# A dedicated hardware controller for VI musicians



## babylonwaves (Jan 8, 2021)

hi,

I want to discuss an idea openly, want to see if it lands or makes no sense. We've seen a lot of hardware controllers over the years and some were terrible whereas some were brillant and some are not available anymore (like FaderCTRL). this hypothetical one would be one to control your orchestra channel, not a mixer type of of controller.

so, what if there would be a way to make a controller with the following features, designed for people who work with virtual orchestras:

the hardware:

- desktop unit with a small footprint
- 4 motor faders (100 mm) which react to the settings of the channel (you select a channel, this thing follows your selection)

- 10 buttons to select articulations for those who use Expression Maps or Logic Articulation Sets etc. The buttons send e.g MIDI notes. they could eventually be used for something else instead of articulations selection as well.

- USB plug and play with major DAWs

I know there could be more faders, more buttons etc. - but in order to keep the costs down for this one, for a first attempt, that would be my ideal configuration. the faders could do

- mod wheel
- expression
- channel volume
- option (maybe vibrato)

do you need DAW controls (like start/stop/record)?
what do you think?

happy weekend!


----------



## Pablocrespo (Jan 8, 2021)

take a look at this:









YAELTEX Factory


Design your custom MIDI controller, online




factory.yaeltex.com





Not affiliated but fanboy, they are great!


----------



## babylonwaves (Jan 8, 2021)

@Pablocrespo 

I know this site. but it has not much to do with what I think off. They apparently do simple controller boxes. The faders are short and not motorised _and_ those boxes send MIDI events, I envision an integration with a DAW. A box that reacts to a channel's settings.


----------



## shponglefan (Jan 8, 2021)

I'm not quite understanding the need for motorized faders if one is using it control things like mod wheel input, expression, etc.

For channel levels it makes sense to have motorized faders. But is this designed to control channel levels or be used for MIDI CC inputs?


----------



## babylonwaves (Jan 8, 2021)

@shponglefan - mod wheel in orchestral lib controls how "loud" the phrase is played - you know that. I move it all the time and as much as for volume I prefer the fader to represent the state. but normally it doesn't. 

and thanks for posting this, because that's exactly what I'd like to discuss. there are enough "stupid" fader doxes on the market, I wonder if there's a desire for something advanced.


----------



## shponglefan (Jan 8, 2021)

babylonwaves said:


> and thanks for posting this, because that's exactly what I'd like to discuss. there are enough "stupid" fader doxes on the market, I wonder if there's a desire for something advanced.



I guess I'm not entirely envisioning the intent here. To me, things like channel strip controls are somewhat specialized. If I wanted a device for that, I'd look to something like a FaderPort. I'd want motorized faders, dedicated channel buttons (mute, solo, etc), probably mini-displays for the channel name, plus the usual transport controls.

If I needed a controller for MIDI inputs (mod wheel, expression, etc.), I don't see the need for motorized faders or those dedicated buttons/functions. I just want plain faders, knobs, etc. And as you say, there are lots of existing fader devices/MIDI controllers that do that on the market.

If the intent here is to create something that could function as both, I'm not entirely sure how that would be pulled off in a manner that would be better than an individual, specialized controller for those functions (e.g. DAW control versus MIDI CC inputs).

If you could do something like that, that could be awesome. I'm just having trouble envisioning what that would look like or how it would work.


----------



## mybadmemory (Jan 8, 2021)

I see no personal reason for wanting motor faders for CC control. For automation in a track mixer sure, but not for midi CCs.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jan 8, 2021)

I like your idea @babylonwaves
It makes me think of a 'hybrid' between an X-touch compact and the palette gear controllers.

The x-touch has motorized faders, but they do not follow the CC data within a MIDI file. The current benefit of motorized faders comes in when you have buttons that act as CC presets.
For instance, on my X-Touch, I have a button below each fader that essentially can hold two values each, so I have them configured to input a value of 100 or 127 for that fader. If I press it, the fader jumps up to value 100, if I press it again the fader jumps up to 127, etc.
The motorized fader is mostly just a visual feedback of the values I'm setting, but even that alone is very helpful.
The X-touch also has 24 buttons above the faders, that can all be assigned to either midi notes/keyswitches, or CC values just like the ones below the faders.

Where it reminds me of Palette Gear is when you mention the ability to cycle through different controllers.
Palette Gear has 'scenes' that you can cycle through using buttons or a dial. So if you have only 2 faders, they could be set to CC1 and CC11, but once you hit the 'next scene' button they are now CC2 and CC7, etc.

So a hybrid approach of those two concepts, cycling through CC numbers and the fader's positions following along, is a nifty idea.
Let me know when you're taking orders!


----------



## Pablocrespo (Jan 8, 2021)

The problem is that cubase for example don´t send cc to external faders.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jan 8, 2021)

MIDI 2.0 is said to open up these sorts of opportunities for controller devices.
Hopefully we start seeing the adoption of this protocol soon


----------



## babylonwaves (Jan 8, 2021)

Pablocrespo said:


> The problem is that cubase for example don´t send cc to external faders.


we'll see about that.


