MIDI and recording

Riaan

Please forgive my newbie ignorance! The way I've been trying my hand at composing and recording up to now with limited knowledge and range of equipment (PC, old version of Cakewalk, Roland UA30 soundcard, an old Pioneer hi-fi amp and Infinity speakers) is like this: I would lay down some tracks in Cakewalk by using Cakewalk's on-screen guitar fretboard (more familiar to me than the piano keyboard) to program drums, bass, piano or whatever onto seperate tracks. Lots of copy-and-paste, and finally the guitar part would be recorded as audio into the soundcard in a seperate track on Cakewalk, sometimes right at the end, sometimes after the drums and bass tracks have been completed.

So far so good, a few software effects is added, the volumes of the different tracks is adjusted until it sounds right to me and my masterpiece sounds great when listened to in Cakewalk. Yeah man...fame, fortune and groupies! Not really, no... I have yet to actually complete a single tune, it's all just jingles with lots of bum notes at present... :-[

However, once the whole thing is exported as a .wav file, or mp3, or whatever format, the MIDI parts are gone...just the acoustic tracks remain. So what happened to the MIDI tracks?

I've solved the problem to some extent by changing the way the hi-fi amp and soundcard is connected, by playing back the whole thing in Cakewalk and simultaneously re-recording it on a single track again. This track can then be converted to .wav or whatever. But surely there must be a better way to do this?

I'm hoping to expand my recording gear in the near future...please advise where to start!

ralley

Riaan,
As you've discovered MIDI is not audio data, it is a standard that involves (at it's most simplistic) simply transmitting note on and off events along with extra characteristics such as volume, pitch bends etc. To hear anything with MIDI you need to have a MIDI compatible device attached. This used to mean that you needed a MIDI compatible keyboard or sound module. Now days this is complicated by the fact that almost all PC sound cards are also MIDI compatible, so your program sends MIDI information to the card which in turn produces the actual sound that you can hear.

So in your case rendering your track to an MP3 or whatever is losing the MIDI as there is no actual audio to be rendered.

Depending on your program and soundcard you can do something like playback the MIDI tracks whilst recording the AUDIO output to new tracks. This can be achieved either by looping a cable from your audio out back to an audio in (in which case the track armed for recording will be a composite of all the MIDI tracks playing) or by internally routing the audio back to a record input (which also means it's easier to record multiple MIDI tracks to corresponding audio tracks).

Unfortunately the exact means of doing this are dependant on your exact software and hardware config. Maybe this has given you something to go on with though.

Rob.

Riaan

Thanks Rob, this does clarify a few things for me. I remember reading about MIDI being a set of instructions and not actual audio data, but somehow did not relate this to the mystery of my disappearing MIDI tracks - now it makes sense.

sepheritoh

Riaan

You say you use Cakewalk. Which version?

I use Cakewalk Sonar (version 7PE) and this is how it works with Sonar: I select all tracks (or make sure I have selected no tracks at all) choose file -> export -> Audio from the menu and off Sonar will go to create a wav file of my music.

I used the older versions of Cakewalk (Audio Pro), but that was so long ago since I moved over to Sonar that I can not exactly remember the procedures.

Riaan

Hi Seph
I using Cakewalk Version 9.03, I'm not sure how many versions behind Sonar this is. What I'll need to decide upon for my setup is whether to go the PC/software route, or the hardware route with a standalone digital recorder. In case of the PC route, then whether to go with Sonar or something else.

I've heard it said that Sonar is best if you use a lot of MIDI, and Protools better for audio. Don't know if this is so with the current versions of software though.

AlanRatcliffe

Yeah Riaan. It depends on the version of Sonar/Cakewalk and the synths you are using. You didn't say what the synth was... Are you using a standalone hardware synth, standalone softsynth (not hosted within Cakewalk) or a plug-in softsynth within Cakewalk?

Newer versions of Sonar bounce the plug-in softsynths internally during mixdown/export, but older ones you had to use a standalone synth and record them to separate audio tracks - same with standalone softsynths. If it's a standalone hardware synth, you have to record the audio output as you mentioned and then mix down.

