Re: Software instruments and precise editing
Hey Scot, Wise words indeed. And, believe it or not, despite the fact that I recently took the pain of a jaws upgrade, I forgot how delightfully free voice over is! In the mean time I must really get into using hot spot clicker, as long term I'd like to have a windows and apple setup. Are there good resources on how to use it or on sharing solutions amung a user base for it with regard to audio aps specifically? I'm hoping to make at least some parts of my RME total mix software accessible which may be a long shot but heres to hoping! Of course that's horribly off topic. Brian. -- From: Scott Chesworth scottcheswo...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 3:39 AM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing Hi Brian, I don't think anybody is saying Apple are passing the buck here. There approach is undoubtedly the way things would work in an ideal world, and over time here's hoping we can move toward that. It would be perfectly possible for them to implement functionality to create bolt-on accessibility in the meantime without spawning a setup similar to Sonar though. Consider that the more powerful HSC sets and JAWS scripts are often both tied to a JAWS license, whereas with VO, there's nothing to tie it too because the screen reader with the proposed hotspot functionality built in is free for the taking. Down the line, even if someone with the required skills did come up with a way of protecting his work, I wouldn't begrudge dropping a few quid his way to make sure he's earning, just like I would be from using the plugin he's just enabled me to access. My point is that for as long as VO itself remains free, we'd be saving a grand upfront and be less restricted by the pain of reactivating when we want to work on new hardware etc. The accessibility business model won't be as flawed as it is in Windows, because Apple aren't sitting there at the first stop on the road to success making you turn out your pockets before you can pass go. I don't think you or I or Slau disagree, I just don't share Slau's zen-like patience. Wish I did :) Scott On 6/29/11, Brian Casey brian_w_ca...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi all, I'm just entering this discussion, as I'm wondering, would the situation David describes here just lead us back to the same situation as with sonar currently. The appeal of the apple route is that things are standardised and there is a cohesive approach to accessability, so that things shouldn't have to be made accessible, things will just be accessible as standard. Now, maybe this isn't realistic, but it is a nice theory, even if it may seem like apple are passing the book on to developers. My one fear here is that developers won't bother trying to implement accessability at all like has happened in protools if there is substancial gains easily made, without any effort from t hem with a hot spot clicker type function. I'd imagine such a situation would also lead to professional scripting packages being made available, so that instead of buying your friend drinks for a night you would give that recreational income to some adaptive technology specialist or other. So it kind of boils down to a question, will the migght of apple get us a fair bit of universal accessability over time with developers following their guide lines, or are they simply passing the responsibility, and we will never gain full accessability or anything close unless we have some facility to find buttons and label areas of the screne. The scripting/hot spot clicker route is available on sonar, so maybe we'll just wait and see how the alternative route works out on the apple platform for the time being. Logic accessibility would also cerainly open things up were apple to push it through. I'm sure Slau and others on the list would have a much better grasp of these things than I, as I only really have experience of using scripts with sonar, and am only now thinking about trying hot spot clicker with certain applications with sighted assistance. I have used protools since the gains with accessability, but despite realizing its potential, I'm all about pushing to have options. Just food for thought, Regards, Brian. -- From: David Eagle onlineea...@googlemail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:52 PM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing Yes, I was planning on saying something similar. What we really need is a way of creating accessibility for ourselves, rather than having to rely on the manufacturers of every plugin, programme or website we use adapting to suit my needs. Obviously I appreciate that Apple have made implementations that allow programmers to easily make things accessible for blind users, but there's still a long way to go before the programmers completely catch on to the idea, especially since it affects
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
Hi there: Well, as I've said before, any added functionality to VO would not involve an off screen model, which would mean that it would be difficult for a visuallly impaired programmer to access what is going on in parts of a program/plug-in that are not currently accessible to VO. I'm not familiar with the under-the-hood aspects of the mac os, but I’m pretty sure that they don't use the sort of markers we're used to in windows, e.g. control ids, classes, etc. If the next version of VO provides us with a bit more flexibilty to route the mouse cursor to areas of the screen outside of the recognized items, that may help some. Gord -Original Message- From: Scott Chesworth Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:39 PM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing Hi Brian, I don't think anybody is saying Apple are passing the buck here. There approach is undoubtedly the way things would work in an ideal world, and over time here's hoping we can move toward that. It would be perfectly possible for them to implement functionality to create bolt-on accessibility in the meantime without spawning a setup similar to Sonar though. Consider that the more powerful HSC sets and JAWS scripts are often both tied to a JAWS license, whereas with VO, there's nothing to tie it too because the screen reader with the proposed hotspot functionality built in is free for the taking. Down the line, even if someone with the required skills did come up with a way of protecting his work, I wouldn't begrudge dropping a few quid his way to make sure he's earning, just like I would be from using the plugin he's just enabled me to access. My point is that for as long as VO itself remains free, we'd be saving a grand upfront and be less restricted by the pain of reactivating when we want to work on new hardware etc. The accessibility business model won't be as flawed as it is in Windows, because Apple aren't sitting there at the first stop on the road to success making you turn out your pockets before you can pass go. I don't think you or I or Slau disagree, I just don't share Slau's zen-like patience. Wish I did :) Scott On 6/29/11, Brian Casey brian_w_ca...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi all, I'm just entering this discussion, as I'm wondering, would the situation David describes here just lead us back to the same situation as with sonar currently. The appeal of the apple route is that things are standardised and there is a cohesive approach to accessability, so that things shouldn't have to be made accessible, things will just be accessible as standard. Now, maybe this isn't realistic, but it is a nice theory, even if it may seem like apple are passing the book on to developers. My one fear here is that developers won't bother trying to implement accessability at all like has happened in protools if there is substancial gains easily made, without any effort from t hem with a hot spot clicker type function. I'd imagine such a situation would also lead to professional scripting packages being made available, so that instead of buying your friend drinks for a night you would give that recreational income to some adaptive technology specialist or other. So it kind of boils down to a question, will the migght of apple get us a fair bit of universal accessability over time with developers following their guide lines, or are they simply passing the responsibility, and we will never gain full accessability or anything close unless we have some facility to find buttons and label areas of the screne. The scripting/hot spot clicker route is available on sonar, so maybe we'll just wait and see how the alternative route works out on the apple platform for the time being. Logic accessibility would also cerainly open things up were apple to push it through. I'm sure Slau and others on the list would have a much better grasp of these things than I, as I only really have experience of using scripts with sonar, and am only now thinking about trying hot spot clicker with certain applications with sighted assistance. I have used protools since the gains with accessability, but despite realizing its potential, I'm all about pushing to have options. Just food for thought, Regards, Brian. -- From: David Eagle onlineea...@googlemail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:52 PM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing Yes, I was planning on saying something similar. What we really need is a way of creating accessibility for ourselves, rather than having to rely on the manufacturers of every plugin, programme or website we use adapting to suit my needs. Obviously I appreciate that Apple have made implementations that allow programmers to easily make things accessible for blind users, but there's still a long way to go before the programmers completely catch on to the idea, especially since it affects
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