----------



## X-Bassist (Jan 8, 2021)

Pablocrespo said:


> The problem is that cubase for example don´t send cc to external faders.


Yes, it was my understanding that this is the problem with any DAW, it doesn't send feedback to the controller like automation does. But now with Midi 2.0 it can do bidirectional info, IF the DAW and controller are setup to do that. Both seem a little ways off.

But if you get it to work let us know. Having automated CC control, just like mixing volume, allows for touch sensitive faders, meaning they playback the automation and punch in and out when you touch them (with a ramp speed that gets them gently back to the current setting on punch out). Would make a lot of CC moves easier to fix or adjust. All the best on it!


----------



## babylonwaves (Jan 8, 2021)

essentially the question is if that's really beneficial for VI composers.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Jan 8, 2021)

Don't motorized faders need an external power supply? Are there some that run purely off of USB?


----------



## FGBR (Jan 8, 2021)

I personally also don't see the need for motorized faders. I would like a mod wheel (or even two?) though, as I prefer that type of action for some things. I'd definitely buy a controller with four high quality non motorized faders and mod wheel(s), if the price was at least somewhat reasonable. I'd imagine you'd sell a few to Roland guys as well


----------



## Trash Panda (Jan 8, 2021)

How about a leap motion controller?









Tracking | Leap Motion Controller | Ultraleap


Small. Fast. Accurate. The LeapMotion Controller is an optical hand tracking module that captures the movements of your hands with unparalleled accuracy.




www.ultraleap.com





In action with Aaron Venture and Infinite Brass


----------



## Paulogic (Jan 9, 2021)

Isn't this Leap Motion controller a expensive version of a D-Beam controller,
if you only use it for expression? I had several synths with a D-Beam but
never could get used to it.
(And how much I tried to wave at my synth, it never waved back !! )


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 9, 2021)

I’m starting to think that an Avid Dock (1 motorised fader for automation) and an X Touch Compact (for Midi CCs) would be a killer combo. The Avid Dock really is great. If there was a way to use an Avid S1 with Midi CCs I would just get one of those.

There is also no need for motorised faders for Midi CCs. They do want to be touch sensitive though. The Xtouch already has this.

Interested in seeing what you come up with but what is it your product would offer that isn’t available already?


----------



## babylonwaves (Jan 9, 2021)

jononotbono said:


> Interested in seeing what you come up with but what is it your product would offer that isn’t available already?


The reason why I want to try this is that I cannot find a device in the market with specs above. I don’t need 8 faders and I miss buttons for the articulation switching. I have a faderport and I love the motor fader for the volume. Every time I touch my faderCTRL next to it I expect the fader to be in the right position - and obviously they’re not. What I’ll try to build I’d a device which is totally tailored towards controlling an orchestra library. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## AudioLoco (Jan 9, 2021)

I like the idea and the layout.

The thing that would interest me the most, is articulation control, and 10 buttons for that seem an amazing idea . 
There could be a software included with the data base for the main libraries out there (even at an extra cost, as it would need to be an updated list etc...).
Would be nice to even have a little super simple display for each articulation, with a little universal icon for staccato, longs, trem etc etc... For each library, have always the longs on button one, shorts on button 2, trem on 3 (example) etc etc.....
I don't know if this is even possible, so sorry if I'm getting too ahead...
That could be a game changer, control wise, and also a way to make universal the articulation control on different DAWs.



PS
DAW transport controls would be a waste of space in my opinion.


----------



## muk (Jan 9, 2021)

It sounds like a great idea. As some have mentioned, I am not sure about motorized faders for cc control. Buttons for articulation control are definitely great. Though I would prefer 12 instead of 10 - giving you a full octaves worth of keyswitches.


----------



## babylonwaves (Jan 9, 2021)

muk said:


> It sounds like a great idea. As some have mentioned, I am not sure about motorized faders for cc control. Buttons for articulation control are definitely great. Though I would prefer 12 instead of 10 - giving you a full octaves worth of keyswitches.


I have find out if it's doable. I'm unsure myself but hey, let's see. As for the key switches, the templates we do (see my sig) have a universal layout for 10 articulations already, so it would be easy to get this one done.


----------



## Loïc D (Jan 9, 2021)

X-Bassist said:


> Yes, it was my understanding that this is the problem with any DAW, it doesn't send feedback to the controller like automation does. But now with Midi 2.0 it can do bidirectional info, IF the DAW and controller are setup to do that. Both seem a little ways off.


Good to know.
I’m investigating OSC protocol for this usage.


----------



## AudioLoco (Jan 9, 2021)

babylonwaves said:


> I have find out if it's doable. I'm unsure myself but hey, let's see. As for the key switches, the templates we do (see my sig) have a universal layout for 10 articulations already, so it would be easy to get this one done.