If it's a standalone softsynth, there are various small programs that let you route the output of the synth directly to the input of Cakewalk - completely bypassing your soundcard. I should still have a few of those lurking if you need one.

Hope that's clear - I'm sick and my brain is rather fuzzy.

AlanRatcliffe

Riaan wrote I using Cakewalk Version 9.03, I'm not sure how many versions behind Sonar this is.

IIRC, Twelve Tone Systems Cakewalk reached V10 before the company became Cakewalk, and the program became Sonar. Sonar is now on Version 7, so You're quite far behind.

What I'll need to decide upon for my setup is whether to go the PC/software route, or the hardware route with a standalone digital recorder. In case of the PC route, then whether to go with Sonar or something else.

The nice thing about Cakewalk is that on the surface it's not a big jump from Cakewalk v9 to Sonar v7 - you'll adapt to it very quickly. I went directly from V9 to Sonar 4 with no problems at all.

I've heard it said that Sonar is best if you use a lot of MIDI, and Protools better for audio.

That may be true, but Sonar is still very good for Audio and ProTools still sucks at MIDI - so for me Sonar is a better all rounder. Plus, I can work with Sonar very easily - and ease of use makes a software package ten times more useful for me than another that can do a million more things. I looked into ProTools again recently (I do every few years), but decided to stay with Sonar and upgrade from V6. In truth, all of the major software DAW suites (ProTools, Sonar, Digital Performer, Cubase, Vegas, etc.) are at least "good enough" for 99% of users. One day, when I'm wealthy, I'll get ProTools HD and send myself on a full certified course to fast track learning how to use it.

If you plan on taking your material to a pro studio to mix or track some instruments, ProTools is the only way to go as it is the "Industry Standard". The scaled down versions of ProTools are not as capable as Sonar and Protools locks you into a very expensive upgrade path once you move beyond the M-Audio interface versions. Plugins are much more expensive for ProTools too.

Riaan

What you say makes sense, Alan. Considering that for me this is a hobby, and will never be more than that, ProTools is not really an option. I've seen what ProTools HD systems cost... unreal!

I've been looking at Cakewalk's integrated hardware/software packages recently: the Power Studio 250 and 660 looks impressive, and got good reviews. Their comparison with the MBox 2 is also interesting. It looks like a sensible upgrade for the PC recording route.

AlanRatcliffe

Riaan wrote I've been looking at Cakewalk's integrated hardware/software packages recently: the Power Studio 250 and 660 looks impressive, and got good reviews. Their comparison with the MBox 2 is also interesting. It looks like a sensible upgrade for the PC recording route.

I haven't seen those (I've been kind of focussed on guitars lately for some reason ?). I'll have to take a look. Of course, the major point in the favour of any PC-based recording system is the upgradeability - you can upgrade any one part with little to no hassle and a relatively low cost compared to keeping up with the hardware-only solutions.

Mr-M

Alan Ratcliffe wrote If you plan on taking your material to a pro studio to mix or track some instruments, ProTools is the only way to go as it is the "Industry Standard". The scaled down versions of ProTools are not as capable as Sonar and Protools locks you into a very expensive upgrade path once you move beyond the M-Audio interface versions. Plugins are much more expensive for ProTools too.

Sonar 7 Producer allows you to export tracks in OMF (Open Media Framework - a file format that can be read by many DAW software packages). If you export your song as an OMF, it can be imported by ProTools (LE or HD) without a problem. Regardless of which DAW software you run (Cubase, Logic, Sonar etc.), as long as you have the ability to export your songs as OMF files (which applies to the higher-end versions of most DAW software - Like the full Cubase 4, Sonar Producer 7, Logic 8, Pro Tools LE and up), it can be opened by any other DAW software that is OMF compatible. Do your basic recording at home and take it to the studio to record drums, vocals etc.

