# Fader Controller for Automation



## Rohann

Hi folks,

I know many use proper fader controllers on bigger boards, or use faders that come on MIDI keyboards, but since I'm simply using a Yamaha keyboard with no faders:

I've been considering either a Korg Nanokontrol2 or a Presonus Faderport. The latter option obviously looks more promising from the standpoint of being motorized and I'm sure integrating with Studio One perfectly, but the lack of multiple faders is concerning.

Do most of you just map out Expression/Mod/Vibrato at the same time? Do you do it per track with a library like SCS, SSS, CSS, HWS, etc, or do you just copy the data across the section (i.e. strings)?
If the latter, would a single fader serve that well or would most of you find that tedious? The Nanokontrol2 looks usable but the faders look awfully tiny (between 4-5cm lanes) and I'm concerned about the integration problems I've read about.


----------



## synthpunk

Look one thread down Rohann...



Rohann said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> I know many use proper fader controllers on bigger boards, or use faders that come on MIDI keyboards, but since I'm simply using a Yamaha keyboard with no faders:
> 
> I've been considering either a Korg Nanokontrol2 or a Presonus Faderport. The latter option obviously looks more promising from the standpoint of being motorized and I'm sure integrating with Studio One perfectly, but the lack of multiple faders is concerning.
> 
> Do most of you just map out Expression/Mod/Vibrato at the same time? Do you do it per track with a library like SCS, SSS, CSS, HWS, etc, or do you just copy the data across the section (i.e. strings)?
> If the latter, would a single fader serve that well or would most of you find that tedious? The Nanokontrol2 looks usable but the faders look awfully tiny (between 4-5cm lanes) and I'm concerned about the integration problems I've read about.


----------



## Karsten Vogt

https://www.presonus.com/products/FaderPort-8
Motorized, 8 great feeling faders, perfect integration to Studio One.
I love mine!


----------



## Rohann

synthpunk said:


> Look one thread down Rohann...


I even searched those terms and the thread didn't show! I wonder if my Scriptblocker is affecting what comes up in searches; it never seems to fully allow them permanently on certain sites despite my efforts. Refreshing certain forum pages sometimes doesn't load all the threads either. I'll try and post from a different PC in the future.

Karsten: A bit out of budget range, unfortunately. Looks worth the investment though.


----------



## Rohann

I did look at that thread and that seems like an awesome idea -- again, possibly out of budget range, but it seems like a worthwhile future investment. I'd much rather support something private than mass produced stuff. In the meantime my original questions still stand:


> Do most of you just map out Expression/Mod/Vibrato at the same time? Do you do it per track with a library like SCS, SSS, CSS, HWS, etc, or do you just copy the data across the section (i.e. strings)?
> If the latter, would a single fader serve that well or would most of you find that tedious? The Nanokontrol2 looks usable but the faders look awfully tiny (between 4-5cm lanes) and I'm concerned about the integration problems I've read about.


----------



## charlieclouser

There is an important difference between the two tasks that people use fader boxes for:

- MIDI CC control - this is the process of controlling a plugin instrument via standard MIDI Continuous Controller information like Mod Wheel (MIDI CC #1), Volume (MIDI CC #7), Expression (MIDI CC #11), etc. This is what I think you're talking about in your first post. This is usually done from a "dumb" fader box or the front-panel faders on a keyboard controller - which are usually NOT motorized faders. This is what most people do to control orchestral software instruments hosted in Kontakt etc. Think "expression control" on a strings instrument or whatever. There are dozens (hundreds?) of boxes that can accomplish this task, like the Korg NanoKontrol you mentioned.

- AUTOMATION - This usually requires a motorized fader unit. Most DAW software will support boxes that conform to the Mackie Control Universal (aka MCU) protocol, and some also support the older but similar Mackie HUI protocol, and fewer still will support the EuCon protocol (used by Avid / Euphonix boxes like the Artist Control series and the S3 etc.) and the FaderPort. "Automation" is the correct term to describe the process of writing and adjusting volume and plugin controls that usually operate as a separate layer to the MIDI or Audio events that they control. Most DAW software will refer to this as "Track Automation", and will usually have modes like Write, Trim, and Latch. These modes refer to what will happen when you want to adjust previously-written automation information - think "riding the vocal levels". The FaderPort you mentioned is a box that can do this, and if you're using Studio One (made by the same company) then the FaderPort (or the bigger FaderPort-8) should light up with a happy expression on their face as soon as Studio One boots up.

Why such a lengthy explanation? Because in most cases, a box that does MIDI CC control can not be used effectively to do Automation, and a box that does Automation can not be used to do MIDI CC control. There are a few exceptions and hacks, but this is generally the case. This is important to understand because in most cases the FaderPort can NOT be used to control the Expression, Mod Wheel, etc. in a Kontakt instrument, while the NanoKontrol CAN. Likewise, the NanoKontrol is clumsy or impossible to use to do actual Automation in your DAW, while the FaderPort is ideal for this. Now, I don't know Studio One inside and out, and for all I know it has special features that WILL allow the FaderPort to be used as a standard MIDI CC controller - this would make sense since both are made by the same company, and it would be a great selling point, but you'll have to scour the manuals to see if this is the case.

So when you're asking how people use a one-fader box like the FaderPort to control multiple things, like Expression, Mod Wheel, etc., well, the answer is usually "they don't". For that task they'd use something like the NanoKontrol, the old Peavey PC-1600, the upcoming Fader Ctrl box being made and sold by a forum member here, or the faders on the front of a keyboard controller like an M-Audio or whatever. There are tons of choices of boxes for this task, but this task is generally referred to as "MIDI CC Control", so don't get it mixed up with "Automation Controllers". The NanoKontrol is fine for this task, although the short-throw faders can make it less than ideal for some users. Frustration with short faders like these, or the typical 60mm faders on many boxes, let to the creation of the Fader Ctrl box, which uses full-size 100mm faders, and which you can learn about in this thread:

http://vi-control.net/community/threads/faderctrl-universal-midi-controller.58734/

Now, the FaderPort. It's a fine box. I have one and use it all the time. Having only a single fader is not a problem because it can't really be used to control Mod Wheel, Expression, etc. - it's ONLY for writing "Track Automation" as described above, aka "riding levels". That's why it has buttons to control the Write Mode (Write, Trim, Latch, etc.). Most DAW software has a display in the lower left that shows volume, pan, etc. of the currently selected track, and the FaderPort is basically automatically connected to that "hot track". As you switch tracks, the display in the lower left will show whichever track is selected, and the FaderPort will jump around to mirror the fader displayed on screen. Larger 8-motorized-fader boxes like the FaderPort-8, the Mackie Control series, etc. will let you control a group of channels at once, like when you want to balance a bunch of backing vocal tracks or a group of different strings tracks - but these 8 faders are NOT for controlling Mod Wheel on one, Expression on another, etc - they are for controlling the volume of 8 tracks at once.