Hi Gordon, Yup, Apple adding some form of co-ordinate based system or just beefing up the existing hotspot functionality isn't likely to turn the heads of VI scripters who are already taking advantage of all the tricks an OSM affords them themselves. I'm thinking of it more as a dirty quick fix for people who don't have scripting knowledge to make a keystroke that'll click that one pesky load button here or drop focus into an otherwise unreachable window there. One more handy VO feature, that's all. Scott On 6/30/11, Gordon Kent dbmu...@cybernex.net wrote: Hi there: Well, as I've said before, any added functionality to VO would not involve an off screen model, which would mean that it would be difficult for a visuallly impaired programmer to access what is going on in parts of a program/plug-in that are not currently accessible to VO. I'm not familiar with the under-the-hood aspects of the mac os, but I’m pretty sure that they don't use the sort of markers we're used to in windows, e.g. control ids, classes, etc. If the next version of VO provides us with a bit more flexibilty to route the mouse cursor to areas of the screen outside of the recognized items, that may help some. Gord -Original Message- From: Scott Chesworth Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:39 PM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing Hi Brian, I don't think anybody is saying Apple are passing the buck here. There approach is undoubtedly the way things would work in an ideal world, and over time here's hoping we can move toward that. It would be perfectly possible for them to implement functionality to create bolt-on accessibility in the meantime without spawning a setup similar to Sonar though. Consider that the more powerful HSC sets and JAWS scripts are often both tied to a JAWS license, whereas with VO, there's nothing to tie it too because the screen reader with the proposed hotspot functionality built in is free for the taking. Down the line, even if someone with the required skills did come up with a way of protecting his work, I wouldn't begrudge dropping a few quid his way to make sure he's earning, just like I would be from using the plugin he's just enabled me to access. My point is that for as long as VO itself remains free, we'd be saving a grand upfront and be less restricted by the pain of reactivating when we want to work on new hardware etc. The accessibility business model won't be as flawed as it is in Windows, because Apple aren't sitting there at the first stop on the road to success making you turn out your pockets before you can pass go. I don't think you or I or Slau disagree, I just don't share Slau's zen-like patience. Wish I did :) Scott On 6/29/11, Brian Casey brian_w_ca...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi all, I'm just entering this discussion, as I'm wondering, would the situation David describes here just lead us back to the same situation as with sonar currently. The appeal of the apple route is that things are standardised and there is a cohesive approach to accessability, so that things shouldn't have to be made accessible, things will just be accessible as standard. Now, maybe this isn't realistic, but it is a nice theory, even if it may seem like apple are passing the book on to developers. My one fear here is that developers won't bother trying to implement accessability at all like has happened in protools if there is substancial gains easily made, without any effort from t hem with a hot spot clicker type function. I'd imagine such a situation would also lead to professional scripting packages being made available, so that instead of buying your friend drinks for a night you would give that recreational income to some adaptive technology specialist or other. So it kind of boils down to a question, will the migght of apple get us a fair bit of universal accessability over time with developers following their guide lines, or are they simply passing the responsibility, and we will never gain full accessability or anything close unless we have some facility to find buttons and label areas of the screne. The scripting/hot spot clicker route is available on sonar, so maybe we'll just wait and see how the alternative route works out on the apple platform for the time being. Logic accessibility would also cerainly open things up were apple to push it through. I'm sure Slau and others on the list would have a much better grasp of these things than I, as I only really have experience of using scripts with sonar, and am only now thinking about trying hot spot clicker with certain applications with sighted assistance. I have used protools since the gains with accessability, but despite realizing its potential, I'm all about pushing to have options. Just food for thought, Regards, Brian. -- From: David Eagle onlineea
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
Hey Brian, So far as I know, there isn't really much in the way of HSC resources specific to audio. I found that the accompanying documentation was easy to digest and got me up and running pretty quickly though, so start there. Scott On 6/30/11, Brian Casey brian_w_ca...@hotmail.com wrote: Hey Scot, Wise words indeed. And, believe it or not, despite the fact that I recently took the pain of a jaws upgrade, I forgot how delightfully free voice over is! In the mean time I must really get into using hot spot clicker, as long term I'd like to have a windows and apple setup. Are there good resources on how to use it or on sharing solutions amung a user base for it with regard to audio aps specifically? I'm hoping to make at least some parts of my RME total mix software accessible which may be a long shot but heres to hoping! Of course that's horribly off topic. Brian. -- From: Scott Chesworth scottcheswo...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 3:39 AM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing Hi Brian, I don't think anybody is saying Apple are passing the buck here. There approach is undoubtedly the way things would work in an ideal world, and over time here's hoping we can move toward that. It would be perfectly possible for them to implement functionality to create bolt-on accessibility in the meantime without spawning a setup similar to Sonar though. Consider that the more powerful HSC sets and JAWS scripts are often both tied to a JAWS license, whereas with VO, there's nothing to tie it too because the screen reader with the proposed hotspot functionality built in is free for the taking. Down the line, even if someone with the required skills did come up with a way of protecting his work, I wouldn't begrudge dropping a few quid his way to make sure he's earning, just like I would be from using the plugin he's just enabled me to access. My point is that for as long as VO itself remains free, we'd be saving a grand upfront and be less restricted by the pain of reactivating when we want to work on new hardware etc. The accessibility business model won't be as flawed as it is in Windows, because Apple aren't sitting there at the first stop on the road to success making you turn out your pockets before you can pass go. I don't think you or I or Slau disagree, I just don't share Slau's zen-like patience. Wish I did :) Scott On 6/29/11, Brian Casey brian_w_ca...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi all, I'm just entering this discussion, as I'm wondering, would the situation David describes here just lead us back to the same situation as with sonar currently. The appeal of the apple route is that things are standardised and there is a cohesive approach to accessability, so that things shouldn't have to be made accessible, things will just be accessible as standard. Now, maybe this isn't realistic, but it is a nice theory, even if it may seem like apple are passing the book on to developers. My one fear here is that developers won't bother trying to implement accessability at all like has happened in protools if there is substancial gains easily made, without any effort from t hem with a hot spot clicker type function. I'd imagine such a situation would also lead to professional scripting packages being made available, so that instead of buying your friend drinks for a night you would give that recreational income to some adaptive technology specialist or other. So it kind of boils down to a question, will the migght of apple get us a fair bit of universal accessability over time with developers following their guide lines, or are they simply passing the responsibility, and we will never gain full accessability or anything close unless we have some facility to find buttons and label areas of the screne. The scripting/hot spot clicker route is available on sonar, so maybe we'll just wait and see how the alternative route works out on the apple platform for the time being. Logic accessibility would also cerainly open things up were apple to push it through. I'm sure Slau and others on the list would have a much better grasp of these things than I, as I only really have experience of using scripts with sonar, and am only now thinking about trying hot spot clicker with certain applications with sighted assistance. I have used protools since the gains with accessability, but despite realizing its potential, I'm all about pushing to have options. Just food for thought, Regards, Brian. -- From: David Eagle onlineea...@googlemail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:52 PM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing Yes, I was planning on saying something similar. What we really need is a way of creating accessibility for ourselves, rather than
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
Thanks a million for that Scot. As you know yourself I'm sure, its all about finding time and willing sighted assistance for these things! I've had protools and a mac borrowed from the college where I'm doing a masters at the moment, but I just don't have the time to get my hands propperly dirty with it. Cheers, Brian. -- From: Scott Chesworth scottcheswo...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:24 PM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing Hey Brian, So far as I know, there isn't really much in the way of HSC resources specific to audio. I found that the accompanying documentation was easy to digest and got me up and running pretty quickly though, so start there. Scott On 6/30/11, Brian Casey brian_w_ca...@hotmail.com wrote: Hey Scot, Wise words indeed. And, believe it or not, despite the fact that I recently took the pain of a jaws upgrade, I forgot how delightfully free voice over is! In the mean time I must really get into using hot spot clicker, as long term I'd like to have a windows and apple setup. Are there good resources on how to use it or on sharing solutions amung a user base for it with regard to audio aps specifically? I'm hoping to make at least some parts of my RME total mix software accessible which may be a long shot but heres to hoping! Of course that's horribly off topic. Brian. -- From: Scott Chesworth scottcheswo...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 3:39 AM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing Hi Brian, I don't think anybody is saying Apple are passing the buck here. There approach is undoubtedly the way things would work in an ideal world, and over time here's hoping we can move toward that. It would be perfectly possible for them to implement functionality to create bolt-on accessibility in the meantime without spawning a setup similar to Sonar though. Consider that the more powerful HSC sets and JAWS scripts are often both tied to a JAWS license, whereas with VO, there's nothing to tie it too because the screen reader with the proposed hotspot functionality built in is free for the taking. Down the line, even if someone with the required skills did come up with a way of protecting his work, I wouldn't begrudge dropping a few quid his way to make sure he's earning, just like I would be from using the plugin he's just enabled me to access. My point is that for as long as VO itself remains free, we'd be saving a grand upfront and be less restricted by the pain of reactivating when we want to work on new hardware etc. The accessibility business model won't be as flawed as it is in Windows, because Apple aren't sitting there at the first stop on the road to success making you turn out your pockets before you can pass go. I don't think you or I or Slau disagree, I just don't share Slau's zen-like patience. Wish I did :) Scott On 6/29/11, Brian Casey brian_w_ca...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi all, I'm just entering this discussion, as I'm wondering, would the situation David describes here just lead us back to the same situation as with sonar currently. The appeal of the apple route is that things are standardised and there is a cohesive approach to accessability, so that things shouldn't have to be made accessible, things will just be accessible as standard. Now, maybe this isn't realistic, but it is a nice theory, even if it may seem like apple are passing the book on to developers. My one fear here is that developers won't bother trying to implement accessability at all like has happened in protools if there is substancial gains easily made, without any effort from t hem with a hot spot clicker type function. I'd imagine such a situation would also lead to professional scripting packages being made available, so that instead of buying your friend drinks for a night you would give that recreational income to some adaptive technology specialist or other. So it kind of boils down to a question, will the migght of apple get us a fair bit of universal accessability over time with developers following their guide lines, or are they simply passing the responsibility, and we will never gain full accessability or anything close unless we have some facility to find buttons and label areas of the screne. The scripting/hot spot clicker route is available on sonar, so maybe we'll just wait and see how the alternative route works out on the apple platform for the time being. Logic accessibility would also cerainly open things up were apple to push it through. I'm sure Slau and others on the list would have a much better grasp of these things than I, as I only really have experience of using scripts with sonar, and am only now thinking about trying hot spot clicker with certain applications with sighted assistance. I have used protools since the gains