I just now checked your sig. So you already have universal mapping in place, that is great....


----------



## samphony (Jan 9, 2021)

babylonwaves said:


> essentially the question is if that's really beneficial for VI composers.


Haben wollen. Am besten gestern 
Seriously i would love to have a motorized fader controller for cc = automation data. With a sleek non bulky design.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 9, 2021)

mybadmemory said:


> I see no personal reason for wanting motor faders for CC control. For automation in a track mixer sure, but not for midi CCs.


I dunno, I certainly see no downside to having the faders position reflect the level of the present MIDI CC.

I have the afore mentioned FaderControl (in fact, I talked him into making it available to others besides himself) and it is terrific though.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jan 9, 2021)

I absolutely LOVE the idea of motorized faders for MIDI CC control. I’d love to have real-time visual feedback at my fingertips. 
The idea of buttons implementing articulation choice is novel and fits well to your area of expertise. 
I’d like to see 8 faders but would happily accept four. 
Looking forward to see what you come up with!

.


----------



## NothingToHide (Jan 9, 2021)

The thing is, all of this great stuff would have been possible for a long time and at least with the Lemur app available for a cheap-to-get iPad it would have been quite an easy and affordable thing to implement. But it needs serious support from your DAW of choice. With Cubase you could get there 70% of the way by using the generic control and a lot of programming on your end. I did that with Max MSP, other with scripting inside lemur (commercially MidiKinetics).

But all of this time, DAW developers like Steinberg were just to lazy or unwilling to invest time into something like this, although the benefit for composers would have been very obvious. I assume, most people who produce music do stuff like pop and they don't really use templates the way some of us do. They just load one instrument at a time and are perfectly fine with something like Komplete Kontrol ... That is why nothing is being developed that is exclusively geared towards the needs of a busy film composers. 

Composers with lots of money just have their own software team who develop a dedicated solution for them - Hans Zimmer doesn't even use Kontakt but his own sampler. Although he seems to be using Cubase, I bet there are all sorts of custom software pieces for him to just select a track and have all the controls for the instrument on the touch screen and faders ...

That is no rocket science at all! I know it, because I built it for myself with the given tools and I am not a programmer! You just don't get everything as you wish as a DIY project, because of the limitations of generic remote or other protocols like Mackie Control ... It would just need one DAW developer that would actually care to implement that and you would not need any midi 2.0 for it.


----------



## NothingToHide (Jan 9, 2021)

And regarding the original topic of a custom hardware midi controller: there are already dozens of companies who offer flexible designs to create a custom controller. In case you would want a really custom controller, with Arduino it has become really easy to realize a project like that yourself. 

The custom controller is not what is missing, as one composers custom controller could be the nightmare for another composer!  Custom means the ability to change the design to your needs and there are plenty options for that any more on the way. 

What is really missing is obvious when you tried to get something like that yourself done: it is the implementation into the software, not the hardware itself! That is why I like Max MSP. You can create your own midi software with it. Unfortunately, you cannot change Cubase with Max, so, you have to wait for Steinberg to make that happen or switch to Reaper and live with other drawbacks ...


----------



## PaulieDC (Jan 9, 2021)

babylonwaves said:


> hi,
> 
> I want to discuss an idea openly, want to see if it lands or makes no sense. We've seen a lot of hardware controllers over the years and some were terrible whereas some were brillant and some are not available anymore (like FaderCTRL). this hypothetical one would be one to control your orchestra channel, not a mixer type of of controller.
> 
> ...


Basically you described a StudioLogic MixFace just without motorized faders. 😀 and of course that doesn’t have _100 mm_ faders, but it would be a little difficult having a small footprint with long faders I would think. That’s why I use the MixFace for everything except expression and dynamic control, for that I use the FaderPort 8. The MixFace does all VST settings (I.e. CTA mic levels), keyswitches, DAW transport, etc. I have everything I want with a footprint the size of Montana. 😂

Funny, the FaderPort 8 has motorized faders, and I want them to work HALF the time... I don’t want motorized faders fighting me if I’m going back over a section I’ve played in, I want them manual and smooth. BUT, faderPort allows you to quickly switch to normal DAW mode which allows me to listen back and even write a little track volume automation for a section. The problem is when I switch back to MIDI CC mode, the faders just sit where they were for the MIX part. PreSonus hasn’t put the feature in where it remembers your CC settings. With motorize faders they technically could. It would be great if the faders did return to where I had them for CC11, 1, etc. But considering they put MIDI CC control in as a free firmware upgrade to a u it that never had that in the original design, I can’t really complain. So that’s why I bought the MixFace.

Holy smokes, that’s the answer to hour “Wonder Unit”! Motorized faders with a defeat switch!


----------



## babylonwaves (Jan 9, 2021)

Jack Weaver said:


> I’d like to see 8 faders but would happily accept four.


I think 8 faders would be to much, simply because this wouldn’t be a remote fit a mixer. I have a faderctrl which has 8 faders and I barely use 4 of those. Why would you prefer 8 faders, what would you put on them?