The big difference between motorized and "dumb" fader boxes is that a motorized box needs two-way communication with the DAW, so the software can tell the motorized fader how to move in response to automation events (or just the static level) of the currently selected track(s). Movements of the motorized faders gets recorded as Track Automation, NOT as MIDI CC data, but you usually get options like Latch and Trim write modes, and editing this data is done "on top of" any underlying MIDI or Audio regions in the tracks. As the sequence plays back, the DAW sends the automation info to the motor fader box so that it can move in response to this info, and so you can touch the fader to override the pre-recorded automation data, and / or use that touch sensitivity to automatically drop into automation write mode when your finger contacts the fader cap (that's why these always have silvery metal touch-sensitive fader caps). This is why a motorized fader box needs a two-way link to the DAW software, and why the DAW has to explicitly, directly support two-way communication with the specific model of fader box you want to use.

Dumb boxes don't need this two-way link - they are basically a box with a bunch of mod wheels that look like mixer faders. You move the faders and it gets recorded into the tracks as standard MIDI data. Editing this data is done in the "strip chart" or key editor in your DAW, and there usually is no provision for the Latch or Trim modes that you'd get when using a motorized box to control actual Track Automation.

Here's the thing though - most DAW software will NOT let you use a motorized fader controller to control standard MIDI CC's - on boot up they see the fader controller and grab hold of it, permanently linking it to control the volume automation. With a dumb fader box, this is not the case - the DAW doesn't "sense" it and as far as the software is concerned it's just another input device and can therefore be used to control MIDI CC's on your software instruments.

TL:DR = you might eventually want BOTH types of boxes.

I have a FaderPort for doing Track Automation and controlling the level of the selected track, and I'm waiting on the new Fader Ctrl box to do my MIDI CC control. At the moment I have an older Novation Launch Control XL which has dozens of faders and knobs but I will be happy to switch to the 8-fader Fader Ctrl because it looks slicker, has longer faders, and 8 faders is more than enough for me to do MIDI CC control.

For what you initially described, controlling Expression and Mod Wheel in software instruments, the NanoKontrol is a cheap 'n' cheerful solution, as are dozens of similar boxes - but using these to "ride the levels" of tracks, or write Track Automation, will either be clumsy or impossible, depending on the capabilities of your software and your pain threshold. You may find, as many have, that the short-throw faders of the NanoKontrol are frustrating to use when you're trying to get exacting control over delicate expression controls or whatever, which is why the Fader Ctrl (with the full-size 100mm faders) is such a hot item on this forum. There have been very few boxes with 100mm faders - in fact, I can only remember one: the original JL Cooper FaderMaster Pro. It is, in theory, still being made, but nobody has it in stock and it is listed on their website at the original list price that I paid in the late 1990's of around $900 (!!!!). No wonder the Fader Ctrl is so appealing!

Now, before someone writes a post even longer than mine about how Trevor Morris got his Avid S3 to write standard MIDI CC's using half the faders while the other half were still in EuCon Track Automation mode - okay, fine. Once you get deep into this stuff, almost anything is possible if you beat your head against it for long enough. But still, using the NanoKontrol to "ride the levels" on a bunch of adjacent tracks will suck big time, and, conversely, convincing the FaderPort to let you use its single fader as a Mod Wheel is not going to be fun.

So, yeah.... for now grab a NanoKontrol, Launch Control XL, or Fader Ctrl. They are handy to have around for sure. When you get to the point of wanting to ride the levels of tracks and record that as Track Automation, a FaderPort is fine, and a bigger Mackie Control Universal or FaderPort-8 will be even slicker - if, that is, you actually need such a thing. Check that your DAW software directly and explicitly supports the motorized fader box you want to use before you buy it - but direct support is not needed with dumb fader boxes like NanoKontrol or whatever, they just do what they do (which isn't all that complicated) and will work with any MIDI device or software on the receiving end.


----------



## synthpunk

You know Charlie you could really write for a living until this band & film scoring thing kicks in for you. 

I will be delegating my nanokontrol2 to virtual synth control after the Fader Ctrl box arrives. At least until I can talk Corey @CACKLAND into making 32 midi knob box next


----------



## charlieclouser

synthpunk said:


> You know Charlie you could really write for a living until this band & film scoring thing kicks in for you.



Why thank you. In a previous life, in the early 1980's and fresh out of college, I actually did write product reviews and articles for music tech magazines - old habits die hard. Plus my parents were big-time academics, so proper grammar was fully enforced! In my endless search for ways to procrastinate and avoid actual work, I like to pick a forum topic every couple of days that I can expound upon at great (excessive) length - hopefully I can bring someone up to speed on topics for which the full, clear explanation is not obvious or readily available.


----------



## synthpunk

You’ll remember the very nice Music Technology magazine then edited by Paul White.

I remember reading those at Pi keyboards & audio in Cleveland where a friend of yours used to hang out.



charlieclouser said:


> Why thank you. In a previous life, in the early 1980's and fresh out of college, I actually did write product reviews and articles for music tech magazines - old habits die hard. Plus my parents were big-time academics, so proper grammar was fully enforced! In my endless search for ways to procrastinate and avoid actual work, I like to pick a forum topic every couple of days that I can expound upon at great (excessive) length - hopefully I can bring someone up to speed on topics for which the full, clear explanation is not obvious or readily available.


