Full length track automation

Hi -

I'm trying to arrange a track using only Maschine. I've got my patterns, etc. and have them arranged as I want start to finish, but I want to understand if it is possible to do some automation on the instruments or effects at a track level, rather than at a pattern level?

So for example, maybe I want to increase the cutoff of a filter on a track but not at the 1 bar pattern level, but over the first 32 bars of the track, affecting all patterns on the track? I don't want to have to create a 32 bar pattern, as as well as being a little redundant as the pattern is just repeated 32 times, and if I change it I have to change it 32 times, this also means that all my other patterns will now repeat for 32 bars, when some of them I only want to play in bar 8, 16, 24 and 32, for example (e.g. like a snare fill).

Hopefully I've explained that right - please let me know how you go around doing this.

Cheers,
Greg

 

Hey Greg, I think you have to do it at a pattern level, unless you use Maschine as a VSTI in a daw, and map your automations to macros!

You can duplicate the pattern at least, so that you only have a single 32 bar version of it. Then your other scenes / patterns can go back to the 1 bar level.

I really wish Maschine had a way to capture performances, like Ableton Live does in their arrangement view. Even if Mutes / solos could somehow send MIDI to Cubase, then I could use that to record a performance.

 

Hi Jeffo - thanks for the reply.

Can you explain what you mean around duplicating the pattern a bit more please? If I make the pattern 32 bars in length, then doesn't that mean the scene is now 32 bars, so any other pattern in the scene will now loop to fill 32 bars?

 

Hi Hepto,

I think what Jeffo is saying is if you 'duplicate' your pattern (it's an option in the software and on the hardware, like 'duplicating' a Scene) Maschine copies the info in the pattern but creates a new pattern number for it. So whatever you do to pattern 1 will now no longer affect pattern 2 (duplicate). So you can do automation over several scenes without rewriting what you did to pattern 1 every time.

You are also correct in thinking that this would only work with patterns that fill the Scene completely (otherwise you would rewrite the automation over the smaller looping pattern, if that is what's in focus.

My work around:
1. create a new 32 bar pattern in the group I want to work with
2. copy-paste the pattern info over and over again within the 32 bars
3. automate across 32 bars

Maschine can automate over several scenes (or even the entire song) no problem once you set things up this way.

I hope this helps,
Anton

 

Thanks Anton - I think I understand the options now.

1. split the 32 bar section into smaller parts, where each part contains a duplicate of the base pattern and then a portion of the automation required. Have the same number of scenes as there are parts and simply play them in order. Has the benefit of allowing other tracks to have other patterns at any point in the 32 bars. Has the detriment that aligning the automation between the parts/patterns will be inaccurate and also a real chore! Plus a change in the pattern has to be repeated everywhere.
2. make one long pattern of 32 bars, and then copy the pattern within it, then apply the automation across the whole pattern. Benefit is it is more accurate, detriment is that then other patterns in the scene need to either be 32 bars long as well (although then notes can exist anywhere within), or will repeat for the whole 32 bars. Also a change in the base pattern has to be repeated everywhere.

Honestly, neither seems particularly optimal to me - though I guess I prefer the first!

A real shame as I really like the workflow in every other aspect, but arranging into an actually full song it all seems to fall down! Maybe in 3.0 ...

I will investigate using a DAW to arrange with MASCHINE as a plugin - which I haven't done before as I wonder if it will then mean there are compromises when wanting to perform that song live?

I haven't tried this yet, but my first question now is whether using a DAW you can simply trigger a scene to play, or if it is more that note signals (patterns) held in the DAW are sent to be played. If the former is possible then I wonder if I could use MASCHINE standalone to produce a bunch of scenes, arranged internally in a way that would help live performance, and then separately use a DAW to just trigger them in any order I want, applying FX directly on the sound in the DAW, or sending automation events at the same time.

Cool - new task for the weekend! (Once I've picked a DAW ....)

 

Pretty much looks like this is what will help me -

http://www.native-instruments.com/e...chine-scenes-with-midi-notes-in-ableton-live/

I'm assuming that as well as triggering the scenes, I can at the same time send MIDI automation events, and/or I can apply effects directly in the DAW on the output.

Although I'll probably either use Logic, or maybe even Garageband as I really just want to arrange so not sure I need the distraction/complexity that comes with using Logic.

 

Hi Hepto,

what version of Maschine are you using? The video you shared from the k.b. looks like it's using a version previous to 2.0.

for option '1' the automation would be smooth across all scenes, so no need to worry about aligning.
but you're right in thinking that you could just use Maschine as a VST and automate in the DAW:



all the best!
Anton

 

I'm using 2.0 - the concept is the same but the trigger options are on the top right under the cog now.