----------



## Mornats (Jan 9, 2021)

I use a Maschine Jam in midi mode. I've mapped three of the ten touchstrips to CC1, CC11 and CC21 (usually vibrato). It just so happens that the bottom row of buttons start off as C1 by default so they tend to map to most keyswitches (they do for Spitfire libraries at least). 

I didn't buy it for this purpose but it suits me fine. If you hate touchstrips it won't be for you though!


----------



## babylonwaves (Jan 9, 2021)

PaulieDC said:


> Funny, the FaderPort 8 has motorized faders, and I want them to work HALF the time... I don’t want motorized faders fighting me if I’m going back over a section I’ve played in, I want them manual and smooth


@PaulieDC 
Do the Motors work in Midi CC mode?


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jan 9, 2021)

babylonwaves said:


> I think 8 faders would be to much, simply because this wouldn’t be a remote fit a mixer. I have a faderctrl which has 8 faders and I barely use 4 of those. Why would you prefer 8 faders, what would you put on them?


Thinking purely of my needs and wants - VSL Synchron Strings Pro and the other Synchron Player instruments have a ton of MIDI cc options - for my purposes the faders on the Synchron Mixer page could be manipulated in realtime. I'm already doing this with my nanoKontrol2 with its 9 faders, albeit without the benefit of seeing the visual feedback of the various channel levels. 

Also my ROLI keyboard has lots of MPE options that could benefit from more faders. 

However, I would totally understand that this might be beyond the needs of many of your potential customers. And... price point/sales potential balance you have to consider. 

Hey, will you be able to cascade two of your devices?

Anyway, I applaud your efforts and plans.

.


----------



## babylonwaves (Jan 9, 2021)

Mornats said:


> I didn't buy it for this purpose but it suits me fine. If you hate touchstrips it won't be for you though!


I have a Maschine 3 and I did use it for a similar purpose for a while. works good too. the reason why I'm motivated to that instead of using Maschine is the estate on my desktop. I came to believe that everything in easy reach needs to be a device a use a lot and preferably small. That's what I like so much about the Faderport. It's small and it does a lot.


----------



## 24dBFS (Jan 9, 2021)

babylonwaves said:


> I have a Maschine 3 and I did use it for a similar purpose for a while. works good too. the reason why I'm motivated to that instead of using Maschine is the estate on my desktop. I came to believe that everything in easy reach needs to be a device a use a lot and preferably small. That's what I like so much about the Faderport. It's small and it does a lot.


Why not a small 7" to 11" touchscreen with all the buttons and faders a user might need, freely customizable and reacting to selected track? 
I really think there is no one right way of building a hardware controller to fit all needs. Already two composers - one using Spitfire stuff with Kontakt and one using Vienna with synchron player - will have different needs for the amount of buttons and faders. Motorized faders are also overrated in my opinion, had few of the brands available and after the initial "wow, they move by magic" there was not much to it after few days of use. They are expensive to build and tend to break sooner or later (even the Alps and Bournes). Just my 2 cents but the more variety on the market the better for us end users so I will applaud a project like this with both my hands.


----------



## babylonwaves (Jan 9, 2021)

24dBFS said:


> Why not a small 7" to 11" touchscreen with all the buttons and faders a user might need, freely customizable and reacting to selected track?
> I really think there is no one right way of building a hardware controller to fit all needs. Already two composers - one using Spitfire stuff with Kontakt and one using Vienna with synchron player - will have different needs for the amount of buttons and faders. Motorized faders are also overrated in my opinion, had few of the brands available and after the initial "wow, they move by magic" there was not much to it after few days of use. They are expensive to build and tend to break sooner or later (even the Alps and Bournes). Just my 2 cents but the more variety on the market the better for us end users so I will applaud a project like this with both my hands.


good points. I think I have enough touch screens with 2 iPads and all that. They serve me greatly for many tasks but certainly not for riding a fader, especially not for something as delicate as strings and brass. I've tried that with TouchOSC and I didn't gravitate to it, I always kept using the physical faders I had for CC1/11/21.

as for the motors, I think it's a matter of trying and working with it. certainly not the "wow" but a better way to edit something using Touch automation. those things I do with the mouse right now because the passive faders don't help me finessing a controller ride.

The things you offer at 14bitMIDI look nice btw. maybe you should build what you suggest above, and then please make it compatible with Logic so I can use it as well 

oh yeah and of course this is all totally niche market stuff. I don't even expect to come up with a formula that suits everybody. but the cool thing about a niche is that, if so, it really fits. like getting a shirt from a tailor.


----------



## PaulieDC (Jan 9, 2021)

babylonwaves said:


> @PaulieDC
> Do the Motors work in Midi CC mode?