----------



## Mizar

synthpunk said:


> You know Charlie you could really write for a living until this band & film scoring thing kicks in for you.
> 
> I will be delegating my nanokontrol2 to virtual synth control after the Fader Ctrl box arrives. At least until I can talk Corey @CACKLAND into making 32 midi knob box next




https://store.djtechtools.com/products/midi-fighter-twister


----------



## gpax

Thoroughly enjoyed Charlie's breakdown (the breaking down of the essential differences between controlling automation and cc, that is, not implying Charlie's mental or emotional state). Charlie makes a good case for understanding these differences in tools, and their respective applications more effectively. But I'm also a guy who wants "option C" in an A/B discussion.

And I'm talking specifically about cc that harnesses expressive aspects of virtual instruments, at the creative stage, in a quest to diminish the impediments associated with "working" the hardware. I want those tools to disappear - metaphorically and physically. With all sincere respect to the success of the Fader Ctl box which definitely meets a demand, the manner of control, and its footprint, are all the very things I do not want in such technology right now.

I'm currently using a Maschine Jam, it being the latest in touch strips and pad options I've explored in recent years which have become increasingly compelling in bridging a symbiotic gap. After twenty years, I've developed an aversion to pushing or pulling any wheel or physical fader, no matter how sensitive. In this way, I've come to realize I've always wanted something akin to frets, where I can effectively use multiple fingers in tandem to harness expression, dynamics and vibrato, especially for things like Spitfire legato, etc.

Rather quickly, the JAM, set up as a MIDI controller (primarily accessing its eight touch strips) has become integral to the way I wish to engage cc as a performance consideration. It sits adjacent to my primary MIDI keyboard, and I am now engaging multiple fingers all the time, without even thinking about it. The true advantage here being more compelling performance upfront (and getting some inspiration mojo back) rather than that feeling of deferring to cc editing to compensate for hardware. I still edit, of course, but the strips give back some creative spark.

While I am also exploring the JAM's more obvious intent (with Maschine), for some quite extraordinary experimentation via my alter-ego, I specifically invested in the device once I was convinced the touch strips could do effective assignable double-duty, and had been improved upon since my Kontrol keyboard in this way. But back to one of Charlie's points: I would be far less inclined to use the strips for any mixing, even as DAW templates are being developed for the JAM - I really do prefer physical faders and longer throws for such tasks. Go figure.

Perhaps the most distinct advantage in terms of "performing" cc's, and which I've not encountered in any wheel or fader mechanism, is the ability to glide into tilting forwards and/or rocking from the pads of my fingers to the fingertips, and hence getting much more subtle nuance (especially with vibrato). JAM sends out very smooth cc data, btw.

My point being, in a discussion about the right tools for the job, the personal options may not always be as obvious, and I advocate mentioning alternative approaches that aren't faders at all. There are a lot of possibilities.


----------



## Ashermusic

Gpax, you might like the Roli Seaboard then. I played it at NAMM and it would take me probably 3 months of practice to develop good technique with it but it is capable of that kind of expressiveness.

It ain't cheap, though.


----------



## jononotbono

charlieclouser said:


> There have been very few boxes with 100mm faders - in fact, I can only remember one: the original JL Cooper FaderMaster Pro



I cherish mine everyday. Thank goodness for lucky drunken Ebay bidding!


----------



## synthpunk

Uhhh, that's like perfect right ? 200 skins.



Mizar said:


> https://store.djtechtools.com/products/midi-fighter-twister


----------



## charlieclouser

Ashermusic said:


> Gpax, you might like the Roli Seaboard then. I played it at NAMM and it would take me probably 3 months of practice to develop good technique with it but it is capable of that kind of expressiveness.
> 
> It ain't cheap, though.



Okay, gpax and others, join me over in the new thread I'm starting on MPE controllers...

http://vi-control.net/community/thr...multidimensional-polyphonic-expression.59785/


----------



## ZenFaced

charlieclouser said:


> Why such a lengthy explanation? Because in most cases, a box that does MIDI CC control can not be used effectively to do Automation, and a box that does Automation can not be used to do MIDI CC control. There are a few exceptions and hacks, but this is generally the case. This is important to understand because in most cases the FaderPort can NOT be used to control the Expression, Mod Wheel, etc. in a Kontakt instrument, while the NanoKontrol CAN. Likewise, the NanoKontrol is clumsy or impossible to use to do actual Automation in your DAW, while the FaderPort is ideal for this. Now, I don't know Studio One inside and out, and for all I know it has special features that WILL allow the FaderPort to be used as a standard MIDI CC controller - this would make sense since both are made by the same company, and it would be a great selling point, but you'll have to scour the manuals to see if this is the case.
> 
> So when you're asking how people use a one-fader box like the FaderPort to control multiple things, like Expression, Mod Wheel, etc., well, the answer is usually "they don't". For that task they'd use something like the NanoKontrol, the old Peavey PC-1600, the upcoming Fader Ctrl box being made and sold by a forum member here, or the faders on the front of a keyboard controller like an M-Audio or whatever. There are tons of choices of boxes for this task, but this task is generally referred to as "MIDI CC Control", so don't get it mixed up with "Automation Controllers". The NanoKontrol is fine for this task, although the short-throw faders can make it less than ideal for some users. Frustration with short faders like these, or the typical 60mm faders on many boxes, let to the creation of the Fader Ctrl box, which uses full-size 100mm faders, and which you can learn about in this thread:
> 
> http://vi-control.net/community/threads/faderctrl-universal-midi-controller.58734/



Sooo glad you posted this because it is so important to know and I guarantee most buyers don't realize this. Buyer beware.. I was recently re-searching products to buy to control CC midi information and when you preview products online the system specs don't tell you whether the faders are assignable to CC midi data. A lot of the products look nice but I refrained from making the purchase until I did more research. I ended up placing an order for the Faderctrl which I cannot wait to receive next month.


