OS_CE › Forums › Octopus › User exchange › How are you working?
- This topic has 37 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by gseher.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 4, 2008 at 17:36 #765Gene SchwartzParticipant
Hi everybody.
I am seriously curious about how you all work with the Octopus and a computer?
The latest stuff I’ve made is totally made on the O – and that’s all cool. But the transition to my laptop is slightly problematic. The MIDI gets there all right, but if anyone here are using multiple software plugs I’d be happy to hear from you. How are you recording the outcoming MIDI data? Before I turn all MIDI into audio I’d like to have all recorded on different MIDI track in my sequencer (Cubase).
Just to clarify. The MIDI gets there all right. No problem. But if I have lots of tracks in my O all gets recorded on one track – which means I have to filter out all channels manually = boring as hell.
So – I am really really curious on how you all are working with the O.
Cheers,
Carl.
May 4, 2008 at 17:47 #1462Adam WilsonParticipantHi Carl, this is more of a Cubase question I think. The answer is multi-track record, a feature available on all the major DAWs. I’m not a Cubase user, but I’m sure it’s there as well. The trick is to record-enabled multiple midi tracks in Cubase, each assigned a different MIDI channel. The incoming MIDI data generated by Octopus will then be split automatically over the different MIDI tracks in Cubase, sorted by MIDI channel. Check the help files in Cubase and look for things like ‘multi’ and ‘record’.
Cheers,
RobertMay 4, 2008 at 18:24 #1464gseherKeymasterHello Carl,
Robert is right in that it is a matter of setting up Cubase. I have actually had a discussion recently with another Octopus user, who was so kind to share his solution to the problem. I am no Cubase user either, but I do hope this is helpful for you as well.Quote:Hello Gabriel.A member on the Cubase forum was kind to give me a couple solutions. I send you his answer if there is someone else with a similar problem.
Here’s the soultion to my problem:
"If you just want to record what is coming from the hardware sequencer, then just record it onto one track, select the MIDI part on that track, and from the MIDI menu, select "Dissolve part" … when the dialog appears, choose "Separate channels". You’ll end up then with the original track (which you can mute) and a new track for each channel present in the original. Each of these tracks can now be routed to its own VSTi.
If you want to play things in realtime, or if this is a transfer you will need to do on a regular basis, then a better approach would be to set up a template project with 16 MIDI channels and use the Input Transformer to allow only MIDI channel 1 on track 1, channel 2 on track 2, etc. Then record in the normal fashion and you will find that the MIDI data from each channel will get recorded on the track of the equivalent number. Each recorded track can be set up to play its own VSTi, which is an advantage over the first method, because now you can play the sequencer in realtime and hear (audition) the sounds in Cubase.
The Input Transformer is described fully on page 377 of the Operation Manual.
Ideally you should also set the sequencer’s synchronisation to slave to Cubase, and set your project to the same key signature as the song in the hardware sequencer."
May 5, 2008 at 12:09 #1465gseherKeymasterI have set up a couple of templates in Sonar.
One acts as a 16 tracks to 16 channel (acts as a midi router as well), with an additional track to route the keyboard back into the Octopus. The 16 tracks take inputs only from the port for the Octopus, then the channels are remapped to different synths on different ports.
When the sequencer is not running I use MIDI-OX for routing with the same channel assignments.
The other is similar, it just opens up with the favorite set of plugins, and effects buses, I have et the plugin tracks to receive only on a specific channel (from any port, so that I can switch between controllers).
I usually start with the second template and if needed I copy in the 16 tracks from the first template (in fact now that I think of it I could set them up as template tracks).
For dumping I’d say that using a single track and the "Dissolve part" trick is pretty good. But it’s applicability depends on how many midi ports you are using (and the midi routing needs you may have).
May 11, 2008 at 22:34 #1466Gene SchwartzParticipantThanks for the good advice! It works like a charm now
Although my initial question was regarding Cubase – it still interesting to hear how you all work with the Octopus. I found out that working with a mini-host, is not bad at all – and can almost replace a software sequencer.
May 12, 2008 at 05:04 #1568gseherKeymasterActually I have several ways I like to work, depending on the situation. But I always try to keep it at a minimum.
The more hands-on setup is to have a Virus TI and an Elektron Machinedrum hooked up to Octopus. Often I also have a Roland HPD-10 pad involved that I use to record material MPC style using Octopus as the sequencer of course. The output is then recorded on separate tracks in Ableton Live. Or even the sum sometimes..
The other way is to use Live alone as a host for a few instances of Reaktor that are triggered from Octopus.
For development and testing purposes I connect the Virus TI (polar) to Octopus, which is nice because it has everything I need on board, including a keyboard. This role used to be owned by my NordLead1 which is on the bench right now, with others. Switching gear is like a breeze of fresh air.
Gabriel
May 12, 2008 at 06:08 #1569Adam WilsonParticipantMy live set will be the Octo, MPC4k and G2x, where the Octo will drive parts from both the G2x (obviously) and the MPC. Imagine the fun of a sequencer based patch on the G2x, driven by Octo…
For the studio both the Octo and MPC will have access to the rest of the gear, squeezed into 32 midi channels. I’m working on that right now.
May 12, 2008 at 13:44 #1463gseherKeymasterBig ol’ mix n’ match running with everything.