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
scripting. Perhaps an Email to apple Accessibility suggesting this would be a good idea. Thanks, and keep musing. On 18/06/2011, Scott Chesworth scottcheswo...@gmail.com wrote: Well, with something like QuicKeys scripts, we can click a coordinate. Last time I dabbled in QuicKeys, I was able to assign a keystroke to do so, and there was also a way of generating a menu which contained a list of all predefined shortcuts. A minor snag here is that it totally relies on QuicKeys or some other third party software to be running, because VO doesn't yet have the functionality to label or relabel anything that it can't already detect. I've got my fingers very tightly crossed that it'll be coming in Lion, but who knows really. The much bigger snag is that, often once you've clicked that load button or whatever, you're thrown into another non-standard menu or a browser window which is invisible to VO. Guess it's a combination of there being no such thing as a standard for plugin UI's, most manufacturers pushing to have the coolest interface on the market, and maintaining a cross platform codebase no doubt comes in to play here. I don't think it'll be long before VO and something like QK can keep up with the JAWS and HSC combination, but we're not quite there yet. For me, the speed and efficiency of tracking and editing in PT outweighs the drawbacks related to software instruments, because tracking and comping live instrumentation is what I do most often. As Chuck (our one, not Norris) would say, your mileage may vary. Just musings really... Scott On 6/18/11, David Eagle onlineea...@googlemail.com wrote: What I can't understand is why, for instance, we couldn't click a co-ordinate where we know the load button is located, which we can then label and then why the menu won't read with Voice-Over, as it just looks like a standard menu that Voice-Over . deals with all the time. Having not got Pro Tools, I haven't tried this but I'm baffled by the inaccessibility of buttons in plugins. If plugins could be accessed using a mixture of labels and some form of scripting or hotspot clicker equivelent programme, then getting Pro Tools would be a no brainer for me. But if we're saying on this list that we cant label co-ordinates in a plugin and then label all the perameters in all the plugin windows. We need some kind of hotspot clicker application for VO. I use sampling all the time in sonar, with SFZ and the Matrix view and so I'd have to keep moving between Sonar and Protools every few minutes. Finally, my opinion of VO - as a fledgling user - in general is that it is great but something like the Jaws cursor or System Access's Virtual Cursor would be a great help. And if I were to get Pro Tools, then it would be an experiment but I'm probably going to have to stick with Sonar 85 for the time being. On 14/06/2011, Bryan Smart bryansm...@bryansmart.com wrote: Due to the way that the plug in window is designed, no matter what plug you throw at it, VO won't be able to read anything at all, including pop-up menus, child windows (open file dialogs), and so on. You get the preset librarian and the automatable controls. That's it. That's fine for plugs like effects, but is not even a start for plugs like Structure. Until the whole window is redesigned, the only way you'll have a chance at an accessible UI for a plug is if the plug's interface is displayed in another program. There is Rewire on the Mac, but I don't remember exactly what sort of Rewire support is available in Pro Tools. That approach is probably the best lead on an accessible sampler. You're right about Xpand. The electronic drums and some other areas are really lacking, but the editing support is very good. You probably noticed how many parameters are in the window. If you aren't familiar with the VoiceOver item chooser (VO-i), you should spend some time with it. If you know part of the parameter's name, the item chooser can help jump you right to it without having to step through them all. If you find that you're editing, and bouncing back and forth between a few of the same parameters over and over, then set VO hot spots on the parameters, and you can jump directly to one of the parameters with a single hot key. Bryan On Jun 12, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Gordon Kent wrote: Hi: I was hoping that the garitan aria player would be accessible but it doesn't look good. If it were we could import sfz stuff into it. We really really are going to need a sampler of some sort. I like xpand though, at least we have access to the envelopes and it's simple and straightforward. Gord -Original Message- From: Bryan Smart Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 9:36 AM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing No, I said that I'd had luck. Most of the Avid instruments are accessible. They show
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
Thanks Slau, That was basically my point, and I remember you speaking before about having patience in relation to PT, and I was just hoping to hammer home the point that patience may lead to even greater places with apple's approach now. That said, I'm typing this from a windows machine with jaws! lol. But I do love my iPhone! Brian. -- From: Slau Halatyn slauhala...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 8:31 PM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing Hi brian, While the scripting idea can certainly be helpful, I think it's imperative that developers follow Apple's programming guidelines. This will get us 90 percent of the way in most cases. Yes, it does put responsibility on the developers but that's just simply how it is. Apple has done their part with voiceOver and they continue to improve it. The implementation of scripts or something like quicKeys is a supplementary tool that can be used to make up some of the shortcomings if only for the time being. Just my two cents. Best, Slau On Jun 29, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Brian Casey wrote: Hi all, I'm just entering this discussion, as I'm wondering, would the situation David describes here just lead us back to the same situation as with sonar currently. The appeal of the apple route is that things are standardised and there is a cohesive approach to accessability, so that things shouldn't have to be made accessible, things will just be accessible as standard. Now, maybe this isn't realistic, but it is a nice theory, even if it may seem like apple are passing the book on to developers. My one fear here is that developers won't bother trying to implement accessability at all like has happened in protools if there is substancial gains easily made, without any effort from t hem with a hot spot clicker type function. I'd imagine such a situation would also lead to professional scripting packages being made available, so that instead of buying your friend drinks for a night you would give that recreational income to some adaptive technology specialist or other. So it kind of boils down to a question, will the migght of apple get us a fair bit of universal accessability over time with developers following their guide lines, or are they simply passing the responsibility, and we will never gain full accessability or anything close unless we have some facility to find buttons and label areas of the screne. The scripting/hot spot clicker route is available on sonar, so maybe we'll just wait and see how the alternative route works out on the apple platform for the time being. Logic accessibility would also cerainly open things up were apple to push it through. I'm sure Slau and others on the list would have a much better grasp of these things than I, as I only really have experience of using scripts with sonar, and am only now thinking about trying hot spot clicker with certain applications with sighted assistance. I have used protools since the gains with accessability, but despite realizing its potential, I'm all about pushing to have options. Just food for thought, Regards, Brian. -- From: David Eagle onlineea...@googlemail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:52 PM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing Yes, I was planning on saying something similar. What we really need is a way of creating accessibility for ourselves, rather than having to rely on the manufacturers of every plugin, programme or website we use adapting to suit my needs. Obviously I appreciate that Apple have made implementations that allow programmers to easily make things accessible for blind users, but there's still a long way to go before the programmers completely catch on to the idea, especially since it affects the minority of their userbase. In theory, we could assign a (lets call it a) hotspot to open the load instrument button on a plugin. even if it then transpires that we still don't have access to the instruments with in the browser, we could, in theory, map hotspots for all the instruments. It might take awhile but I'm sure I could convince a sighted friend to help with this project in return for me buying them their drinks for the night wen we go to the pub. Then I would be able to export these preferences and use them at home or at the studio. Everyone's a winner: my friend gets free drinks and I get access to my plugins and I probably won't wake up with a hangover the next morning due to the fact that I didn't have the money to get both my friend and myself drinks. Genius! Out of interest Scott, have you tried using quick keys? I downloaded the trial, but at a quick glance have not managed to decipher much yet. On 29/06/2011, Scott Chesworth scottcheswo...@gmail.com wrote: Yep, I received a reply that was much of a muchness. I
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