----------



## charlieclouser

Glad I could help, and yeah, it's a HUGE drag that most motorized fader controllers can't easily be switched into MIDI CC mode. Now, if we dig a little deeper, some CAN. I think one of the Behringer X-Touch controllers can do this - weirdly, it's the medium sized one, the one that has the group of eight knobs on the right but has no pan knobs above each fader. It APPEARS that this thing will work in MCU Automation mode with the faders on the left, while the knobs on the right are in standard MIDI CC mode - but I'm not sure. Also, I think you can use the Behringer BCR-2000 for dual-purpose use, switching on its front panel between MCU mode and MIDI CC mode, but again, I've never done it. For all I know, ALL of the Behringer motor fader boxes can switch modes between MCU and MIDI CC - perhaps someone else on here who has a BCR can confirm? 

But for my money, they should ALL be able to do it. I mean, DUH. It's not rocket surgery, right? I understand why the FaderPort doesn't - it's only one fader and, fair enough, it's meant to be glued to the currently selected track in you DAW. But when bigger, more expensive motor fader boxes are permanently stuck in Automation mode and can't be switched into MIDI CC mode with a front panel button it kind of seems like a dick move.


----------



## Rohann

Charlie: I agree with synthpunk, this kind of thing should be pinned in a beginner's FAQ. That's immensely helpful, thank you; I sincerely appreciate the time you put into explaining that. Oddly enough, that never came up in any of my searches or questions elsewhere. It's made more confusing because Presonus calls it "Part Automation" vs. "Track Automation" in their tutorial videos.
I have no doubt the Faderport is useful for writing automation but my far more immediate need is for MIDI CC control, as a lack of Mod wheel or anything resembling such is crippling the musicality of VI performances, and I don't feel like mouse work is cutting it when it comes both to inspiration (horridly tedious with poor output in some cases), and also realism when it comes to more exposed parts. I was assuming one could skip through MIDI CC via the controller but the physical layout of the controller makes a great deal more sense now.



> Sooo glad you posted this because it is so important to know and I guarantee most buyers don't realize this. Buyer beware.. I was recently re-searching products to buy to control CC midi information and when you preview products online the system specs don't tell you whether the faders are assignable to CC midi data. A lot of the products look nice but I refrained from making the purchase until I did more research. I ended up placing an order for the Faderctrl which I cannot wait to receive next month.


*Charlie's explanation should be stickied in a beginner hardware FAQ*. I have asked numerous people about this and not a single person, until now, has mentioned one can't control MIDI CC with a Faderport.

gpax: As I have yet to invest in or become used to a particular way of CC control, I'm more than happy to examine this avenue as well -- thanks for the recommendation! I've considered iPad apps for this after seeing what Jordan Rudess does, but I don't have the driest of fingers at all given times of the day and so I could see screen sliding becoming quickly frustrating. Would _love_ to play around with something like this:

EDIT: Aaaand Charlie just posted about it!

While the new CC fader controller being made locally here looks fantastic, I'm a little concerned that it's a bit out of my pricerange for the time being, but at same time it's cheaper than those Beringer units and I'm thinking it may be a pretty good long-term investment. The Maschine controller does look fascinating though too.
Any opinions on a small "interim" unit so I don't go crazy with trying to write in the meantime? Or is it worth saving one's money and skipping something like the Nanokontrol?


----------



## charlieclouser

Rohan - It seems like there's basically three choices for dumb MIDI CC fader boxes at the moment:

- NanoKontrol at $60.
- Novation Launch Control XL at $150.
- Fader Ctrl at $250.

NanoKontrol "will work", but the faders are frustratingly small when you're trying to get precise with expression on a cello patch or whatever, and it is so lightweight that it will tend to slide away from you as you move the fader! You might need some velcro or 3m Dual-Lock (my all-time favorite studio accessory). In the long run I fear the NanoKontrol will wind up in a drawer instead of on your desk. But at the price of a nice dinner, that might not be such a huge problem.

Launch Control XL has slightly larger faders, so they're not "as" frustrating, but it's got a ton of knobs that you may not need but are still paying for. It's still cheap-n-cheerful and can be quite useful - I just wish they had a faders-only version for $99. That's what you'd want. Weird that they don't make this.

Fader Ctrl is going to be the shiznit (we think). Big, smooth, easy sliding faders in a metal box. This is what was so great about the overpriced and ancient JL Cooper FaderMaster Pro - those long faders tend to have an easier, smoother feel than the shorties which seem to have too much "grip" and resistance. That grip is on purpose though; it prevents too much accidental wiggling from occurring as a result of over-caffeinated fingers on a short throw fader. If you had short faders with less resistance you'd wind up with jerky, jiggly curves instead of big smooth ones, and that's no good.

Without having touched the Fader Ctrl yet, I'm still saying that's going to be worth the $250, even if it means another month with no Starbucks. It will likely be the end of your MIDI CC fader box needs for a long time if not forever, until you get into motor fader boxes.


----------



## gpax

@Ashermusic - Yes. I started to mention having my eye on the ROLI keyboards in my little speech as well. The thing there is that it is still largely proprietary at this point, and I still want to have at least four strips/faders at my disposal, plus others for lesser used CC on the fly. I did love the ROLI keyboards when I tried them out at NAMM 2015, and mentioned this in my piece for FGC. 

@Rohann - I've seen the prototype for this somewhere before. Much more than my meager studio needs, but very much the kind of thing that I'm all about. It's very much like what Roger Linn is doing (is that his creation?). 

@charlieclouser - I think your advice above is spot on, though I'm also pushing the idea of thinking out of the MIDI CC box, so to speak, should that be useful for someone out there. This, after also working with various Lemur templates I have created from scratch for the iPad, and having all but eliminated any faders or mod wheels in the immediate tools I use when composing. 

JAM 's potential, and the cost compared to the Fader Ctrl startup info at the same time, was predicated on doing a lot of creative things well with that one device. For me, it was also about exploring a mostly dormant creative side in conjunction with a Maschine Mikro I have, all of these things in sync, and all able to tap into any sample libraries I own/use where Kontakt is concerned for all kinds of patterns, scales, arpeggiations and so forth - a reprieve from the tedium of orchestrating which consumes most energy. 

