Articulations: MIDI channels versus keyswitches

CC or program changes

Keyswitches are great live but I find them somewhat annoying to use in a DAW. The problem is that most (all?) DAWs don't track keyswitches, so if you start playback from a point in your sequence other than the start it may not be playing the correct articulation.

Most (all?) DAWs track CC and program changes so using these it doesn't matter where you start playback from.

Channels are good too but not all plugins support articulation switching via channels and you'll be limited to 16 articulations.

If you have 16 channels for 16 articulations doesn't that use more RAM? I.e. 16 times more RAM?

Also, I am using Reaper. I assume it is not possible to utilize the channels method without some kind of articulations management program like rearticulate.

Also, how are program changes triggered in a MIDI track, what controller do you use to switch the articulation?

d.healey said:

Keyswitches are great live but I find them somewhat annoying to use in a DAW. The problem is that most (all?) DAWs don't track keyswitches, so if you start playback from a point in your sequence other than the start it may not be playing the correct articulation.

Click to expand...

All major DAW can chase notes. Cubase, Nuendo and Logic have a dedicated articulation management which allows you to assign a articulation per note. In other words, you can create chords which consist of different articulations. Of course I’m biased but to me it looks like more and more composers are switching from channel/pc based methods to articulation management approaches.
If you have to decide in between PCs and Channels, note that with channels you have to take care of many controller lanes which usually is confusing and time consuming.

PuerAzaelis said:

If you have 16 channels for 16 articulations doesn't that use more RAM? I.e. 16 times more RAM?

Click to expand...

Not unless you're loading 16 instances of the same plugin with all the same stuff loaded in each instance.

Program changes aren't a controller, they are.. program changes - http://midi.teragonaudio.com/tech/midispec/pgm.htm

ty

Wisest: either get StaffPad or Infinite Brass and forget about keyswitching forever
Wise: Only buy Spitfire and stick with UACC to make life easy.
Maybe: only use samplers that auto-map via VST and use Studio One or Cubase
Survival: stick to key switches exclusively as software designs support it vastly more

Or don't map articulations at all. Use hundreds to thousands of tracks instead.

You may switch DAWs/samplers at some point, so KS > MIDI Ch for that alone. It's less hassle. I once wrote a script to emulate mute types for brass, plus con sord, sul tasto, etc. This way I had 16 KS for my entire template, but used CC to qualify the sounds. VSL's sampler can do this. David Healey has a brilliant looking VST plugin like my script. I haven't tried it, but I was happy to see someone with a similar idea. Samples can extend more than most realize. Anyway... I suggest sticking to key switches and instead encouraging developers to make their instruments smarter and more keyswitch free. Infinite Brass and Spitfire's solo violin legato demo are great examples of how much more automatic techniques can be.

I tried to keep this short so it wouldn't be like drinking from a fire hose. Just save yourself now and choose either a map-free option or keyswitches.

lol ty

babylonwaves said:

All major DAW can chase notes. Cubase, Nuendo and Logic have a dedicated articulation management which allows you to assign a articulation per note. In other words, you can create chords which consist of different articulations. Of course I’m biased but to me it looks like more and more composers are switching from channel/pc based methods to articulation management approaches.
If you have to decide in between PCs and Channels, note that with channels you have to take care of many controller lanes which usually is confusing and time consuming.

Click to expand...

I have things set up this way and use Logic and articulation sets (indeed mostly the Babylon Waves sets), as well as SF UACC KS when it’s available. While I like it I don’t find that I can reliably trigger two different articulations at the same time with it, whether on the same note or different notes. I’ve not been able to figure out if I’m doing something wrong or the protocol isn’t working right. But if I want to layer or mix multiple articulations in this fashion and be sure it executes I have to create a second track.

I can’t even imagine working with a track per articulation, though I know many do. I’ve tried it on numerous occasions and hated that workflow. Keyswitches have worked better but they are a pain to manage. Articulation sets aren’t perfect but if you come up with a basic map for them and are reasonably consistent with that they save lots of time.

I’m finding that Keyswitches are still pretty manageable. All you need to do is turn on the option to chase midi and it’s rarely a problem if you playback in the middle of the track. For my use I carry over the Keyswitch notes to a duplicate midi track for the instrument. So I would have two midi tracks, one for the instrumentation and one for the keyswitches both sharing the same midi channel. That way the Keyswitches always stay in place and don’t clutter up the notes.

jbuhler said:

While I like it I don’t find that I can reliably trigger two different articulations at the same time with it, whether on the same note or different notes

Click to expand...

I really depends on how graceful the instrument in question deals with all this. The articulation management is designed to allow articulations on a per note level.

Exactly. If you use Articulation IDs in Logic you ALWAYS get the right articulation for the note, no chasing involved.

Starting out, you might just want to go with keyswitches. For me, they are easiest and quickest to get your head around. You can explore other options later.

Disclaimer: I don't do a lot of huge string arrangements, so maybe I'd have a viewpoint if I did. My stuff if more pop/folk/corporate.

Ashermusic said:

Exactly. If you use Articulation IDs in Logic you ALWAYS get the right articulation for the note, no chasing involved.

Click to expand...

And you can simultaneously set correct CC7 levels—or really, pretty much anything else—per articulation, too.

Some DAW users prefer to have everything on one track, as it makes it easier to orchestrate the score later; whereas others are happy to go with one articulation per track. I find there is no one right or wrong way, it all depends on who you collaborate with too (as they have different preferences) and the type of project you are working on.

Keeping track of your lines and phrasing can become unwieldy after a while on using lots of tracks for one instrument; so I personally prefer the one track per instrument part approach or combine several on one track for divisi if the parts use similar articulations/techniques.

Several sample libraries give you the best of all worlds, for instance Cinesamples offerings often allow for you to specify which notes to use as keyswitches and you can even use velocity mapping instead with a peddle for sustained parts. Many of Spitfires libraries use UACC, whereas others predominantly use keyswitches (mapped to specific keys), but now the trend seems to be moving away from keyswitching althogether relying more on how you play the notes in and the use of track/note automation for expressivity.

So fundamentally for us there is plenty of choice available.

I use both, thanks to flexrouter.

I uses keyswitches to change channel 1 to other channels - but I also have the flexibility of manually changing midi channels of ccs/notes allowing the stacking of articulations and flexibility to program articulations in whatever way is easier for the phrase

I was keyswitches....but went individual tracks. Much prefer it

best

e

I was recently speaking to someone from Remote Control Productions, who was/is in part responsible for Hanses setup. He told me something about them using Program-Changes only. Would be nice to know how they're doing it? But maybe they'd even use their own sampler, giving them huge flexibility?

It would be very kind, if someone from BF, Remote Control or even @Rctec himself would be so nice as to give some insights? Of course not forcing anyone to give away information he/she doesn't want to give, just trying to ask very nicely

Leo Brennauer said:

I was recently speaking to someone from Remote Control Productions, who was/is in part responsible for Hanses setup. He told me something about them using Program-Changes only. Would be nice to know how they're doing it? But maybe they'd even use their own sampler, giving them huge flexibility?

It would be very kind, if someone from BF, Remote Control or even @Rctec himself would be so nice as to give some insights? Of course not forcing anyone to give away information he/she doesn't want to give, just trying to ask very nicely

Click to expand...

My guess is, their database of samples and articulations are so huge that keyswitches are not very practical anymore. In Cubase you can set up expression maps with program changes quite easily yourself in case you want to try it. Everything could then be programmed so you can switch articulations with a touchscreen or drawing the program changes in.