TBH - it works as I thought but it's not that great a solution as in the DAW it's not immediately obvious the structure of the song as there are just single triggers at certain places in the time line rather than a visual indication of when the drums come in or the breakdown or something. So, I'll probably just create the patterns in the DAW directly.

I'm sure I've got some more understanding to do of automation in standalone mode so I'll take a look at your video and other bits and pieces.

 

Thanks Anton - that video really helped!

I hadn't appreciated the difference between automation and modulation, so I read up on it and makes more sense now. I now think option 1 above is do-able and at least the least 'bad', especially as for me staying in Maschine is the preferred, and triggering clips in another DAW loses the visual overview of the track.

I'm not sure how good an idea this is, but I also noticed that if you create a group which just has an FX on the first slot, then you can route other groups to it in the mixer. Then in the new effects group you can create a pattern that just contains modulation data, and it will affect all the groups to it. I've used it as I have a bunch of drums on different groups, but this way I can apply a filter to all of them.

You know, I've got a feeling I'm going to become masterful at this and then in 3.0 NI will give us a proper arranger and it will all be moot!

 

Happy to help! hehe...that would be kind of ironic; I guess the knowledge we gain stays ours, so if they do implement a proper arranger (as you say) and it's buggy at first, you'll be one step ahead with workarounds

I like your idea of creating a filter using a pattern with modulation data on the send bus...I never would have thought of that. I use the send bus, but never tried adding a pattern.

It seems you've got a good grasp of what you want to do now. Not sure what controller you're using? If you need to check the manual, you might have a look at:

"Recording and Editing Modulation",
"Recording Modulation",
"Creating and Editing Modulation in the Control Lane", and
"Creating MIDI Tracks from Scratch in MASCHINE" (midi automation)

As you may have noted from the video, you can 'modulate' on the sound or group level (not master).
You can 'automate' on the sound, group, and master level, and according to the manual, the two are not mutually exclusive.

An auto-filter feature could be a plus if they added it to Maschine's effects units...I'm kind of surprised they didn't do that already.

Thanks for clarifying that!

Also, I haven't tried triggering scenes from within the DAW myself yet, so I'll take your word for it that's not visually practical.

That's what I do if I want to bundle groups and their effects. Saves CPU usage, and keeps their sound consistent.

Maschine is so deep; I have much to learn, and most every time I do learn something new it helps me with my productions (where I also have to learn).

All the Best!
Anton

 

Another option - but this is admittedly only useful once the creation within Maschine is effectively complete - is to export all the stems to audio files, import those into separate tracks in a DAW, and then conduct further processing, including automation.

This is admittedly an extra step, but has been part of my workflow for about 4 years and has several benefits:

• This practically forces me to think about music creation only during the actual music creation. Maschine is nice in that various effects can be applied during the creation process, but I purposely try to use these only to better shape my sounds at this point.
  
• A downfall of Maschine (in my opinion) is that it cannot handle both 32-bit and 64-bit VST effects/instruments simultaneously; fortunately, I use Reaper as my DAW, so when working in Reaper, I do not have such a limitation. That enables me to do more processing and sound sculpting in Reaper without needing to worry about using only 32-bit or only 64-bit plug-ins.
  
• Focusing on music creation in Maschine and then doing automation and additional processing on the stems in a DAW also reduces CPU load. That is particularly important for me due to the age of my computer (too old to upgrade its components any further, other than adding new hard drives), plus the fact that some of my VST instruments are CPU hogs.

As they say, your mileage may vary...

 

Interesting...never would have thought of that. Funny too, cause I'm often complaining about Maschine's inability to deal with stems (!). Good example of thinking outside of the box. My only objections to this method are:

a) you can't see the flow of the patterns and scenes to know exactly where you are in the song
b) often times, messing with the sound is part of the creative process for me

Still, it seems to be working well for you and I think I will give it try, as it's one of the best ways to learn).
Thanks!

 

This is a process which evolved for me by necessity, actually - I am very heavily rooted in a notation-based world, and my notation program definitely does not have DAW-esque capabilities beyond the most rudimentary mixer (literally just volume, pan, mute, and solo). At least with Maschine, a fair amount of sound sculpting can be done while creating the music, instead of just getting close and hoping to be able to better shape the sound within the DAW.

As for not being able to see the flow of patterns/scenes, that is not typically an issue (at least for me). By the time I get to working in a DAW, I know basically where every part of a piece is within the waveforms, plus the waveforms themselves form a visual guide. But it is possible in Reaper (and I presume in most DAWs) to go through and place markers with labels to more quickly identify things at a glance.

 

That's exactly what I'm trying to do....Throw a filter or one effect on the master track on any scene...Why is this so hard...