In the end, $250 for the Fader Ctrl would have gotten me just that. No more, no less, and arguably a fine investment for some, given that it fills that niche gap common to many of us. But the additional $150 for the JAM has proven to be a worthy investment on several fronts, and continues to be developed where the touch strips and various third-party integration is still evolving. 

As for the list of potential "budget" MIDI CC boxes I looked into, I would also add the Korg NanoKontrol Studio ($149) to the list, if not also the Akai Professional MIDImix ($129), both recently released.


----------



## Rohann

Thanks again Charlie, you've been immensely helpful.

-Nanokontrol: Can't help but agree here from the reviews and looking at the thing. Every time I go "it's only $70, why not", I don't have the peace of mind to actually click "add to cart". It may be $70 but I don't need $70 sitting in a drawer.
-Launch Control: Good point. I don't know why most of these things always seem to be marketed as "Ableton Live Controller", but I suppose we're in the EDM age right now...I find it incredibly irritating that everything around the sub $500 pricerange seems to have fader lanes shorter than half the length of my index finger. The Launch Control XL at least has 60mm faders, which isn't actually that bad.
-FaderCtrl: $250USD is a little harder to come by as a student, but I'm considering it quite strongly. It really does look like something actually created for composers, and the majority of these Ableton controllers look like precise fader control was the least of concerns. If I'm not mistaken, orders are closed for this current run, however.
I really do wish my keyboard had faders on it but I'm not sure it's worth trying to upgrade to a weighted 88-key keyboard with faders.

However: gpax does have me interested. As much as I'm wanting to created realistic orchestral mockups, sound design is also equally in my horizon, so tools that add to ease of this also pique my interest. Do you have any comments in regards to something like the Maschine Jam being more usable for something like that as well? Not a huge consideration at $600CAD at the moment, but I'm curious from a theoretical standpoint.

I appreciate your thread on MPE's, and besides being somewhat out of pricerange, I can see the immense utility for sound design/electronic stuff _specifically_ with a Haken continuum or similar, but can also see it being more difficult to use than a regular keyboard for orchestral libraries. Trying to figure out if there would be particular utility in something like a Maschine Jam for this, but I'm wondering if special utility would require x-axis manipulation as well. It may well be the case that what works best for MIDI CC in terms of real sampled instruments doesn't work as well for synth/sound design manipulation, and vice-versa.


----------



## Ashermusic

gpax said:


> also the Akai Professional MIDImix ($129), both recently released.



I had it for two days, took it back. Very disappointing, at least for use with Logic Pro. Their software was not very good and their tech support could not find a way to let me program everything the way I wanted to, although I don't remember the specific issues.


----------



## Rohann

Thanks for the heads-up, Jay.

I'm really amazed at the utter hole in the market here. The FaderCtrl seems to really hit an important midpoint. Do most other people just use the faders on the keyboards or on higher end programmable motorized boards?


----------



## Ashermusic

Rohann said:


> Thanks for the heads-up, Jay.
> 
> I'm really amazed at the utter hole in the market here. The FaderCtrl seems to really hit an important midpoint. Do most other people just use the faders on the keyboards or on higher end programmable motorized boards?



Why do you think I was the very first one here who said to Cackland, "Can you make one for me?"


----------



## Rohann

Ashermusic said:


> Why do you think I was the very first one here who said to Cackland, "Can you make one for me?"


Haha fair enough. I didn't pay too close attention to it as I assumed it was a more boutique piece of kit, but in reality the majority of the stuff on the market seems to be either superfluous and expensive, or poorly made for tight fader control. Really quite surprising and disappointing. You'd think sampling companies would hop on an opportunity like this, really. Even something simple but well-designed like the FaderCtrl.


----------



## charlieclouser

You know, I haven't played with Maschine Jam, or any of the NI Kontrol keyboards or whatever, mainly because they really want you to work within some shell of an NI software product, inside which you then load any third-party software instruments and plugins you want to control. I do have the original, first generation Maschine controller and software, bought because I thought it might be a modern-day software MPC - but it kind of was and wasn't at the same time. It is possible to use that Maschine controller without using any NI software, just as an agnostic pad and knob controller, but the thrill wore off quickly. The NI Kontrol keyboards really DO want you to use the Komplete Kontrol software in order to get the slick parameter labels in the displays below the knobs - and that whole concept will not work AT ALL with Logic's built-in instruments because they are NOT plugins as such - they are built into the Logic app and so you can not load up the Komplete Kontrol plugin and then instantiate EXS-24 or whatever inside KK, which is how they need it to work. So the whole world of KK keyboards is a Komplete non-starter for those of us who use Logic's built-in instruments. I like the key lights I guess, and the slick soft knobs with labels would be cool, but 95% of my music comes out of EXS-24 so this is not an option for me. I am not a typical case though - I think nobody serious uses EXS anymore except me. If somehow I could magically map the KK knobs to control EXS parameters then I might be interested, but those keyboards still have the touch strips instead of normal pitch and mod wheels, which is no good for me, and the display and knobs are dead-center, right where I need my Mac keyboard to sit, so if I was going to use a KK keyboard I would need to disassemble it, move the display and knobs section over to the left, and either reassemble it or just build it permanently into my desk. Too much hassle for not enough benefit at the moment.