that you're editing, and bouncing back and forth between a few of the same parameters over and over, then set VO hot spots on the parameters, and you can jump directly to one of the parameters with a single hot key. Bryan On Jun 12, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Gordon Kent wrote: Hi: I was hoping that the garitan aria player would be accessible but it doesn't look good. If it were we could import sfz stuff into it. We really really are going to need a sampler of some sort. I like xpand though, at least we have access to the envelopes and it's simple and straightforward. Gord -Original Message- From: Bryan Smart Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 9:36 AM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing No, I said that I'd had luck. Most of the Avid instruments are accessible. They show their presets in the plug in window's preset librarian, and you can edit them through the visible automation parameters. There are some exceptions. Structure and Structure LE are 100% out. You must use their custom browsers to load presets, those browsers are completely invisible to VoiceOver, and they don't support keyboard navigation. This is really too bad. Xpand is sort of a general sound module, but the quality of the instruments in Structure are much better. Structure also has nice expansions from East-West that we can't use. From the instrument Expansion, the Transfuser instrument that is used to create/perform grooves in real-time by mixing and modifying loops is somewhat accessible, but crashes VO a lot. Like I said, though, every 3rd-party instrument that I've tried is inaccessible. Without Structure, the built-in instruments are great for picking up a part here and there if you're using mostly real instruments, but just need the occasional synth to cover a specific sound. If you want to completely sequence, I don't think that the instruments that we can use cover what is needed. I'd think better of the set if we could count Structure in our pallet. As is, though, most of the instruments in Xpand are like a synth rack from the mid 90's. Velvet and DB33 are absolutely nothing like modelers such as Lounge Lizard and B4. The absolute deal breaker for me, and anyone that sequences groove-based music from Dance Pop, to Hip Hop, to Dub Step, and so on, is that we don't have access to any sort of sampler at all. The electronic drums available in the presets are very out of date, and, without a sampler, I can't use my own sampled kits. These styles also require lots of sampled bits and pieces: gang shouts, atmospheric effects, stabs, transitions, etc, and ther isn't any way to trigger them. You could manually import each piece, place it on a track, and push it around, but that is the million years way to create a song. In terms of quality, I'd say that the Avid instruments are better than most of what comes with Sonar, but are way behind GarageBand and Logic. It's too bad. Editing in Pro Tools is so fast, that it could be really great for sequencing. Until we get access to a sampler plug in and better instruments, though, I still have to do those sorts of projects in Sonar. If you're working on simple stuff, like simple drums, bass, and keyboard arrangements, though, then it probably be enough. Bryan On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Tim Elder wrote: Hi Brian, You say others have had luck with the accessibility of Avid virtual instruments. Can you further describe the relative accessibility of the Avid instruments? I was considering an investment in the PT virtual instrument collection. As of now I still do most synth programming in Sonar because of the quality of the access to the virtual instruments and then export to Pro Tools for mixing and editing. I would prefer to do more sound generation in PT if the virtual instruments are accessible. Stefan Albertshauser wrote: Hello, I'm about to purcase pro tools. I didn't find two questions on the list: 1. I wonder, if it is possible for us to navigate to zero-crossings, like in sonar. 2. How do you use software instruments like Contact, where the buttons to load files, I think, aren't automatable? Thanks for reply Stefan -- http://www.davideagle.co.uk -- http://www.davideagle.co.uk -- http://www.davideagle.co.uk Chuck Reichel 954-742-0019 www.SoundPictureRecording.com -- http://www.davideagle.co.uk -- http://www.davideagle.co.uk
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
Hello: Well, for synths that have automatible parameters the main problem is loading sample libraries into them e.g. garitan. You can do that if you can find the spots to get the menus to drop down, so we should be able to set that up as a hot spot in VO. I haven't tried the spectrasonics stuff (trillion is the one I have), but I can forsee that being a problem which is why I would need to export presets from the windows version of pt. Gord -Original Message- From: Brian Casey Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 3:12 PM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing Hi all, I'm just entering this discussion, as I'm wondering, would the situation David describes here just lead us back to the same situation as with sonar currently. The appeal of the apple route is that things are standardised and there is a cohesive approach to accessability, so that things shouldn't have to be made accessible, things will just be accessible as standard. Now, maybe this isn't realistic, but it is a nice theory, even if it may seem like apple are passing the book on to developers. My one fear here is that developers won't bother trying to implement accessability at all like has happened in protools if there is substancial gains easily made, without any effort from t hem with a hot spot clicker type function. I'd imagine such a situation would also lead to professional scripting packages being made available, so that instead of buying your friend drinks for a night you would give that recreational income to some adaptive technology specialist or other. So it kind of boils down to a question, will the migght of apple get us a fair bit of universal accessability over time with developers following their guide lines, or are they simply passing the responsibility, and we will never gain full accessability or anything close unless we have some facility to find buttons and label areas of the screne. The scripting/hot spot clicker route is available on sonar, so maybe we'll just wait and see how the alternative route works out on the apple platform for the time being. Logic accessibility would also cerainly open things up were apple to push it through. I'm sure Slau and others on the list would have a much better grasp of these things than I, as I only really have experience of using scripts with sonar, and am only now thinking about trying hot spot clicker with certain applications with sighted assistance. I have used protools since the gains with accessability, but despite realizing its potential, I'm all about pushing to have options. Just food for thought, Regards, Brian. -- From: David Eagle onlineea...@googlemail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:52 PM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing Yes, I was planning on saying something similar. What we really need is a way of creating accessibility for ourselves, rather than having to rely on the manufacturers of every plugin, programme or website we use adapting to suit my needs. Obviously I appreciate that Apple have made implementations that allow programmers to easily make things accessible for blind users, but there's still a long way to go before the programmers completely catch on to the idea, especially since it affects the minority of their userbase. In theory, we could assign a (lets call it a) hotspot to open the load instrument button on a plugin. even if it then transpires that we still don't have access to the instruments with in the browser, we could, in theory, map hotspots for all the instruments. It might take awhile but I'm sure I could convince a sighted friend to help with this project in return for me buying them their drinks for the night wen we go to the pub. Then I would be able to export these preferences and use them at home or at the studio. Everyone's a winner: my friend gets free drinks and I get access to my plugins and I probably won't wake up with a hangover the next morning due to the fact that I didn't have the money to get both my friend and myself drinks. Genius! Out of interest Scott, have you tried using quick keys? I downloaded the trial, but at a quick glance have not managed to decipher much yet. On 29/06/2011, Scott Chesworth scottcheswo...@gmail.com wrote: Yep, I received a reply that was much of a muchness. I replied to that reply and urged them to consider the fact that the world keeps turning both before and whilst those devs are reengineering. Professionals who would dearly love to be 100% Mac-based still have bills to pay and an industry to try to remain current in. Also thought it was worth pointing out that when it comes to software with a huge professional userbase, the if it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality often applies. Developers ideally want to be concentrating on adding new functionality, not re-coding something that already works for the majority of their users
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
- as a fledgling user - in general is that it is great but something like the Jaws cursor or System Access's Virtual Cursor would be a great help. And if I were to get Pro Tools, then it would be an experiment but I'm probably going to have to stick with Sonar 85 for the time being. On 14/06/2011, Bryan Smart bryansm...@bryansmart.com wrote: Due to the way that the plug in window is designed, no matter what plug you throw at it, VO won't be able to read anything at all, including pop-up menus, child windows (open file dialogs), and so on. You get the preset librarian and the automatable controls. That's it. That's fine for plugs like effects, but is not even a start for plugs like Structure. Until the whole window is redesigned, the only way you'll have a chance at an accessible UI for a plug is if the plug's interface is displayed in another program. There is Rewire on the Mac, but I don't remember exactly what sort of Rewire support is available in Pro Tools. That approach is probably the best lead on an accessible sampler. You're right about Xpand. The electronic drums and some other areas are really lacking, but the editing support is very good. You probably noticed how many parameters are in the window. If you aren't familiar with the VoiceOver item chooser (VO-i), you should spend some time with it. If you know part of the parameter's name, the item chooser can help jump you right to it without having to step through them all. If you find that you're editing, and bouncing back and forth between a few of the same parameters over and over, then set VO hot spots on the parameters, and you can jump directly to one of the parameters with a single hot key. Bryan On Jun 12, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Gordon Kent wrote: Hi: I was hoping that the garitan aria player would be accessible but it doesn't look good. If it were we could import sfz stuff into it. We really really are going to need a sampler of some sort. I like xpand though, at least we have access to the envelopes and it's simple and straightforward. Gord -Original Message- From: Bryan Smart Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 9:36 AM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing No, I said that I'd had luck. Most of the Avid instruments are accessible. They show their presets in the plug in window's preset librarian, and you can edit them through the visible automation parameters. There are some exceptions. Structure and Structure LE are 100% out. You must use their custom browsers to load presets, those browsers are completely invisible to VoiceOver, and they don't support keyboard navigation. This is really too bad. Xpand is sort of a general