mute the recorded data while echoing the input data seems somewhat arcane. Does anybody miss having that feature for audio?

-------------------------

(* If you could do that, imagine the headache of your sequencer sending your synth's output through both the "output" and the "thru" to your sound module.)

(** Sometimes a synth will have only one output, hardware switchable between out and thru.)

(*** Since it was originally meant as a daisy chain, it was not meant to be acted on by the equipment that provides it.)

(**** or even multiple paths to a single synth)

[user 905133]

I am confused by the recent revival of this old thread.  What is new from what was originally discussed in 2019?  Did the way Cakewalk uses MIDI data change? Is there something that was posted previously wrong?  

Did anyone ever follow up on these suggestions?

On 12/4/2019 at 12:17 PM, User 905133 said:

Perhaps with the addition over the years of different record modes, take lanes, the extensive use of soft synths, etc. my simplistic method makes the input echo/thru behavior seem less intuitive. Technological complexity can do that. 

Perhaps you want to request an option, something like "[  ] On track mute, always suppress input echo to external gear." Or perhaps the Mute-Solo-Record button array could have its own border to convey they relate to tracks and there could be some Input Echo/Thru buttons within a different border.

If I understand why you are calling the behavior an "oddity" perhaps options like these (if possible) might help you and others.  Just a thought.

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by User 905133
To add a quote from a 2019 post and ask if there was follow up to the suggestions

[user 905133]

12 hours ago, bvideo said:

Strictly speaking, if you have your sound module connected to the sequencer's MIDI output, you don't have it connected to its MIDI thru*.

. . .

* If you could do that, imagine the headache of your sequencer sending your synth's output through both the "output" and the "thru" to your sound module.

Your post is confusing.  For example, are you saying:

Quote

Strictly speaking, if you have your sound module's MIDI out port connected to the sequencer's MIDI output, you don't have your sound module's MIDI output connected to your sequencer's MIDI thru*.

. . .

* If you could do that, imagine the headache of your sequencer sending your synth's output through both the "output" and the "thru" to your sound module.

I think my headache is from trying to understand why anyone would ever think of sending the MIDI data from a sequencer (hardware or software) into the midi input thru of a sound module.  Have MIDI sound modules changed so users can send MIDI data into hardware by using the thru port?   

Oh.  Are you saying:

Quote

Strictly speaking, if you have the sequencer's MIDI output sent to your sound module's MIDI in port, you don't have your sequencer's MIDI input data being sent thru to your sound module' MIDI input.

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by User 905133
(2) Typo fixed: "input" -> "thru"; (1)to add another possibility as to what a sentence might mean

[bvideo]

Hi Starship Krupa,

Here's how I originally read your post:

On 6/23/2022 at 3:23 PM, Starship Krupa said:

I went into this in tl/dr detail in the thread in Q&A. The discussion helped me to understand it all better. I had a lightbulb moment.

Think of a MIDI track as being similar to a hardware notes-only sequencer. You have it set up so that your keyboard controller goes to its MIDI input jack, with a sound module connected to its MIDI output jack. If you muted it, the notes programmed into it would no longer go to the sound module, but it would still pass MIDI from your controller to the sound module ("Thru"). Any built-in "metering" would likely not register what was coming into it from the controller unless it was in record mode.

In order to have it not pass the notes, you would need to disable input echo, which is how it works in Cakewalk.

A MIDI track is not as similar to an audio track as the look of their channel strips and track headers led me to expect at first. Given Cakewalk's long history, the logic behind it seems appropriate.

Having said that, I agree that an option for MIDI track mute to disable input echo would be a good feature request.

I took it to mean:

• "its" and "it"= the sequencer
• [keyboard OUT] ---> [ Sequencer IN]
• [Sequencer OUT] ---> [Sound module IN]
• [Sequencer (or? ...) THRU] ---> [Sound module IN] ("to the sound module ("Thru")")

... so it sounded like the sound module had two inputs. We should probably sync up on the MIDI jack and cable models we are using before we use up too many colors. ?

The thread probably got revived because I referenced it in a different thread by someone talking about the lack of a clear MIDI signal path.

Edited June 25, 2022 by bvideo

[Starship Krupa]

I think you mostly correctly parsed what I wrote.

My understanding of the MIDI spec is that a Thru function in a device is supposed to pass along whatever data comes into the device unaltered.

Connector-wise, there can be a dedicated Thru jack, but not necessarily. An Out jack can be set to behave as a Thru jack.

Anyway, for the purpose of my hardware/software analogy, Thru is just a function.

4 hours ago, User 905133 said:

why anyone would ever think of sending the MIDI data from a sequencer (hardware or software) into the midi input of a sound module.

If I wanted to drive my MIDI sound module with my MIDI sequencer how else would you suggest I connect them?

[rfssongs]

"why anyone would ever think of sending the MIDI data from a sequencer (hardware or software) into the midi input of a sound module."

My external device are almost exclusively my sound sources.

Also just to add:

"An Out jack can be set to behave as a Thru jack." - Sometimes can be set to act as a thru but not always, it depends on the device.