No they don’t. For that reason I only use it in the cc mode I don’t switch back to normal mode to control the transport and DAW. Naturally it remembers fafter position when I switch to the mixer because of the two-way comm, but when you go back to MIDI CC, nothing. That’s not to say they might not add it in the future because they added MIDI CC way after the fact totally free because many requested it on their site. If we hammer them maybe they can read in CC value to the mapped CC#. To be honest I would rather have assignable cc numbers on those feeders. Right now they are fixed so anything in the spitfire player is reversed because Spitfire uses 11 and then 1 in the UI, the fader port is hardcoded to 1 and 11 for the first two faders. But I deal with it because it was a free firmware update and the faders are 100mm.


----------



## 24dBFS (Jan 9, 2021)

babylonwaves said:


> good points. I think I have enough touch screens with 2 iPads and all that. They serve me greatly for many tasks but certainly not for riding a fader, especially not for something as delicate as strings and brass. I've tried that with TouchOSC and I didn't gravitate to it, I always kept using the physical faders I had for CC1/11/21.
> 
> as for the motors, I think it's a matter of trying and working with it. certainly not the "wow" but a better way to edit something using Touch automation. those things I do with the mouse right now because the passive faders don't help me finessing a controller ride.
> 
> ...


Of course you are totally right, I would even describe the market as a niche of a niche 
I hope I will be able to give you a 30cm faders and a AU version to play with very soon so you will hopefully be able to enter the 14bitMIDI club  
Maybe we could even join forces to use our fields of expertise to do some good in the niche of a niche space!
Cheers!


----------



## tc9000 (Jan 9, 2021)

I think it's a great idea! A database of mappings for existing orchestral libs (as already suggested) would be superb... Imagine that - CCs and switchable articulations all set up already.... I guess there would need to be integraton / support for all the common DAWs... what else? In addtion to faders, buttons to trigger articulations would be nice, and some form of indicator / display could also be sweet (for me the least essential though)!

Please make it low form-factor and small-ish footprint so it can be easily placed near to / on top of a keyboard! Comfort is a big factor for me. Fader throw length is much debated - 100mm? 60mm? 30mm??? I personally think around 50 or 60mm is the sweet spot, but I have the hands of a small hobbit.

Again this is very much personal preference, but I find four faders enough to cover my needs...


----------



## jcrosby (Jan 9, 2021)

babylonwaves said:


> hi,
> 
> I want to discuss an idea openly, want to see if it lands or makes no sense. We've seen a lot of hardware controllers over the years and some were terrible whereas some were brillant and some are not available anymore (like FaderCTRL). this hypothetical one would be one to control your orchestra channel, not a mixer type of of controller.
> 
> ...


I think this would be great, especially if the cost meant it came with tight MIDI integration when it comes to DAW specific things like articulation sets/expression maps.

I get the purpose of motorized faders and totally agree on a fader being representative of a state vs sitting at the last position. One other option might be led touch strips... While I prefer tactile, I've gotten quite used to touch control over the past few years and don't have an issue with either... The main thing is being able to ride more than one CC, have some kind of representation of where the fader(s) are, and have it show you the current position when you bank back to that channel.

One other thought is a viable alternative would be a ios/tablet app that more or less worked out of the box without the laborious process required with all of the current contenders.

Just tossing out ideas here mainly... My main point is this is a great discussion to start as controllers are the one thing where things are pretty scattered. There wouldn't be as many threads on here as there are if it wasn't something that couldn't be improved upon significantly... And something that is straightforward with very little setup would be well worth it if the the price of entry was reasonable (in regards to the cost of development of course...)


----------



## babylonwaves (Jan 9, 2021)

tc9000 said:


> Please make it low form-factor and small-ish footprint so it can be easily placed near to / on top of a keyboard! Comfort is a big factor for me. Fader throw length is much debated - 100mm? 60mm? 30mm??? I personally think around 50 or 60mm is the sweet spot, but I have the hands of a small hobbit.


hobbit hands? yeah I can see that in your avatar  I like the 100mm faders for volume etc because, taking volume as an example, if you have a range of 140dB and you you hear a .5dB difference, you want some space to move. I agree with you on the low form-factor. actually that's something that would be better with passive faders.


----------



## sostenuto (Jan 9, 2021)

Waaay out oof my depth here, but wish to note impressions __ long-term __ watching the very capable John Lehmkuhl (PluginGuru) for many months of his Livestreams, using the discontinued Maschine Jam to do much of what is described. Crazy (to me) that such a capable device would be deleted in favor of current Maschine versions which are very limited for this discussion. 

Checking now for a Guru video showing this setup.

One short view is at ~~ 14:44 on this video _ in far lower left corner.

(26) This is Brainworx Knifonium! ANALOG Synth in Software NIRVANA!! - YouTube


----------



## Mornats (Jan 9, 2021)

sostenuto said:


> Waaay out oof my depth here, but wish to note impressions __ long-term __ watching the very capable John Lehmkuhl (PluginGuru) for many months of his Livestreams, using the discontinued Maschine Jam to do much of what is described. Crazy (to me) that such a capable device would be deleted in favor of current Maschine versions which are very limited for this discussion.
> 
> Checking now for a Guru video showing this setup.
> 
> ...