There’s the dual midi outputs of the Octopus, the MPC1000, the Machinedrum all running into some Kawai midi routers. They have sliders to manually switch what is running to what.
When I record midi from the Octopus, I’m running into Ableton Live, or I’ll run it into the MPC1000 to capture it to tracks in that box for further funking around with.
Like Gabriel had mentioned in his workflow, sometimes it’s individual tracks, sometimes full summed chunks. Lots of audio from the outboard gear being recorded that way as well. Some of my most enjoyable and weird soundstuff and funk comes from just recording stereo wav files while the machines are running and I can jam on the Octopus.
Then I cut it up like an old tape reel.
Post edited by: tonewrecker, at: 2008/05/12 15:46
Post edited by: tonewrecker, at: 2008/05/12 15:47
May 12, 2008 at 19:59 #1570MikeParticipantI do something similar to most.
I have a Yamaha AW4416 feeding clock to the Octopus, which has a controller merged on one input.
Then I have one Octo output dedicated to an RS7000, and the other feeding the rest of the studio, MachineDrum, monomachine, etc, etc.
I build all songs on the Octo (still wishing for arbitrary clustering!). So there isn’t a computer involved! Most of the time I have sub sequences running on the Elektron boxes because of the parameter locks they can do.
I have a MIDI switchbox to change the routing of the controller because I don’t need it inputting to the Octo all the time (MIDI echo would take care of this!).
cheers
ripeMay 16, 2008 at 09:11 #1571gseherKeymasterHi, I have splitup my setup in a pure Hardware based one and a Software based one. This reduces complexity and Latency. Hardware Setup: The Octopus as "the Master" controlles & triggers the Virus TI Polar in Multimode, the Monomachine, a Spectralis and a Microwave I. All connected to a Macki Pult. I record the sum output in a ZOOM H2 portable Audio recorder and rework (mastern) it later on my MACBOOOK Pro. Alternativ I record it direct in Live.
Software Setup: I use Logic Pro and Live with Plugins and Kore 2, MS 20 Controller. (The Macbook Pro has only 2 USB Ports :evil:)
Sometims in the Hardware setup I use the Macbook with Live as a Slave of Octopus.
I think with a pure HW Setup you can do most what you want. Hybrid makes it more complex.
May 17, 2008 at 07:12 #1595Adam WilsonParticipantI gotta know guys, why is the Virus Ti so popular?
I tried a Virus A and later on a C model in the shop and wasn’t impressed. When I switched off the fx and omnipresent filter sweep, what’s left was a thin, dead tone. I listened to tons of Virus mp3s on the net, inlcuding the new Ti ones, and still haven’t caught the virus. What’s its secret?
May 17, 2008 at 07:21 #1612gseherKeymasterActually I use the Virus TI (Polar) with the master effects switch turned off.
To me it’s mainly two things: the interface is one of the more immediate sort, and it is 16 part multi-timbral, which fits nicely my way of working.
Compared to my NordLead 1 I find the sound somewhat more direct and snappy. But I have to admit that I have never engaged them in a 1-1 comparison. It is just pure perception.
Bottom line – why do I have it? I guess it’s the chemistry.May 17, 2008 at 15:31 #1613MikeParticipantI just picked one up before the US price increase, so I am still learning the ins and outs. So far I am really impressed by it, even with the effects turned off.
See my other post in the General section for a TI sample I just made.
I like the flexibility, the multitimbrality, and it has the new atomizer mode, which I have to try out some more. I like it better than the Nord G2 so far, the nord always gives me the impression of what it would sound like if you tried to make a synthesizer with lab equipment or Matlab, lol
cheers
ripeMay 18, 2008 at 07:26 #1615Adam WilsonParticipantgseher wrote:
Quote:Actually I use the Virus TI (Polar) with the master effects switch turned off.
To me it’s mainly two things: the interface is one of the more immediate sort, and it is 16 part multi-timbral, which fits nicely my way of working.
Compared to my NordLead 1 I find the sound somewhat more direct and snappy. But I have to admit that I have never engaged them in a 1-1 comparison. It is just pure perception.
Bottom line – why do I have it? I guess it’s the chemistry.Gabriel, why did you switch off the master effects? Are they rubbish?
So it’s mostly the UI that did it for you. I have to admit that a 16-part synth with built-in fx and a good UI is rather tempting.May 18, 2008 at 07:37 #1620Adam WilsonParticipantripe wrote:
Quote:I just picked one up before the US price increase, so I am still learning the ins and outs. So far I am really impressed by it, even with the effects turned off.See my other post in the General section for a TI sample I just made.
I like the flexibility, the multitimbrality, and it has the new atomizer mode, which I have to try out some more. I like it better than the Nord G2 so far, the nord always gives me the impression of what it would sound like if you tried to make a synthesizer with lab equipment or Matlab, lol
I just listned to your post in the General section. Love the second part of the composition. But soundwise, I again have the same reaction. Somehow I percieve the Virus sound as ‘airy’, ‘loose’, ‘no boody’. It’s something in the overtones that disturbs me, and that is exactly why I don’t get it popularity.
Anyway, point taken on the G2 sound, but I like the Clavia character, especially the NL1, NL2 and NordMod1 series which are a little more rough and dirty than the NL3 and G2. Howver, a lot of good contributions have been made in the meanwhile, and the G2 *can* sound better now. It just takes more work.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.