Sorry, that is besides the point of what Riaan was asking, but I thought I should point that out.

Riaan, I'd suggest getting something newer that would avoid having to try a bunch of workarounds to do what is actually quite simple in newer recording applications. I personally use Cubase Studio 4, which I think is awesome - more than what you'd need for the average home user. For you, try Cubase Essential 4 (R2000) or Sonar Home Studio (R1300 - R2000 for normal or XL). The entry-level Cubase is a bit more comprehensive in features than Sonar and a bit easier to use IMO, but if you're used to Sonar then go for that.
There's alot out there to choose from besides these two packages (Sequel, FL Studio, Ableton Live, Digital Performer, M-Powered etc.....).
If you have any questions or want suggestions let me know.

AlanRatcliffe

Sonar 7 Producer allows you to export tracks in OMF

True, but OMF is not all it's cracked up to be. It does simplify the process somewhat, but it deals only with audio tracks - no MIDI, soft synths or plug-ins.

So you need to print any plug-ins and render the tracks as audio files, which means that printed effects cannot be changed later in the mixing process, which in reality limits you to exporting the tracks without effects and do all of your processing on the second DAW. No swapping back and forth.

You also have to render any soft synth tracks to hard disk audio files. Or export your MIDI tracks as Standard MIDI Files and import them separately, then use the same synth (if it's available - how many DXi synths are also ported for ProTools?) with the same settings (which involves copious note-taking) on the second DAW. Then any changes you make to the synth will have to be carried back to your DAW in the same fashion.

I've tried various versions of Cubase SX a few times (I still use Cubase32 to open and export my VST Drum Sessions disks as .wav files) but, as a long-time Cakewalk and Sonar user, find it very difficult to use, if not downright clunky and counter-intuitive. Most folk I know have bought into the Cubase thing and can work with it fairly efficiently, but it's not for me.

Mr-M

Alan Ratcliffe wrote True, but OMF is not all it's cracked up to be. It does simplify the process somewhat, but it deals only with audio tracks - no MIDI, soft synths or plug-ins.

Yeah, it does make it easier with audio specifically, but it has its downsides like you say.

I've tried various versions of Cubase SX a few times (I still use Cubase32 to open and export my VST Drum Sessions disks as .wav files) but, as a long-time Cakewalk and Sonar user, find it very difficult to use, if not downright clunky and counter-intuitive. Most folk I know have bought into the Cubase thing and can work with it fairly efficiently, but it's not for me.

From SX3 and especially the latest version 4, it's very intuitive to use. But each one to their own, especially if you're used to something else. I find Sonar clunky, but that's cos I'm used to Cubase and Nuendo.

Riaan

Thanks guys for all the input - if you don't mind I will ask some more silly questions periodically as I go along equipping my little studio/retreat/place-to-hide-from-the-world at home. Progress is slow at the moment as I'm doing the finishing touches, painting, some carpentry and so on by myself, mostly over weekends. Hopefully I'll be ready to move my stuff in there within the next two weeks or so, and after that I'll begin to get some kit together. Obviously, the whole thing is a long term project that will grow as I learn and develop.

The thing is... I have this habit of often wanting to play guitar or listen to music, or both simultaneously, at strange hours of the day. Two or four in the morning is not uncommon... My wife was OK with it for the first few years, but now we have a three year old and a five month old baby, and for some strange reason it's no longer OK ??? So completion of my room is high priority!

PS Norio: take note buddy. Start saving! ;D

AlanRatcliffe

Riaan wrote The thing is... I have this habit of often wanting to play guitar or listen to music, or both simultaneously, at strange hours of the day. Two or four in the morning is not uncommon...

Sounds strangely familiar ?

My wife was OK with it for the first few years, but now we have a three year old and a five month old baby, and for some strange reason it's no longer OK

Small kids vs. large amplifiers. No contest.

NorioDS

Riaan wrotePS Norio: take note buddy. Start saving! ;D

[me=Norio]takes notes feverishly. [/me]

Oh boy, sounds like fun ?