sound module, but the quality of the instruments in Structure are much better. Structure also has nice expansions from East-West that we can't use. From the instrument Expansion, the Transfuser instrument that is used to create/perform grooves in real-time by mixing and modifying loops is somewhat accessible, but crashes VO a lot. Like I said, though, every 3rd-party instrument that I've tried is inaccessible. Without Structure, the built-in instruments are great for picking up a part here and there if you're using mostly real instruments, but just need the occasional synth to cover a specific sound. If you want to completely sequence, I don't think that the instruments that we can use cover what is needed. I'd think better of the set if we could count Structure in our pallet. As is, though, most of the instruments in Xpand are like a synth rack from the mid 90's. Velvet and DB33 are absolutely nothing like modelers such as Lounge Lizard and B4. The absolute deal breaker for me, and anyone that sequences groove-based music from Dance Pop, to Hip Hop, to Dub Step, and so on, is that we don't have access to any sort of sampler at all. The electronic drums available in the presets are very out of date, and, without a sampler, I can't use my own sampled kits. These styles also require lots of sampled bits and pieces: gang shouts, atmospheric effects, stabs, transitions, etc, and ther isn't any way to trigger them. You could manually import each piece, place it on a track, and push it around, but that is the million years way to create a song. In terms of quality, I'd say that the Avid instruments are better than most of what comes with Sonar, but are way behind GarageBand and Logic. It's too bad. Editing in Pro Tools is so fast, that it could be really great for sequencing. Until we get access to a sampler plug in and better instruments, though, I still have to do those sorts of projects in Sonar. If you're working on simple stuff, like simple drums, bass, and keyboard arrangements, though, then it probably be enough. Bryan On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Tim Elder wrote: Hi Brian, You say
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
. As Chuck (our one, not Norris) would say, your mileage may vary. Just musings really... Scott On 6/18/11, David Eagle onlineea...@googlemail.com wrote: What I can't understand is why, for instance, we couldn't click a co-ordinate where we know the load button is located, which we can then label and then why the menu won't read with Voice-Over, as it just looks like a standard menu that Voice-Over . deals with all the time. Having not got Pro Tools, I haven't tried this but I'm baffled by the inaccessibility of buttons in plugins. If plugins could be accessed using a mixture of labels and some form of scripting or hotspot clicker equivelent programme, then getting Pro Tools would be a no brainer for me. But if we're saying on this list that we cant label co-ordinates in a plugin and then label all the perameters in all the plugin windows. We need some kind of hotspot clicker application for VO. I use sampling all the time in sonar, with SFZ and the Matrix view and so I'd have to keep moving between Sonar and Protools every few minutes. Finally, my opinion of VO - as a fledgling user - in general is that it is great but something like the Jaws cursor or System Access's Virtual Cursor would be a great help. And if I were to get Pro Tools, then it would be an experiment but I'm probably going to have to stick with Sonar 85 for the time being. On 14/06/2011, Bryan Smart bryansm...@bryansmart.com wrote: Due to the way that the plug in window is designed, no matter what plug you throw at it, VO won't be able to read anything at all, including pop-up menus, child windows (open file dialogs), and so on. You get the preset librarian and the automatable controls. That's it. That's fine for plugs like effects, but is not even a start for plugs like Structure. Until the whole window is redesigned, the only way you'll have a chance at an accessible UI for a plug is if the plug's interface is displayed in another program. There is Rewire on the Mac, but I don't remember exactly what sort of Rewire support is available in Pro Tools. That approach is probably the best lead on an accessible sampler. You're right about Xpand. The electronic drums and some other areas are really lacking, but the editing support is very good. You probably noticed how many parameters are in the window. If you aren't familiar with the VoiceOver item chooser (VO-i), you should spend some time with it. If you know part of the parameter's name, the item chooser can help jump you right to it without having to step through them all. If you find that you're editing, and bouncing back and forth between a few of the same parameters over and over, then set VO hot spots on the parameters, and you can jump directly to one of the parameters with a single hot key. Bryan On Jun 12, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Gordon Kent wrote: Hi: I was hoping that the garitan aria player would be accessible but it doesn't look good. If it were we could import sfz stuff into it. We really really are going to need a sampler of some sort. I like xpand though, at least we have access to the envelopes and it's simple and straightforward. Gord -Original Message- From: Bryan Smart Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 9:36 AM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing No, I said that I'd had luck. Most of the Avid instruments are accessible. They show their presets in the plug in window's preset librarian, and you can edit them through the visible automation parameters. There are some exceptions. Structure and Structure LE are 100% out. You must use their custom browsers to load presets, those browsers are completely invisible to VoiceOver, and they don't support keyboard navigation. This is really too bad. Xpand is sort of a general sound module, but the quality of the instruments in Structure are much better. Structure also has nice expansions from East-West that we can't use. From the instrument Expansion, the Transfuser instrument that is used to create/perform grooves in real-time by mixing and modifying loops is somewhat accessible, but crashes VO a lot. Like I said, though, every 3rd-party instrument that I've tried is inaccessible. Without Structure, the built-in instruments are great for picking up a part here and there if you're using mostly real instruments, but just need the occasional synth to cover a specific sound. If you want to completely sequence, I don't think that the instruments that we can use cover what is needed. I'd think better of the set if we could count Structure in our pallet. As is, though, most of the instruments in Xpand are like a synth rack from the mid 90's. Velvet and DB33 are absolutely nothing like modelers such as Lounge Lizard and B4. The absolute deal breaker for me, and anyone that sequences groove-based music from Dance Pop
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
on the parameters, and you can jump directly to one of the parameters with a single hot key. Bryan On Jun 12, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Gordon Kent wrote: Hi: I was hoping that the garitan aria player would be accessible but it doesn't look good. If it were we could import sfz stuff into it. We really really are going to need a sampler of some sort. I like xpand though, at least we have access to the envelopes and it's simple and straightforward. Gord -Original Message- From: Bryan Smart Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 9:36 AM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing No, I said that I'd had luck. Most of the Avid instruments are accessible. They show their presets in the plug in window's preset librarian, and you can edit them through the visible automation parameters. There are some exceptions. Structure and Structure LE are 100% out. You must use their custom browsers to load presets, those browsers are completely invisible to VoiceOver, and they don't support keyboard navigation. This is really too bad. Xpand is sort of a general sound module, but the quality of the instruments in Structure are much better. Structure also has nice expansions from East-West that we can't use. From the instrument Expansion, the Transfuser instrument that is used to create/perform grooves in real-time by mixing and modifying loops is somewhat accessible, but crashes VO a lot. Like I said, though, every 3rd-party instrument that I've tried is inaccessible. Without Structure, the built-in instruments are great for picking up a part here and there if you're using mostly real instruments, but just need the occasional synth to cover a specific sound. If you want to completely sequence, I don't think that the instruments that we can use cover what is needed. I'd think better of the set if we could count Structure in our pallet. As is, though, most of the instruments in Xpand are like a synth rack from the mid 90's. Velvet and DB33 are absolutely nothing like modelers such as Lounge Lizard and B4. The absolute deal breaker for me, and anyone that sequences groove-based music from Dance Pop, to Hip Hop, to Dub Step, and so on, is that we don't have access to any sort of sampler at all. The electronic drums available in the presets are very out of date, and, without a sampler, I can't use my own sampled kits. These styles also require lots of sampled bits and pieces: gang shouts, atmospheric effects, stabs, transitions, etc, and ther isn't any way to trigger them. You could manually import each piece, place it on a track, and push it around, but that is the million years way to create a song. In terms of quality, I'd say that the Avid instruments are better than most of what comes with Sonar, but are way behind GarageBand and Logic. It's too bad. Editing in Pro Tools is so fast, that it could be really great for sequencing. Until we get access to a sampler plug in and better instruments, though, I still have to do those sorts of projects in Sonar. If you're working on simple stuff, like simple drums, bass, and keyboard arrangements, though, then it probably be enough. Bryan On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Tim Elder wrote: Hi Brian, You say others have had luck with the accessibility of Avid virtual instruments. Can you further describe the relative accessibility of the Avid instruments? I was considering an investment in the PT virtual instrument collection. As of now I still do most synth programming in Sonar because of the quality of the access to the virtual instruments and then export to Pro Tools for mixing and editing. I would prefer to do more sound generation in PT if the virtual instruments are accessible. Stefan Albertshauser wrote: Hello, I'm about to purcase pro tools. I didn't find two questions on the list: 1. I wonder, if it is possible for us to navigate to zero-crossings, like in sonar. 2. How do you use software instruments like Contact, where the buttons to load files, I think, aren't automatable? Thanks for reply Stefan -- http://www.davideagle.co.uk -- http://www.davideagle.co.uk
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