[user 905133]

5 hours ago, User 905133 said:

I think my headache is from trying to understand why anyone would ever think of sending the MIDI data from a sequencer (hardware or software) into the midi input of a sound module.  Have MIDI sound modules changed so users can send MIDI data into hardware by using the thru port?   

29 minutes ago, Starship Krupa said:

If I wanted to drive my MIDI sound module with my MIDI sequencer how else would you suggest I connect them?

My bad.  My head was spinning so much from trying to parse this:

12 hours ago, bvideo said:

Strictly speaking, if you have your sound module connected to the sequencer's MIDI output, you don't have it connected to its MIDI thru*.

I mistakenly wrote "input" instead of through.  I spent so much time trying to sort that out that I neglected to proofread the comment that inspired the headache.

It should have been: 

Quote

I think my headache is from trying to understand why anyone would ever think of sending the MIDI data from a sequencer (hardware or software) into the midi thru of a sound module.  Have MIDI sound modules changed so users can send MIDI data into hardware by using the thru port?  

I think the second sentence should have tipped readers off that "input" was a typo.  But I will correct that now.  Thanks for calling this to my attention.  BTW, coffee has helped to clear up the headache.  ?  

 

[user 905133]

28 minutes ago, rfssongs said:

"why anyone would ever think of sending the MIDI data from a sequencer (hardware or software) into the midi input of a sound module."

My external device are almost exclusively my sound sources.

Also just to add:

"An Out jack can be set to behave as a Thru jack." - Sometimes can be set to act as a thru but not always, it depends on the device.

Sorry. I had a headache from trying to sort out what bvideo was trying to say and I typed "input" instead of "thru."  I am surprised that no one picked up that it was a typo.  The context of the post and the following sentence ("Have MIDI sound modules changed so users can send MIDI data into hardware by using the thru port?") should have tipped people off.  

In any case, I corrected the typo:

5 hours ago, User 905133 said:

I think my headache is from trying to understand why anyone would ever think of sending the MIDI data from a sequencer (hardware or software) into the midi input thru of a sound module.  Have MIDI sound modules changed so users can send MIDI data into hardware by using the thru port?   

SHEESH!!!!!  ? 

[bvideo]

Hi User 905133,

Your recent take:

Quote

Strictly speaking, if you have the sequencer's MIDI output sent to your sound module's MIDI in port, you don't have your sequencer's MIDI input data being sent thru to your sound module' MIDI input.

Right, though I was talking from the strictly hardware point of view of setting up connections.  I was speaking in terms of the impossibility of connecting (cabling) the sound module's input to the sequencer's two jacks, output and thru, at the same time. (Typical MIDI module: one input, one output, and usually a thru.)

[user 905133]

2 hours ago, bvideo said:

Hi User 905133,

Your recent take:

Quote

Strictly speaking, if you have the sequencer's MIDI output sent to your sound module's MIDI in port, you don't have your sequencer's MIDI input data being sent thru to your sound module' MIDI input.

 

Did I say that?  I will have to see if that's another typo.  ? 

SHEESH!!!!!!!!!!

That is what I ask if you were trying to say nine hours ago when I couldn't made sense of your headache producing comment.  When you wrote "Your recent take," it sounded to me like you were claiming I said that more recently than the last round of comments.

2 hours ago, bvideo said:

Right, though I was talking from the strictly hardware point of view of setting up connections.  I was speaking in terms of the impossibility of connecting (cabling) the sound module's input to the sequencer's two jacks, output and thru, at the same time. (Typical MIDI module: one input, one output, and usually a thru.)

  Are you now agreeing that my guess from nine hours ago was correct (but from a strictly hardware/connector point of view)?

In short, is your point that once there is a single 5-pin DIN MIDI cable sending MIDI data from the output of a PC's MIDI interface, another 5-pin DIN MIDI cable cannot be physically connected from a thru port on the PC's MIDI interface because the sound module only has one MIDI input?

I guess maybe that's what you meant 17 hours ago:  

18 hours ago, bvideo said:

Strictly speaking, if you have your sound module connected to the sequencer's MIDI output, you don't have it connected to its MIDI thru*. Also, the MIDI thru jack is usually not programmable**. There would rarely be way to suppress (mute) the notes going through it***. In those ways it doesn't correspond very well with  Cakewalk's echo input.

Cakewalk's sequencer doesn't require a "thru" concept because it can deliver a single MIDI source to multiple tracks, hence to multiple synths****, without any notion of a daisy chain.

The requirement to mute the recorded data while echoing the input data seems somewhat arcane. Does anybody miss having that feature for audio?

-------------------------

(* If you could do that, imagine the headache of your sequencer sending your synth's output through both the "output" and the "thru" to your sound module.)

(** Sometimes a synth will have only one output, hardware switchable between out and thru.)

(*** Since it was originally meant as a daisy chain, it was not meant to be acted on by the equipment that provides it.)