As to Maschine Jam, well, it didn't excite me much. I think the pads are not velocity and pressure sensitive drum pads but are just simple on-off buttons for launching clips, like what you'd find on a Launch Pad or whatever. I may be wrong, anybody know? The touch strips are not my favorite - I have iPads and some Dave Smith synths that have touch strips, and I really prefer good old-fashioned faders and knobs with which I can FEEL what I'm doing without having to actually look at the thing. With touch strips, a touch screen, or an iPad control surface you MUST look at the thing way more than I want to when in the heat of battle, so anything like that is a non-starter for me. Slate Raven, iPad control surfaces, etc - I just can't. The touch strips on the Dave Smith synths are not so bad because you're usually looking at the synth and standing right in front of it, but I find myself using fader controllers very differently - my eyes are either on the keyboard or on the screen, and never on the control surface. That's why I want a Fader Ctrl - I can just grab and figure out which fader I'm using by FEEL, and estimate how far up or down the fader is in it's throw range by feeling with my fingers against the edges of the case. You kind of wedge your thumb against the lower edge of the case and move the fader with your middle finger and you can easily tell without looking how much you've moved the fader. Hard to explain why this makes a difference for me but it's huge enough to keep me pointed at the same kind of normal hardware fader boxes I've used for 20+ years. I think it comes from my years behind the big SSL consoles, where you wanted to keep looking straight ahead and not down at the faders, but the excellent (accidental?) ergonomics of these consoles meant that you could slide your hands left and right and sense, either by well-known and familiar distances and muscle memory, or by actually counting in the back of your mind how many of the little ridges between the fader plates your finger had passed over, what channel your finger was on. Similarly, parking your thumb on the little raised bezel around the VCA group rotary switch next to the fader gave your hand a positional reference when adjusting faders. My hands, and what's left of my brain, still kind of work this way.

I'm not sure if Maschine Jam can be used as a software-agnostic controller in the same way that the original Maschine controllers can, but even still - those touch strips do nothing for me and I don't need a clip-launcher button grid. Same deal with all those Akai grid-based controllers - can't use 'em.


----------



## charlieclouser

Ashermusic said:


> Why do you think I was the very first one here who said to Cackland, "Can you make one for me?"



And I'm glad you did, and got the ball rolling, Jay! That's why I also said, screw it, and PayPal'ed my $$$ right on over. I've had an eBay alert for a JL Cooper FaderMaster Pro going for a while, and once in a while one will pop up, usually beat to hell and exorbitantly priced, and then I remember that I already paid full pop for one 15 years ago, wore it out, and ditched it... so I could never bring myself to plonk down for a thrashed one, and I was sure that as soon as I bit the bullet and ordered a fresh one at the full $900 something like the Fader Ctrl would come out, with better ergonomics, USB MIDI, and a much better price. And I am sure glad it did! Can't wait!


----------



## synthpunk

Charlie, Jay, I wonder if we will ever see an update to EXS-24 ? Didn't Apple buy a company with the intention of using the sample editing technology in Logic and then we never heard about it again?

Charlie, I agree with you on touchscreen faders overall but you should try and give Logic Remote app a chance using the key commands screen is actually very very useful in my opinion.


----------



## Rohann

Charlie: Great points. At $600 new here, I have a hard time visualizing what kind of extra utility the large increase in price (comparatively) would justify, and while I see the appeal of the aforementioned benefits, I have a hard time believing it worth the extra cash for myself personally.


----------



## gpax

charlieclouser said:


> You know, I haven't played with Maschine Jam, or any of the NI Kontrol keyboards or whatever, mainly because they really want you to work within some shell of an NI software product, inside which you then load any third-party software instruments and plugins you want to control. I do have the original, first generation Maschine controller and software, bought because I thought it might be a modern-day software MPC - but it kind of was and wasn't at the same time. It is possible to use that Maschine controller without using any NI software, just as an agnostic pad and knob controller, but the thrill wore off quickly. The NI Kontrol keyboards really DO want you to use the Komplete Kontrol software in order to get the slick parameter labels in the displays below the knobs - and that whole concept will not work AT ALL with Logic's built-in instruments because they are NOT plugins as such - they are built into the Logic app and so you can not load up the Komplete Kontrol plugin and then instantiate EXS-24 or whatever inside KK, which is how they need it to work. So the whole world of KK keyboards is a Komplete non-starter for those of us who use Logic's built-in instruments. I like the key lights I guess, and the slick soft knobs with labels would be cool, but 95% of my music comes out of EXS-24 so this is not an option for me. I am not a typical case though - I think nobody serious uses EXS anymore except me. If somehow I could magically map the KK knobs to control EXS parameters then I might be interested, but those keyboards still have the touch strips instead of normal pitch and mod wheels, which is no good for me, and the display and knobs are dead-center, right where I need my Mac keyboard to sit, so if I was going to use a KK keyboard I would need to disassemble it, move the display and knobs section over to the left, and either reassemble it or just build it permanently into my desk. Too much hassle for not enough benefit at the moment.
> 
> As to Maschine Jam, well, it didn't excite me much. I think the pads are not velocity and pressure sensitive drum pads but are just simple on-off buttons for launching clips, like what you'd find on a Launch Pad or whatever. I may be wrong, anybody know? The touch strips are not my favorite - I have iPads and some Dave Smith synths that have touch strips, and I really prefer good old-fashioned faders and knobs with which I can FEEL what I'm doing without having to actually look at the thing. With touch strips, a touch screen, or an iPad control surface you MUST look at the thing way more than I want to when in the heat of battle, so anything like that is a non-starter for me. Slate Raven, iPad control surfaces, etc - I just can't. The touch strips on the Dave Smith synths are not so bad because you're usually looking at the synth and standing right in front of it, but I find myself using fader controllers very differently - my eyes are either on the keyboard or on the screen, and never on the control surface. That's why I want a Fader Ctrl - I can just grab and figure out which fader I'm using by FEEL, and estimate how far up or down the fader is in it's throw range by feeling with my fingers against the edges of the case. You kind of wedge your thumb against the lower edge of the case and move the fader with your middle finger and you can easily tell without looking how much you've moved the fader. Hard to explain why this makes a difference for me but it's huge enough to keep me pointed at the same kind of normal hardware fader boxes I've used for 20+ years. I think it comes from my years behind the big SSL consoles, where you wanted to keep looking straight ahead and not down at the faders, but the excellent (accidental?) ergonomics of these consoles meant that you could slide your hands left and right and sense, either by well-known and familiar distances and muscle memory, or by actually counting in the back of your mind how many of the little ridges between the fader plates your finger had passed over, what channel your finger was on. Similarly, parking your thumb on the little raised bezel around the VCA group rotary switch next to the fader gave your hand a positional reference when adjusting faders. My hands, and what's left of my brain, still kind of work this way.
> 
> I'm not sure if Maschine Jam can be used as a software-agnostic controller in the same way that the original Maschine controllers can, but even still - those touch strips do nothing for me and I don't need a clip-launcher button grid. Same deal with all those Akai grid-based controllers - can't use 'em.