. The electronic drums and some other areas are really lacking, but the editing support is very good. You probably noticed how many parameters are in the window. If you aren't familiar with the VoiceOver item chooser (VO-i), you should spend some time with it. If you know part of the parameter's name, the item chooser can help jump you right to it without having to step through them all. If you find that you're editing, and bouncing back and forth between a few of the same parameters over and over, then set VO hot spots on the parameters, and you can jump directly to one of the parameters with a single hot key. Bryan On Jun 12, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Gordon Kent wrote: Hi: I was hoping that the garitan aria player would be accessible but it doesn't look good. If it were we could import sfz stuff into it. We really really are going to need a sampler of some sort. I like xpand though, at least we have access to the envelopes and it's simple and straightforward. Gord -Original Message- From: Bryan Smart Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 9:36 AM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing No, I said that I'd had luck. Most of the Avid instruments are accessible. They show their presets in the plug in window's preset librarian, and you can edit them through the visible automation parameters. There are some exceptions. Structure and Structure LE are 100% out. You must use their custom browsers to load presets, those browsers are completely invisible to VoiceOver, and they don't support keyboard navigation. This is really too bad. Xpand is sort of a general sound module, but the quality of the instruments in Structure are much better. Structure also has nice expansions from East-West that we can't use. From the instrument Expansion, the Transfuser instrument that is used to create/perform grooves in real-time by mixing and modifying loops is somewhat accessible, but crashes VO a lot. Like I said, though, every 3rd-party instrument that I've tried is inaccessible. Without Structure, the built-in instruments are great for picking up a part here and there if you're using mostly real instruments, but just need the occasional synth to cover a specific sound. If you want to completely sequence, I don't think that the instruments that we can use cover what is needed. I'd think better of the set if we could count Structure in our pallet. As is, though, most of the instruments in Xpand are like a synth rack from the mid 90's. Velvet and DB33 are absolutely nothing like modelers such as Lounge Lizard and B4. The absolute deal breaker for me, and anyone that sequences groove-based music from Dance Pop, to Hip Hop, to Dub Step, and so on, is that we don't have access to any sort of sampler at all. The electronic drums available in the presets are very out of date, and, without a sampler, I can't use my own sampled kits. These styles also require lots of sampled bits and pieces: gang shouts, atmospheric effects, stabs, transitions, etc, and ther isn't any way to trigger them. You could manually import each piece, place it on a track, and push it around, but that is the million years way to create a song. In terms of quality, I'd say that the Avid instruments are better than most of what comes with Sonar, but are way behind GarageBand and Logic. It's too bad. Editing in Pro Tools is so fast, that it could be really great for sequencing. Until we get access to a sampler plug in and better instruments, though, I still have to do those sorts of projects in Sonar. If you're working on simple stuff, like simple drums, bass, and keyboard arrangements, though, then it probably be enough. Bryan On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Tim Elder wrote: Hi Brian, You say others have had luck with the accessibility of Avid virtual instruments. Can you further describe the relative accessibility of the Avid instruments? I was considering an investment in the PT virtual instrument collection. As of now I still do most synth programming in Sonar because of the quality of the access to the virtual instruments and then export to Pro Tools for mixing and editing. I would prefer to do more sound generation in PT if the virtual instruments are accessible. Stefan Albertshauser wrote: Hello, I'm about to purcase pro tools. I didn't find two questions on the list: 1. I wonder, if it is possible for us to navigate to zero-crossings, like in sonar. 2. How do you use software instruments like Contact, where the buttons to load files, I think, aren't automatable? Thanks for reply Stefan -- http://www.davideagle.co.uk -- http://www.davideagle.co.uk -- http://www.davideagle.co.uk
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
sort of Rewire support is available in Pro Tools. That approach is probably the best lead on an accessible sampler. You're right about Xpand. The electronic drums and some other areas are really lacking, but the editing support is very good. You probably noticed how many parameters are in the window. If you aren't familiar with the VoiceOver item chooser (VO-i), you should spend some time with it. If you know part of the parameter's name, the item chooser can help jump you right to it without having to step through them all. If you find that you're editing, and bouncing back and forth between a few of the same parameters over and over, then set VO hot spots on the parameters, and you can jump directly to one of the parameters with a single hot key. Bryan On Jun 12, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Gordon Kent wrote: Hi: I was hoping that the garitan aria player would be accessible but it doesn't look good. If it were we could import sfz stuff into it. We really really are going to need a sampler of some sort. I like xpand though, at least we have access to the envelopes and it's simple and straightforward. Gord -Original Message- From: Bryan Smart Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 9:36 AM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing No, I said that I'd had luck. Most of the Avid instruments are accessible. They show their presets in the plug in window's preset librarian, and you can edit them through the visible automation parameters. There are some exceptions. Structure and Structure LE are 100% out. You must use their custom browsers to load presets, those browsers are completely invisible to VoiceOver, and they don't support keyboard navigation. This is really too bad. Xpand is sort of a general sound module, but the quality of the instruments in Structure are much better. Structure also has nice expansions from East-West that we can't use. From the instrument Expansion, the Transfuser instrument that is used to create/perform grooves in real-time by mixing and modifying loops is somewhat accessible, but crashes VO a lot. Like I said, though, every 3rd-party instrument that I've tried is inaccessible. Without Structure, the built-in instruments are great for picking up a part here and there if you're using mostly real instruments, but just need the occasional synth to cover a specific sound. If you want to completely sequence, I don't think that the instruments that we can use cover what is needed. I'd think better of the set if we could count Structure in our pallet. As is, though, most of the instruments in Xpand are like a synth rack from the mid 90's. Velvet and DB33 are absolutely nothing like modelers such as Lounge Lizard and B4. The absolute deal breaker for me, and anyone that sequences groove-based music from Dance Pop, to Hip Hop, to Dub Step, and so on, is that we don't have access to any sort of sampler at all. The electronic drums available in the presets are very out of date, and, without a sampler, I can't use my own sampled kits. These styles also require lots of sampled bits and pieces: gang shouts, atmospheric effects, stabs, transitions, etc, and ther isn't any way to trigger them. You could manually import each piece, place it on a track, and push it around, but that is the million years way to create a song. In terms of quality, I'd say that the Avid instruments are better than most of what comes with Sonar, but are way behind GarageBand and Logic. It's too bad. Editing in Pro Tools is so fast, that it could be really great for sequencing. Until we get access to a sampler plug in and better instruments, though, I still have to do those sorts of projects in Sonar. If you're working on simple stuff, like simple drums, bass, and keyboard arrangements, though, then it probably be enough. Bryan On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Tim Elder wrote: Hi Brian, You say others have had luck with the accessibility of Avid virtual instruments. Can you further describe the relative accessibility of the Avid instruments? I was considering an investment in the PT virtual instrument collection. As of now I still do most synth programming in Sonar because of the quality of the access to the virtual instruments and then export to Pro Tools for mixing and editing. I would prefer to do more sound generation in PT if the virtual instruments are accessible. Stefan Albertshauser wrote: Hello, I'm about to purcase pro tools. I didn't find two questions on the list: 1. I wonder, if it is possible for us to navigate to zero-crossings, like in sonar. 2. How do you use software instruments like Contact, where the buttons to load files, I think, aren't automatable? Thanks for reply Stefan -- http://www.davideagle.co.uk -- http://www.davideagle.co.uk -- http://www.davideagle.co.uk Chuck
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
What I can't understand is why, for instance, we couldn't click a co-ordinate where we know the load button is located, which we can then label and then why the menu won't read with Voice-Over, as it just looks like a standard menu that Voice-Over . deals with all the time. Having not got Pro Tools, I haven't tried this but I'm baffled by the inaccessibility of buttons in plugins. If plugins could be accessed using a mixture of labels and some form of scripting or hotspot clicker equivelent programme, then getting Pro Tools would be a no brainer for me. But if we're saying on this list that we cant label co-ordinates in a plugin and then label all the perameters in all the plugin windows. We need some kind of hotspot clicker application for VO. I use sampling all the time in sonar, with SFZ and the Matrix view and so I'd have to keep moving between Sonar and Protools every few minutes. Finally, my opinion of VO - as a fledgling user - in general is that it is great but something like the Jaws cursor or System Access's Virtual Cursor would be a great help. And if I were to get Pro Tools, then it would be an experiment but I'm probably going to have to stick with Sonar 85 for the time being. On 14/06/2011, Bryan Smart bryansm...