When it first came out I remember the NI-trained sales guys in the music shop couldn't really describe what it did. It's kind of a step sequencer, an arranger and can do some live stuff with the touch strips. It never really had a solid sales pitch or purpose so I think it just didn't sell enough. There was confusion whether it replaced a Maschine or supplemented one (it was the latter). It's a real shame because in midi mode it's killer. Also super handy to work alongside a Maschine.


----------



## sostenuto (Jan 9, 2021)

Mornats said:


> When it first came out I remember the NI-trained sales guys in the music shop couldn't really describe what it did. It's kind of a step sequencer, an arranger and can do some live stuff with the touch strips. It never really had a solid sales pitch or purpose so I think it just didn't sell enough. There was confusion whether it replaced a Maschine or supplemented one (it was the latter). It's a real shame because in midi mode it's killer. Also super handy to work alongside a Maschine.


 
While weak chops in many aspects of this capability, I would purchase Jam in a heartbeat after watching many more Guru videos, using Jam. Not really without tools, having KK _ S-49, M-Audio Axiom Pro61, but hoping for some near-term solutions, equal and better than Maschine Jam ! 

Kudos to all current Maschine talented users, but much wider challenges to conquer .....


----------



## pkm (Jan 9, 2021)

I think this kind of thing would be great, a motorized MIDI fader controller combined with a Streamdeck or something, if the motors would work! Personally, I’d want more than 4 faders but as a concept, I like it.


----------



## ChrisHarrison (Jan 14, 2021)

Artist mix with Cubase motorized cc control is awesome. Would highly recommend.


----------



## LudovicVDP (Jan 15, 2021)

What I'm missing from my Faderport 8 is that I doesn't follow the track I'm on. 
To me, 12 articulations pad/buttons + midi faders + 1 mixer fader that would follow the track (à la CC121 from steinberg) would be very nice.
No transport button needed. I have those on my midi keyboard and on Faderport already... But I'm still using the keyboard and mouse for playing/scrolling/navigating...


----------



## Trevor Meier (Jan 26, 2021)

I really, really wish someone would make just a simple 2-4 fader midi controller with 100mm touch-sensitive faders and assignable CCs. Super basic.

(and yes I know I could build one but who has time for that?)


----------



## stigc56 (Jan 31, 2021)

Ashermusic said:


> I dunno, I certainly see no downside to having the faders position reflect the level of the present MIDI CC.
> 
> I have the afore mentioned FaderControl (in fact, I talked him into making it available to others besides himself) and it is terrific though.


I can`t make it work on Big Sur. Can you? Talking about FaderCtrl.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 31, 2021)

stigc56 said:


> I can`t make it work on Big Sur. Can you? Talking about FaderCtrl.


I haven't gone to Big Sur yet as my Apogee Element 24 is not yet fully compatible.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jan 31, 2021)

I think this is a great idea, but I don't like the motorized controls. The hardware will eventually fail (hard to replace), and of course you need more code to keep it in sync with the selected track. They are also noisy. 

My 2 cents


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Jan 31, 2021)

Ashermusic said:


> I haven't gone to Big Sur yet as my Apogee Element 24 is not yet fully compatible.


I switched to Big Sur about a month ago and the Apogee Element 24 works perfectly for me


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 31, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> I switched to Big Sur about a month ago and the Apogee Element 24 works perfectly for me



*An Apogee tech support guy conformed this:*


ChromeCrescendo said:


> *Ensemble and Element Series*
> 
> 
> Logic Pro X Audio Device Controls not working, including the Direct button
> ...


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Jan 31, 2021)

Ashermusic said:


> *An Apogee tech support guy conformed this:*


Well, I use the microphone and guitar in without issue

As for the clock source, that sounds above my paygrade

All I know is I have had no issue using the Apogee Element 24 with either a microphone or guitar

YMMV


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 31, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> Well, I use the microphone and guitar in without issue
> 
> As for the clock source, that sounds above my paygrade
> 
> ...



Do you do Direct Monitoring in Logic with it? For me, that is a critical part of my workflow.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Jan 31, 2021)

Ashermusic said:


> Do you do Direct Monitoring in Logic with it? For me, that is a critical part of my workflow.


To be honest, I don't know -- whatever the settings are by default are what I leave them at when plugging the guitar in - then I run everything through Amplitube 5 MAX


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 31, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> To be honest, I don't know -- whatever the settings are by default are what I leave them at when plugging the guitar in - then I run everything through Amplitube 5 MAX


At the top of an channel strip in Logic assigned to an input, you have Direct Monitoring, which allows you to set levels and monitor with mo added latency.. You either set your levels with Direct Monitoring there or you don't.

