MIDI or straight audio?

[asharkis]

I've been dabbling with midi for about seven years, but never really recorded audio, and I'd like to start now. I've been playing accordion for about four years (for the second time in my life) and my main instrument is a SEM Ciao reedless accordion. If I use the midi output of the accordion, the number of volume change messages is astronomical. Every slightest change in bellows pressure generates such a message. I can filter out those messages, but then the midi tracks will not reflect the dynamics in my playing at all. Once the tracks are recorded, I have several options regarding conversion to audio. I can use my Ketron SD-2 module, which has some really nice accordion sounds, or I can use any number of virtual instruments, or soundfonts, etc.

On the other hand, I can record straight audio, with the dynamics included, and all of the nice instrumental sounds (399 of them, each assignable to treble, bass or chords) right out of the left and right outputs of the accordion. (Well, to be totally truthful, out of a box that connects to the accordion and provides both power and sound generation.)

Now, I'm not the greatest player in the world. I do flub fairly often. For that reason, I'm tempted to work in midi. But, for all the inconveniences that those volume messages create, I'm thinking that audio, flubs and all, would be the way to go.

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Alan

 

[acidrock]

What are you recording your MIDI into?
Any software that is decent with handling MIDI should give you a variety of options for solving your problems.

 

[dintymoore]

They both have their own thing. If you record audio you can record it through a cool amp, like a Fender tube amp and use a nice mic, so that gives you a sound. Mind you, you could record MIDI and then play it through an amp and that would be similar.

I like to record MIDI, and it seems I'm not common in wanted to keep it MIDI right to mixdown - I never record my MIDI stuff. To me, MIDI doesn't suck, I have a different view of it than anyone I know. I think MIDI has sucked, but it doesn't have to.

I started recording MIDI in 1983 with a Commodore 64. You know how you computer's speed is something like 1.5 MHz, let's say. That's 1,500 compared to the Commodore 64 's speed of 1. Next, in 1989, I went to an Atari, and the speed is 8. I use an antiquated computer now that I was given and the speed is 1000 (dual).

You know even on the Commodore 64 and the Atari there were little or no problems with having tons of MIDI data like you describe. It's nothing to a computer. On Cubase I can have it not displayed so you never see it.

So at least on Cubase, the MIDI control changes would create no issues, you can hide them, even record them on a separate track you never look at. So it's a 100% non-issue.

So my advice is to record MIDI as that is real, recording it is a representation of the real thing. MIDI always has, and does sound better, clearer and more pure than digital recording, which I have yet to like.

These are just my unpopular opinions!

One guy out of 6.8 billion (who also happens to have an accordion!)

 

[mshilarious]

Very good about old slow computers, but modern computers clock in the gHz!

In ye olden times the speed of the MIDI bus itself would create an upper limit on throughput. With USB, not so much.

 

[dintymoore]

Very good about old slow computers, but modern computers clock in the gHz!

In ye olden times the speed of the MIDI bus itself would create an upper limit on throughput. With USB, not so much.

Yep, and even back then MIDI was nothing for a computer to handle. MIDI doesn't take much memory. To give you an idea, I have a folder with all the songs I do at gigs in it. I have 325 songs I sequenced and the lyrics in .TXT files in that folder and it's 28.4 MB, that's about 1/2 of one audio song in AIF or WAV format. And that's with all the lyrics/music.

There is a difference in the recording asharkis talked about though: If I record a synth solo and I want it through a blown tube amp, I'll usually record it live. That way, as the sound changes, I can be in tune with it and I play differently and to me better than if I record it via MIDI and then play it through the amp and record it. So if the amp is a part of the sound, of course record it in audio format.

 

[asharkis]

Thanks, guys!

I think Dinty Moore's points about midi were well-taken. I can record midi into any number of sequencers, most of which will also render to audio. Midi is indeed nothing to a computer. I used an Atari 8-bit back in the day and got perfectly good (for those times) midi running with no problems.

But I do also want to get into audio. I have a new computer that I'm using for Internet, office-type stuff, etc. My old one (five years old) will have to be optimized to record audio and that will take some time and possibly some expenditures. Basically, I have to strip it down, transfer lots of files and apps to my new one, kill lots of startup stuff, get rid of a SoundBlaster Audigy 2 Zs Platinum Pro and an ATI All-In-Wonder card and make the onboard facilities on my motherboard take over those functions even though they've never been used before. I might also add some RAM. Wish me luck, and please note that I will be out of sight here for a couple of weeks while this is all happening!

Take care.

Alan

 

[asharkis]

Accordion

Dinty, what kind of accordion do you have, and do you actually play it?