@bryansmart.com wrote: Due to the way that the plug in window is designed, no matter what plug you throw at it, VO won't be able to read anything at all, including pop-up menus, child windows (open file dialogs), and so on. You get the preset librarian and the automatable controls. That's it. That's fine for plugs like effects, but is not even a start for plugs like Structure. Until the whole window is redesigned, the only way you'll have a chance at an accessible UI for a plug is if the plug's interface is displayed in another program. There is Rewire on the Mac, but I don't remember exactly what sort of Rewire support is available in Pro Tools. That approach is probably the best lead on an accessible sampler. You're right about Xpand. The electronic drums and some other areas are really lacking, but the editing support is very good. You probably noticed how many parameters are in the window. If you aren't familiar with the VoiceOver item chooser (VO-i), you should spend some time with it. If you know part of the parameter's name, the item chooser can help jump you right to it without having to step through them all. If you find that you're editing, and bouncing back and forth between a few of the same parameters over and over, then set VO hot spots on the parameters, and you can jump directly to one of the parameters with a single hot key. Bryan On Jun 12, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Gordon Kent wrote: Hi: I was hoping that the garitan aria player would be accessible but it doesn't look good. If it were we could import sfz stuff into it. We really really are going to need a sampler of some sort. I like xpand though, at least we have access to the envelopes and it's simple and straightforward. Gord -Original Message- From: Bryan Smart Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 9:36 AM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing No, I said that I'd had luck. Most of the Avid instruments are accessible. They show their presets in the plug in window's preset librarian, and you can edit them through the visible automation parameters. There are some exceptions. Structure and Structure LE are 100% out. You must use their custom browsers to load presets, those browsers are completely invisible to VoiceOver, and they don't support keyboard navigation. This is really too bad. Xpand is sort of a general sound module, but the quality of the instruments in Structure are much better. Structure also has nice expansions from East-West that we can't use. From the instrument Expansion, the Transfuser instrument that is used to create/perform grooves in real-time by mixing and modifying loops is somewhat accessible, but crashes VO a lot. Like I said, though, every 3rd-party instrument that I've tried is inaccessible. Without Structure, the built-in instruments are great for picking up a part here and there if you're using mostly real instruments, but just need the occasional synth to cover a specific sound. If you want to completely sequence, I don't think that the instruments that we can use cover what is needed. I'd think better of the set if we could count Structure in our pallet. As is, though, most of the instruments in Xpand are like a synth rack from the mid 90's. Velvet and DB33 are absolutely nothing like modelers such as Lounge Lizard and B4. The absolute deal breaker for me, and anyone that sequences groove-based music from Dance Pop, to Hip Hop, to Dub Step, and so on, is that we don't have access to any sort of sampler at all. The electronic drums available in the presets are very out of date, and, without a sampler, I can't use my own sampled kits. These styles also
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
Well, with something like QuicKeys scripts, we can click a coordinate. Last time I dabbled in QuicKeys, I was able to assign a keystroke to do so, and there was also a way of generating a menu which contained a list of all predefined shortcuts. A minor snag here is that it totally relies on QuicKeys or some other third party software to be running, because VO doesn't yet have the functionality to label or relabel anything that it can't already detect. I've got my fingers very tightly crossed that it'll be coming in Lion, but who knows really. The much bigger snag is that, often once you've clicked that load button or whatever, you're thrown into another non-standard menu or a browser window which is invisible to VO. Guess it's a combination of there being no such thing as a standard for plugin UI's, most manufacturers pushing to have the coolest interface on the market, and maintaining a cross platform codebase no doubt comes in to play here. I don't think it'll be long before VO and something like QK can keep up with the JAWS and HSC combination, but we're not quite there yet. For me, the speed and efficiency of tracking and editing in PT outweighs the drawbacks related to software instruments, because tracking and comping live instrumentation is what I do most often. As Chuck (our one, not Norris) would say, your mileage may vary. Just musings really... Scott On 6/18/11, David Eagle onlineea...@googlemail.com wrote: What I can't understand is why, for instance, we couldn't click a co-ordinate where we know the load button is located, which we can then label and then why the menu won't read with Voice-Over, as it just looks like a standard menu that Voice-Over . deals with all the time. Having not got Pro Tools, I haven't tried this but I'm baffled by the inaccessibility of buttons in plugins. If plugins could be accessed using a mixture of labels and some form of scripting or hotspot clicker equivelent programme, then getting Pro Tools would be a no brainer for me. But if we're saying on this list that we cant label co-ordinates in a plugin and then label all the perameters in all the plugin windows. We need some kind of hotspot clicker application for VO. I use sampling all the time in sonar, with SFZ and the Matrix view and so I'd have to keep moving between Sonar and Protools every few minutes. Finally, my opinion of VO - as a fledgling user - in general is that it is great but something like the Jaws cursor or System Access's Virtual Cursor would be a great help. And if I were to get Pro Tools, then it would be an experiment but I'm probably going to have to stick with Sonar 85 for the time being. On 14/06/2011, Bryan Smart bryansm...@bryansmart.com wrote: Due to the way that the plug in window is designed, no matter what plug you throw at it, VO won't be able to read anything at all, including pop-up menus, child windows (open file dialogs), and so on. You get the preset librarian and the automatable controls. That's it. That's fine for plugs like effects, but is not even a start for plugs like Structure. Until the whole window is redesigned, the only way you'll have a chance at an accessible UI for a plug is if the plug's interface is displayed in another program. There is Rewire on the Mac, but I don't remember exactly what sort of Rewire support is available in Pro Tools. That approach is probably the best lead on an accessible sampler. You're right about Xpand. The electronic drums and some other areas are really lacking, but the editing support is very good. You probably noticed how many parameters are in the window. If you aren't familiar with the VoiceOver item chooser (VO-i), you should spend some time with it. If you know part of the parameter's name, the item chooser can help jump you right to it without having to step through them all. If you find that you're editing, and bouncing back and forth between a few of the same parameters over and over, then set VO hot spots on the parameters, and you can jump directly to one of the parameters with a single hot key. Bryan On Jun 12, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Gordon Kent wrote: Hi: I was hoping that the garitan aria player would be accessible but it doesn't look good. If it were we could import sfz stuff into it. We really really are going to need a sampler of some sort. I like xpand though, at least we have access to the envelopes and it's simple and straightforward. Gord -Original Message- From: Bryan Smart Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 9:36 AM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing No, I said that I'd had luck. Most of the Avid instruments are accessible. They show their presets in the plug in window's preset librarian, and you can edit them through the visible automation parameters. There are some exceptions. Structure and Structure LE are 100% out. You must use their custom browsers to load presets, those
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
Due to the way that the plug in window is designed, no matter what plug you throw at it, VO won't be able to read anything at all, including pop-up menus, child windows (open file dialogs), and so on. You get the preset librarian and the automatable controls. That's it. That's fine for plugs like effects, but is not even a start for plugs like Structure. Until the whole window is redesigned, the only way you'll have a chance at an accessible UI for a plug is if the plug's interface is displayed in another program. There is Rewire on the Mac, but I don't remember exactly what sort of Rewire support is available in Pro Tools. That approach is probably the best lead on an accessible sampler. You're right about Xpand. The electronic drums and some other areas are really lacking, but the editing support is very good. You probably noticed how many parameters are in the window. If you aren't familiar with the VoiceOver item chooser (VO-i), you should spend some time with it. If you know part of the parameter's name, the item chooser can help jump you right to it without having to step through them all. If you find that you're editing, and bouncing back and forth between a few of the same parameters over and over, then set VO hot spots on the parameters, and you can jump directly to one of the parameters with a single hot key. Bryan On Jun 12, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Gordon Kent wrote: Hi: I was hoping that the garitan aria player would be accessible but it doesn't look good. If it were we could import sfz stuff into it. We really really are going to need a sampler of some sort. I like xpand though, at least we have access to the envelopes and it's simple and straightforward. Gord -Original Message- From: Bryan Smart Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 9:36 AM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing No, I said that I'd had luck. Most of the Avid instruments are accessible. They show their presets in the plug in window's preset librarian, and you can edit them through the visible automation parameters. There are some exceptions. Structure and Structure LE are 100% out. You must use their custom browsers to load presets, those browsers are completely invisible to VoiceOver, and they don't support keyboard navigation. This is really too bad. Xpand is sort of a general sound module, but the quality of the instruments in Structure are much better. Structure also has nice expansions from East-West that we can't use. From the instrument Expansion, the Transfuser instrument that is used to create/perform grooves in real-time by mixing and modifying loops is somewhat accessible, but crashes VO a lot. Like I said, though, every 3rd-party instrument that I've tried is inaccessible. Without Structure, the built-in instruments are great for picking up a part here and there if you're using mostly real instruments, but just need the occasional synth to cover a specific sound. If you want to completely sequence, I don't think that the instruments that we can use cover what is needed. I'd think better of the set if we could count Structure in our pallet. As is, though, most of the instruments in Xpand are like a synth rack from the mid 90's. Velvet and DB33 are absolutely nothing like modelers such as Lounge Lizard and B4. The absolute deal breaker for me, and anyone that sequences groove-based music from Dance Pop, to Hip Hop, to Dub Step, and so on, is that we don't have access to any sort of sampler at all. The electronic drums available in the presets are very out of date, and, without a sampler, I can't use my own sampled kits. These styles also require lots of sampled bits and pieces: gang shouts, atmospheric effects, stabs, transitions, etc, and ther isn't any way to trigger them. You could manually import each piece, place it on a track, and push it around, but that is the million years way to create a song. In terms of quality, I'd say that the Avid instruments are better than most of what comes with Sonar, but are way behind GarageBand and Logic. It's too bad. Editing in Pro Tools is so fast, that it could be really great for sequencing. Until we get access to a sampler plug in and better instruments, though, I still have to do those sorts of projects in Sonar. If you're working on simple stuff, like simple drums, bass, and keyboard arrangements, though, then it probably be enough. Bryan On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Tim Elder wrote: Hi Brian, You say others have had luck with the accessibility of Avid virtual instruments. Can you further describe the relative accessibility of the Avid instruments? I was considering an investment in the PT virtual instrument collection. As of now I still do most synth programming in Sonar because of the quality of the access to the virtual instruments and then export to Pro Tools for mixing