Suffice to say, no offense intended, you aren't exactly up to speed on the ramifications.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Jan 31, 2021)

Ashermusic said:


> At the top of an channel strip in Logic assigned to an input, you have Direct Monitoring, which allows you to set levels and monitor with mo added latency.. You either set your levels with Direct Monitoring there or you don't.
> 
> Suffice to say, no offense intended, you aren't exactly up to speed on the ramifications.


Maybe I am one of those people that fails to hear, or I am not advanced enough as a musician to hear, a few milliseconds of latency


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 31, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> Maybe I am one of those lucky people that fails to hear a few milliseconds latency


Anyway, I asked the Apogee rep if he would recommend going to Big Sur at this time, and he said, “ since you are a pro, no.”

When that happens with my critical gear, I take the developers advice, as the potential upside of the new OS is not that high.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Jan 31, 2021)

Ashermusic said:


> Anyway, I asked the Apogee rep if he would recommend going to Big Sur at this time, and he said, “ since you are a pro, no.”
> 
> When that happens with my critical gear, I take the developers advice, as the potential upside of the new OS is not that high.


Well, I am not a "pro" so please do not pay attention to my anecdotal evidence


----------



## ZeroZero (Feb 1, 2021)

I have three MIDI Controllers here. A Behringer BCF2000, A Korg nano Kontrol Studio and an Oxygen 25 with no faders. They are all a pain in the proverbial to set up and now I have to do it again, after a major crash. The set up takes us all away from the creative process of making music. I suppository the best one I have is the BCF, as this has motorised faders, but they do not follow a pre-recorded curve.
This and many many other threads testify to the lack of the right product. I think this may come after the release of MIDI 2.

*Here is my idea controller:

MIDI2 Compatible*

Pro level build, long throw faders x 9 (You will occasionally need more than four - controlling a Hammond for example). One continuous rotary dial per fader - with lights.

Built in Mod Wheel

Quality Track Ball or Joystick for controlling 2 x, y parameters on the fly (e,g, Vibrato level and Speed)

Good Mini VDUs - like the Behringer X Touch

The ability to save and recall 'Pages' or 'Snapshots' for any instrument -easily and *perceivably *that is with names shown on a VDU. MIDI learn (obviously)

A comphrehensive library of instruments set up from various famous providers - the ability to create load and share these.

Plug and Play with major DAWs (or almost)

*NOT* also a DAW controller though basic transport buttons could be provided - _buy something else for that! _

NO esoteric button usage (e.g. Press Play and Record, fader 5 and touch third fader with left elbow to go into set up mode 13)

USB and BlueTooth

Great Manual

Lap size

Such a device, with rock solid sofware would find it's way into all the best studios


MIDI 2 Propert Exchange and profile Configuration promises to make set up far easier, but os far I see no hardware (except one Roland Keyboard), and no compatible DAWS. MIDI 2 will change EVERYTHING, forever.


----------



## KerrySmith (Feb 1, 2021)

babylonwaves said:


> hi,
> 
> I want to discuss an idea openly, want to see if it lands or makes no sense. We've seen a lot of hardware controllers over the years and some were terrible whereas some were brillant and some are not available anymore (like FaderCTRL). this hypothetical one would be one to control your orchestra channel, not a mixer type of of controller.
> 
> ...


In concept it sounds interesting. I work mainly in Pro Tools, and have spent years with an Avid Control, with 4 motorized 100mm faders, and a separate CC-control box. Here are my thoughts on what you propose. 

- Motorized faders - It's neat and sometimes useful when you're actively editing a track or parameter. But I hate hearing/seeing faders sliding around when I'm not touching them, so any surface I buy going forward should have a dedicated and easily accessible "faders off" control. Also, as far as their implementation, the DAWs all seem to have different ways of "attentioning" a track. Cubase and Logic seem... similar, but it sounds like a load of implementation to get all fo the big ones onboard. Maybe it's in the MIDI 2.0 spec? I'm guessing/hoping that you have some ideas on that. 

- Buttons - okay. They should be configurable, even if it's a software app that you configure and it writes to the hardware. The software for my Novation Launch Control XL (which is my current CC controller) does this. 

- I don't need start/stop/record buttons. I feel like these are the first key commands that everyone learns on their DAW, and any implementation of them on a surface is something I have ignored. 

- A small selection of assignable knobs (1 per fader?) would also be nice. If the faders are assignable, that's cool. But I find that having Filter Cutoff & Resonance and Amplitude Attack & Release CCs on-hand is super-useful for any of the non-orchestral VIs in my workflow (heck, even some of the orch stuff if it's set up properly)

PS - I am a customer. I fiddle with Cubase sometimes, and your Expression Maps have been very helpful. I wish you success in this idea.


----------



## RSK (Feb 1, 2021)

I’d be very interested in a controller with the specs you gave. Motorized or not isn’t a big deal, but I’d definitely want the articulation buttons and transport controls.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Feb 1, 2021)

_*The last thing I would need would be taking up space for transport controls. *_

Simply....