(**** or even multiple paths to a single synth)

To be clear, muting some previously recorded MIDI tracks going to sound modules while recording new MIDI tracks going those sound modules might not be your personal workflow, but some people might use it.

Edited June 25, 2022 by User 905133
to add a comment re: workflow differences

[user 905133]

This reply was written several hours ago, but not posted because to me it seemed to be quite off topic from the original thread by bringing up issues related to hardware that were far removed from what I thought the original thread was about.

However, I think (not 100% sure) that the meat and potatoes of the 2022 discussion is indeed related to issues raised in the unposted draft.

For that reason, I resurrected the post. 

Quote

bvideo said: The thread probably got revived because I referenced it in a different thread . . . .

Thanks for this missing puzzle piece.  I almost invoked another form member's concept that old threads ought to be locked after a while to prevent new posts. ?   Thanks also for explaining your original thinking.  I got a little lost at "similar to a hardware notes-only sequencer."  All my hardware sequencers handled all MIDI data, not just notes-only.  My headache started to return when I tried to put all the "its" where they belong, but I think I have it:    

Quote

Think of a MIDI track as being similar to a hardware notes-only sequencer. You have a sequencer set up so that your keyboard controller goes to the sequencer's MIDI input jack, with a sound module connected to its the sequencer's MIDI output jack. If you muted the sequencer, the notes programmed into the sequencer would no longer go to the sound module, but the sequencer would still pass MIDI from your controller to the sound module ("Thru"). Any built-in "metering" would likely not register what was coming into it from the controller unless it was in record mode.

This sounds a little like what I faced in the MIDI Dark Ages (before I got a parallel port MIDI interface/router) trying to daisy chain a keyboard synth [controller+synth] --> a drum machine --> a software sequencer --> the same MIDI gear at the beginning of the chain.  I call that a recipe for MIDI disaster.  That's why MIDI routers were created!!!  But I think I get what you were originally trying to say.

Fortunately for me, the hardware sequencer/sound module combo I used during the last decade [Proteus 2500] had a really nice flexible architecture which had an option to merge incoming MIDI data with the outgoing sequencer data out of Port A, Port B, or Both) among other features.  Very handy.  For example, Using Port B [output] MIDI clock and up to 16 tracks could be sent out to some gear that used the clock [B is for Beatz], while up to 16 other tracks that didn't need the MIDI clock could be sent to sound modules via Port A [A is for "All Else].  

For real-time performances, with the hardware sequencer's "in-the-box" MIDI settings I didn't need a computer, a DAW, and an 8 x 8 interface/router. 
 

 

[bvideo]

User 905133,

 I'm very sorry for all the confusion. I meant to say that your rewording ("Your recent take") of my earlier post was right in its overall effect. My quoting of your modified quote of mine lost the color from your post, as well as the notion that I was requoting your modified quote from me. I haven't yet found post numbers to help make references to previous posts more precise. Now the quotes are looking nested, and that's getting confusing too. My original "strictly speaking" post was in response to trying to draw a parallel between Cakewalk's echo input and standalone MIDI module connections. I think that was 12 or 13 posts back*, so a lot of posts have intervened.

As far as the workflow you mentioned in the post 2-back* from here, yes I agree it's convenient to automatically mute previously recorded stuff that we are rerecording. I think Cakewalk might have attempted to cover that with the various modes for recording and take lanes and such, so previous takes are not heard while we are rerecording. Same situation for audio too, I'm guessing. The old old original resurrected post was not about recording.

* my post counting does not take into account what happens when someone posts while I am still typing.

[Starship Krupa]

Shoot, I didn't mean to muddy the waters further, quite the opposite. Ah well.

My analogy helped me to understand it better, but it can only be taken so far, as with most analogies.

Cakewalk sticks pretty close to the MIDI hardware model, but that's never been the easiest thing to get my head around either. Any time I tried to go much past "MIDI out on the controlling device goes to MIDI in on the listening device," things got muddy in a hurry. I figured out the "channel 10 for GM drums" thing, but not all synths stick to that. My favorite workhorse sound module XPand!2 is an example, it listens on channel 1 by default for drums and everything else.

I didn't figure out how to control a multitimbral synth until I got into the virtual realm, despite having multiple hardware synths that supported it.

BTW, I've talked in the past about "sacrificing a chicken to Cakewalk's MIDI chain" when suddenly a MIDI track stops being able to drive a synth track. What I mean by that is performing some voodoo ritual like duplicating the MIDI track and pointing it at the synth, restarting Cakewalk, etc.* I finally figured out that when this happens, setting the output channel on the MIDI track to 1 fixes it in most cases. That's the best chicken sacrifice.

Doesn't answer the question of why it worked fine when it was set to Omni or None, but I don't care. I just want it to work.

*(it comes from the old expression about sacrificing a goat to your SCSI chain when it suddenly stops working because something changed in regard to termination, device ID's, etc. A friend of mine once jokingly "clarified" that the reason that you shouldn't leave a SCSI cable plugged in with no devices attached is because "the Earth's atmosphere has a SCSI ID of 0 and will conflict with your internal hard drive." ?)