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
No, I said that I'd had luck. Most of the Avid instruments are accessible. They show their presets in the plug in window's preset librarian, and you can edit them through the visible automation parameters. There are some exceptions. Structure and Structure LE are 100% out. You must use their custom browsers to load presets, those browsers are completely invisible to VoiceOver, and they don't support keyboard navigation. This is really too bad. Xpand is sort of a general sound module, but the quality of the instruments in Structure are much better. Structure also has nice expansions from East-West that we can't use. From the instrument Expansion, the Transfuser instrument that is used to create/perform grooves in real-time by mixing and modifying loops is somewhat accessible, but crashes VO a lot. Like I said, though, every 3rd-party instrument that I've tried is inaccessible. Without Structure, the built-in instruments are great for picking up a part here and there if you're using mostly real instruments, but just need the occasional synth to cover a specific sound. If you want to completely sequence, I don't think that the instruments that we can use cover what is needed. I'd think better of the set if we could count Structure in our pallet. As is, though, most of the instruments in Xpand are like a synth rack from the mid 90's. Velvet and DB33 are absolutely nothing like modelers such as Lounge Lizard and B4. The absolute deal breaker for me, and anyone that sequences groove-based music from Dance Pop, to Hip Hop, to Dub Step, and so on, is that we don't have access to any sort of sampler at all. The electronic drums available in the presets are very out of date, and, without a sampler, I can't use my own sampled kits. These styles also require lots of sampled bits and pieces: gang shouts, atmospheric effects, stabs, transitions, etc, and ther isn't any way to trigger them. You could manually import each piece, place it on a track, and push it around, but that is the million years way to create a song. In terms of quality, I'd say that the Avid instruments are better than most of what comes with Sonar, but are way behind GarageBand and Logic. It's too bad. Editing in Pro Tools is so fast, that it could be really great for sequencing. Until we get access to a sampler plug in and better instruments, though, I still have to do those sorts of projects in Sonar. If you're working on simple stuff, like simple drums, bass, and keyboard arrangements, though, then it probably be enough. Bryan On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Tim Elder wrote: Hi Brian, You say others have had luck with the accessibility of Avid virtual instruments. Can you further describe the relative accessibility of the Avid instruments? I was considering an investment in the PT virtual instrument collection. As of now I still do most synth programming in Sonar because of the quality of the access to the virtual instruments and then export to Pro Tools for mixing and editing. I would prefer to do more sound generation in PT if the virtual instruments are accessible. Stefan Albertshauser wrote: Hello, I'm about to purcase pro tools. I didn't find two questions on the list: 1. I wonder, if it is possible for us to navigate to zero-crossings, like in sonar. 2. How do you use software instruments like Contact, where the buttons to load files, I think, aren't automatable? Thanks for reply Stefan
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
Hi: I was hoping that the garitan aria player would be accessible but it doesn't look good. If it were we could import sfz stuff into it. We really really are going to need a sampler of some sort. I like xpand though, at least we have access to the envelopes and it's simple and straightforward. Gord -Original Message- From: Bryan Smart Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 9:36 AM To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Software instruments and precise editing No, I said that I'd had luck. Most of the Avid instruments are accessible. They show their presets in the plug in window's preset librarian, and you can edit them through the visible automation parameters. There are some exceptions. Structure and Structure LE are 100% out. You must use their custom browsers to load presets, those browsers are completely invisible to VoiceOver, and they don't support keyboard navigation. This is really too bad. Xpand is sort of a general sound module, but the quality of the instruments in Structure are much better. Structure also has nice expansions from East-West that we can't use. From the instrument Expansion, the Transfuser instrument that is used to create/perform grooves in real-time by mixing and modifying loops is somewhat accessible, but crashes VO a lot. Like I said, though, every 3rd-party instrument that I've tried is inaccessible. Without Structure, the built-in instruments are great for picking up a part here and there if you're using mostly real instruments, but just need the occasional synth to cover a specific sound. If you want to completely sequence, I don't think that the instruments that we can use cover what is needed. I'd think better of the set if we could count Structure in our pallet. As is, though, most of the instruments in Xpand are like a synth rack from the mid 90's. Velvet and DB33 are absolutely nothing like modelers such as Lounge Lizard and B4. The absolute deal breaker for me, and anyone that sequences groove-based music from Dance Pop, to Hip Hop, to Dub Step, and so on, is that we don't have access to any sort of sampler at all. The electronic drums available in the presets are very out of date, and, without a sampler, I can't use my own sampled kits. These styles also require lots of sampled bits and pieces: gang shouts, atmospheric effects, stabs, transitions, etc, and ther isn't any way to trigger them. You could manually import each piece, place it on a track, and push it around, but that is the million years way to create a song. In terms of quality, I'd say that the Avid instruments are better than most of what comes with Sonar, but are way behind GarageBand and Logic. It's too bad. Editing in Pro Tools is so fast, that it could be really great for sequencing. Until we get access to a sampler plug in and better instruments, though, I still have to do those sorts of projects in Sonar. If you're working on simple stuff, like simple drums, bass, and keyboard arrangements, though, then it probably be enough. Bryan On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Tim Elder wrote: Hi Brian, You say others have had luck with the accessibility of Avid virtual instruments. Can you further describe the relative accessibility of the Avid instruments? I was considering an investment in the PT virtual instrument collection. As of now I still do most synth programming in Sonar because of the quality of the access to the virtual instruments and then export to Pro Tools for mixing and editing. I would prefer to do more sound generation in PT if the virtual instruments are accessible. Stefan Albertshauser wrote: Hello, I'm about to purcase pro tools. I didn't find two questions on the list: 1. I wonder, if it is possible for us to navigate to zero-crossings, like in sonar. 2. How do you use software instruments like Contact, where the buttons to load files, I think, aren't automatable? Thanks for reply Stefan
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
Hi Brian, You say others have had luck with the accessibility of Avid virtual instruments. Can you further describe the relative accessibility of the Avid instruments? I was considering an investment in the PT virtual instrument collection. As of now I still do most synth programming in Sonar because of the quality of the access to the virtual instruments and then export to Pro Tools for mixing and editing. I would prefer to do more sound generation in PT if the virtual instruments are accessible. Stefan Albertshauser wrote: Hello, I'm about to purcase pro tools. I didn't find two questions on the list: 1. I wonder, if it is possible for us to navigate to zero-crossings, like in sonar. 2. How do you use software instruments like Contact, where the buttons to load files, I think, aren't automatable? Thanks for reply Stefan
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
Does this mean tools like Beat Detective are accessible? On 6/8/11, Tim Elder t...@timeldermusic.com wrote: Hi Brian, You say others have had luck with the accessibility of Avid virtual instruments. Can you further describe the relative accessibility of the Avid instruments? I was considering an investment in the PT virtual instrument collection. As of now I still do most synth programming in Sonar because of the quality of the access to the virtual instruments and then export to Pro Tools for mixing and editing. I would prefer to do more sound generation in PT if the virtual instruments are accessible. Stefan Albertshauser wrote: Hello, I'm about to purcase pro tools. I didn't find two questions on the list: 1. I wonder, if it is possible for us to navigate to zero-crossings, like in sonar. 2. How do you use software instruments like Contact, where the buttons to load files, I think, aren't automatable? Thanks for reply Stefan
Software instruments and precise editing
Hello, I'm about to purcase pro tools. I didn't find two questions on the list: 1. I wonder, if it is possible for us to navigate to zero-crossings, like in sonar. 2. How do you use software instruments like Contact, where the buttons to load files, I think, aren't automatable? Thanks for reply Stefan
Re: Software instruments and precise editing
Hi stefan, The idea of zero crossing is irrelevant in Pro Tools since it is possible to not only define automatic crossfades but, even if an edit is very rough, a crossfade is simple to make across any region boundaries. HTH, Slau On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Bryan Smart wrote: Regarding 2, I don't know of anyone that has had any good accessibility luck with software instruments not made by Avid. Even clicking specific coordinates with the mouse isn't very useful. If you click a position that opens a browser window, that browser window probably won't read, either. Bryan On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Stefan Albertshauser wrote: Hello, I’m about to purcase pro tools. I didn’t find two questions on the list: 1. I wonder, if it is possible for us to navigate to zero-crossings, like in sonar. 2. How do you use software instruments like Contact, where the buttons to load files, I think, aren’t automatable? Thanks for reply Stefan