- More faders & knobs
- More presets to configure for different libraries
- Easy software setup
- joystick
- lit status indicators ( I want to see with a glance what's going on)

Please allow me to retire the Korg nanoKontrol2!

_I want a professional controller meant to do the job that most of us here really do. _

.


----------



## AlexRuger (Feb 1, 2021)

NothingToHide said:


> Unfortunately, you cannot change Cubase with Max, so, you have to wait for Steinberg to make that happen or switch to Reaper and live with other drawbacks ...


I use Max MSP for as a touch controller and for parsing/transforming MIDI data on the way into Cubase. Works fine. What do you mean you can't "change" Cubase with Max?


----------



## colony nofi (Feb 3, 2021)

jononotbono said:


> The Avid Dock really is great. If there was a way to use an Avid S1 with Midi CCs I would just get one of those.


Well - there is 
It just takes 4 dummy tracks inside cubase, and a little bit of setup inside Bome. 
I use an S1 with 4 faders (motorised) for audio duties, and 4 faders non motorised for midi CC. 

There is a workaround to make midi CC work with motorised faders inside cubase or nuendo - but it means using automation lanes rather than CC data inside the midi part. I'm not *that* old, but I found trying to change my workflow to use automation lanes rather than the CC controller lanes just really tiresome. I couldn't get my head around it for whatever reason. Old habbits and all that. I prefer non motorised in this scenario. 

As a note : The only thing I don't personally like about the S1 is the tray for an Ipad, which I don't use with it. Eucon is by far the best protocol for any control of DAW's out there, and the implementation in the S1 is great.

I'll be interested to see what protocol SSL use in their new 8 fader controller... we'll know in a day or two.

As to the idea mentioned in this thread.

Its intriguing. I don't use key switching tonnes. I rather just have many many kontakt tracks - one articulation per track. Now - if one could program the art-switching to just switch the track (in cubase that would be possible) then I'm totally in. 

100mm faders for midi CC are just awesome. Its hard to go back to 60 or 40mm faders when I'm on the road. Of course, one manages.

Motorised. For CC. Its going to get VERY noisy very quickly for some passages. For straight up orchestration, maybe not so much - but there's many of us using midi controllers for more hybrid sound design, and there the control data can be very dense, and make wild changes very quickly. A way of turning the motors on / off would be good.

Anyway. Having played with motorised CC's, I never really got into them. But I could be convinced still with the right implementation.

4 seems a good number to start, so long as at least one (my vote would be all) could be very quickly assigned to any CC.


----------



## AlexRuger (Feb 3, 2021)

Yeah, I could see motorized faders for CCs _only _being good when either switching to a new track, or when you stop the cursor in a new place, but not ever while playing back (the noise would drive me nuts, and the movements might be absolutely giant, like when you initialize a new volume change and switch CC 7 from say 0 to 127 in an instant). 

So perhaps only triggering the movement of the faders when the DAW says "hey, a new track was just selected" or "things are paused, let's update the CCs in case you want to record from here." But that requires a much smarter protocol than MIDI, or at least a separate protocol working along side it. But then that requires more integration with the DAW.

And hence why everyone who uses CCs just goes "meh, non-motorized is fine."


----------



## babylonwaves (Feb 5, 2021)

Thanks everybody for this great discussion. of course, the easy Way out would be passive faders. And I agree @colony nofi , not everybody wants motors because they make noise. Though, I could see that the faders go to sleep after a short while and only when you touch one, it wakes up and the faders start moving again).

What I take away from @AlexRuger and other is that there's a fine. Having motor action when you switch to another track or moving to another bar is really what I need from the motor too. Good point. Maybe both CN's and AR's point give me a good direction.

And then, maybe motors and CC are not a team. But there’s more than CC and maybe it takes a mix of both motors and passive to get it right.

there is a lot you can do when you really start digging. results will be different though, depending on the DAW. I only looked at logic so far and i have the feeling that you can do something pretty magic if you’re willing to take extra effort and don’t limit yourself to the obvious.
it will take some time to get a prototype going and then we‘ll see. i‘ll keep you posted.


----------



## psmk (Feb 5, 2021)

I am extremely interested in whatever design (Prototype) you come up with. I believe that you may be right with the idea of, "a mix of both motors and passive to get it right."


----------



## Trevor Meier (Feb 5, 2021)

babylonwaves said:


> Thanks everybody for this great discussion. of course, the easy Way out would be passive faders. And I agree, not everybody wants motors because they make noise. I could see that the faders go to sleep after a short while and only when you touch one, it wakes up and the faders start moving again. And then, maybe motors and CC are not a team. But there’s more than CC and maybe it takes a mix of both motors and passive to get it right.
> 
> there is a lot you can do when you really start digging. results will be different though, depending on the DAW. I only looked at logic so far and i have the feeling that you can do something pretty magic if you’re willing to take extra effort and don’t limit yourself to the obvious.
> it will take some time to get a prototype going and then we‘ll see. i‘ll keep you posted.


Excited to see what comes of this! I’m definitely interested.


----------