I’m starting to miss the focus here, as I was simply putting another option out there for Rohann's discussion about MIDI CC boxes, by offering an example of something that I’m finding to be useful, but which is not necessarily related at all to whatever else is tried-and-true for others. It certainly does not negate anything else that also works in that respect.

When I add a device, it’s for a specific reason in terms of enhancing workflow, and as such, is not necessarily meant to replace or discard something else in that flow. I am thinking of keyboard discussions here, which sometimes sound as if it’s the last choice one will ever make in life, but where it’s really about the budget in hand at the time.

Keyboards and controllers are, to me, like string libraries. They add up, do different things, and sometimes coexist if not integrate with each other for maximum benefit. Each is very personal, as you also indicate detailing your experience with various touch surfaces you have tried. But I watched that excellent tour you gave, and those wonderfully unique and esoteric instruments in your studio, and as I often do, and found analogies there with the meager things I sometimes integrate in my studio, relative to what new or different workflows they might inspire.

I also come at this from the perspective of a visual impairment, and where the LED options in the NI hardware has met a need recently, despite some of my initial reservations (and the price tags). But faders are also here to stay, for many, and for all the preferred reasons you mentioned, and which I agree with as well to some degree.

With respect to the NI Kontrol keyboard, or any of their hardware, it is absolutely a non-starter for some, and to me that is an obvious point. But the narrative that sometimes gets posited in these threads seems to lapse into disparaging something that actually can provide great benefit for others in a particular context. Part of that context here being the $70 - $250 MIDI CC options, where I mentioned another perspective, albeit it one that does not use physical faders.

But to clarify what little I know about integrating the NI hardware recently and some of the questions you raise…

The JAM buttons are multi-faced in terms of setting up scenes, launching clips, step sequencing, and a host of other functions. They do not function as full velocity buttons for select clips/sounds, but are set at 50%, and can be edited to a different value. I suspect there will be other functionality as well as they release future updates.

Which is where it dovetails into the Maschine Pads, but where you are then beholden to buying into that combination if you want/need that full velocity. I think this is where the more established Maschine types are both loving and/or hating things, where the JAM also now shortcuts a lot of the shift+ combinations in the other Maschine hardware.

The touch strips are not just used for controlling parameters and levels, but in instrument mode can trigger strums, arpeggiations, designated chords/modes and even be tapped for some very performable iterations. In this way, it’s not merely an EDM approach, but for me, opens up some exploration, such as programming in an array of Spitfire Chamber Strings patterns I started to selectively trigger amongst a myriad of sound-sculpting instruments loaded into Kontakt.

But you are partially right, in that these devices are all dependent on the workflow of the NI software integration, which is either in tandem with Maschine (which also loads as a VST into a DAW), or, as with the Komplete Keyboard itself, as in instance of Komplete Kontrol in the DAW, to then have access to al the visual and mapped parameters and keyswitches.

But where, for me, the development of NKS support in many of my orchestral libraries is absolutely a boon when loading up an instance and having full articulations, keysiwtches and parameters already visually mapped.

But the keyboard also “swaps” to its MIDI controller status when not using the software, via the “auto focus” when simply clicking on any track instance of the DAW itself. And as such, all the knobs and sliders are then doing whatever you have designated them to do. But to reiterate something you and others have said, perhaps limited in scope in terms of being a full on MIDI controller on par with others. Hence, my point that many of these devices are supplemental, and very useful in the environment of the NI software as well, but not necessarily what some will want for a main controller.

The JAM is also pending support for templates to use it as a Mackie-style device, but as I said earlier, this does not interest me.


----------



## charlieclouser

synthpunk said:


> Charlie, Jay, I wonder if we will ever see an update to EXS-24 ? Didn't Apple buy a company with the intention of using the sample editing technology in Logic and then we never heard about it again?
> 
> Charlie, I agree with you on touchscreen faders overall but you should try and give Logic Remote app a chance using the key commands screen is actually very very useful in my opinion.



Yes, Apple bought Redmatica, which was really just one guy who made three awesomely powerful programs: KeyMap, AutoSample, and ProManager. I own and still attempt to use all three, but I think the endless MacOS update cycle finally killed them as they don't launch under Sierra. I still keep some Yosemite boot drives around so I can switch-launch when I need to use them. KeyMap is pretty amazing - it can automatically map samples based on root key information that's been encoded into the sample names or metadata, and it can also do pitch analysis to figure out how to map a bunch of samples with stupid names like Piano-01, Piano-02, etc. It's pretty great, but very complex, kind of ugly, and a little inscrutable. Apple actually did use some of the technology of KeyMap and AutoSampler in Logic and GarageBand's ability to "Convert Audio Track to Sampler Instrument" and stuff like that, but they haven't completely absorbed and implemented everything from those programs. 

The do keep updating EXS-24, but they don't really make a big deal out of it, so many of the new features kind of fly under the radar. They've recently added the ability to have release samples attached to normal samples without using a whole separate release-triggered Group, which is amazingly simple and kind of better than how any other sampler (including Kontakt) deals with this issue. They're also rolling in Articulation ID as a Group Select and Mod Matrix Parameter, so instead of using key switching or whatever you can just use strip-chart-edited Articulation ID to select Articulations, and use incoming MIDI data in the Mod Matrix to select Articulations - and this is pretty great. With v10.3 they've increased the loading speed for EXS Instruments by a factor of three (!) and despite the ancient-looking user interface it's still amazingly powerful. Yes, it's still lacking user-scripting, user-created GUI, and true-legato sample transitions, but I still think it's a bad mofo and I use it for 95% of all my sounds simply because it is so well integrated with Logic and its CPU use is so small that it's basically negligible. Auditioning and selecting Instruments from Logic's Browser and automatically saving Instruments and Samples within a Project folder are pretty great. For 15+ years now it's had a feature called "Keep Common Samples in Memory When Switching Songs" which is basically the functionality of VEPro's "Preserve but not DeCouple" function, except even better - this means you can switch between huge Logic songs that were built from the same template in seconds (like, 10 seconds) instead of minutes, while all of the front panel settings DO get brought in from the new song. This lets me adjust things like filter and envelope settings on a per-song basis without actually saving the instrument files or messing with the previously-stored settings. But it's the speed and light CPU use that really sells it for me. Even my biggest EXS-based songs load and play just fine on my five-year-old laptop. I'm talking about a huge Logic Project, with 240+ EXS instances, fourteen Space Designers, a few hundred compressor and eq's, etc - completely workable and usable on pretty much any Apple computer. Here's a screen shot of my CPU use on a quad-core i7 laptop (MacBook Pro 2012) when playing a dense passage from a recent movie score of mine that's using the full whammy of seven surround stems outputting to 48 outputs via MADI on MOTU AVB interfaces, playing all EXS samples and 20 or so audio tracks from the internal SSD boot drive:






You got to admit, that's just nuts! I recently had a very productive meeting with Clemens (the primary Logic dev team member behind EXS) and some cool new things are coming soon that will make EXS even more powerful and keep it relevant for some time to come - but it may stay looking the same for a while. That's okay by me, I don't mind the old black-n-green interface.

As to the Logic Remote app, I have it, I've used it, it's fine. It is handy when I want to do wireless transport control from across the room while tracking. But at this point I've already assigned hundreds of key commands, and I've been tweaking my key commands setup for decades, so there's almost nothing that Logic Remote can do that I can't already do from a memorized key command, and since my fingers are already right there on the Mac keyboard, it's just faster to do it that way. Since all of those nice big colored command buttons in Logic Remote are just a new skin on existing Key Commands, I already have most of them mapped and memorized. Whenever a new version of Logic comes out I do spend an afternoon scouring the Key Commands window looking for new ones, and integrating any new goodies into my already massive set. At this point none of the factory key command settings remain - I started building my key commands set in 1994 when I switched to Logic from Opcode's StudioVision, so my commands are actually descended from those old StudioVision key commands, if you can believe it. At this point my Key Commands set is so tweaked and evolved that I almost never use any pull-down menus at all, and can operate the Key Editor and EXS Instrument Editor almost totally from the keyboard, in addition to using a lot of User Transform presets to select and modify MIDI notes and controller data. I do like some of the goodies in Cubase, like dedicated key commands to scale existing CC events in the strip charts, but a lot of this stuff is already available in Logic but may be well-hidden and not immediately obvious.

gpax - I don't mean to slag off the Maschine Jam, it just didn't excite me all that much. I don't really use things like the strum strips, smart arpeggiators, or goodies like that, even when they conveniently show up as freebies in Logic Remote. This is not to say that Jam is not a good purchase, or poorly designed, or meant to downplay its innovative new control features - it just didn't light my fire. Same with the NI keyboards - for anyone who doesn't use EXS-24 (which means basically everyone but me), these keyboards look pretty amazing. Having plugin parameter names automatically mapped to the soft knobs is a feature I'm VERY jealous of, and if it somehow worked like this with Logic's stock instruments I'd find a way. I've already opened up the big NI keyboard and verified that if I needed to disassemble it and build it permanently into my desk, with the knobs/display moved over to the left, such a scheme IS possible, even though I might need to extend a ribbon cable or three. And even though I'm not a huge fan of Komplete Kontrol and being forced to open third-party plugins from inside the NI shell, I will admit that it does seem to work just fine and didn't screw up on me at all - it's just a workflow preference for me at this point - and since this can't work with EXS then that's a compelling reason for me to skip it for now.


----------



## Karsten Vogt

Charlie on a roll. Love it.


----------



## synthpunk

Another Masterclass.

I wish I had any sort of a memory to remeber key commands, but I'm a Geezer now.

Charlie if I started a dedicated exs24 thread would you kindly copy and paste the first part of that last post over there please?


----------



## Ashermusic

It has been my dream for a while that they would add scripting capabilities to the EXS24 and that developers would again develop for it.


----------



## gpax

@ Charlieclouser - I did not see your mention of the new thread until today, obviously after my previous response here. Reading through it now...

I think it's safe to say the original inquiry here is about budget, and readily available options for CC control where Rohann mentioned orchestral libraries. As you are now broadening that discussion elsewhere to the scope of multi-dimensional input, my point here was to simply offer another consideration alongside that short list of boxes you had narrowed it down to.

Nothing more, nothing less. Not sure how I feel about being the opening case study in the other post, though I appreciate the shout out. But I am simply discussing here what I could afford (as well as delving into the Maschine side of things), and the viability of more expressive control using the device mentioned, compared to different things I've worked with before.

@ Rohann - Hopefully the bigger discussion about the viability of input devices is also helpful to you, if not also broaden the list to include something not necessarily on the radar. Feel free to PM.


----------



## jononotbono

charlieclouser said:


> like the key lights I guess,



Agreed. It's the only thing I think is good about it.


----------



## mark.warman

charlieclouser said:


> For all I know, ALL of the Behringer motor fader boxes can switch modes between MCU and MIDI CC - perhaps someone else on here who has a BCR can confirm?



I use Behringer's largest model (the X-touch Universal Control Surface) to control and write automation to Logic and Pro Tools. I can confirm that it is unable to send MIDI CC information.


----------



## robgb

NanoKontrol works fine for me. I use it for expression and vibrato mostly and it does a great job for a low price.


----------



## Rohann

So I bit the bullet and jumped in on the order. Significant portion of my budget but from the wealth of responses/advice, the lack of decent products on the market for anything in the medium-affordability range and for a similar price to a Behringer BCF (something I've read an awful lot about needing to replace after breakage), it seemed worth it to have a decent piece of kit that I'll likely make a permanent part of my workflow. Experience tells me that messing around with frustrating pieces of gear tends in order to try and save money tends to cost more money and time than investing in something decent (not that I don't think a Nanokontrol wouldn't function).

gpax: Just wanted to chime in that I appreciate your input and the value such a console adds to your workflow. It's gotten me intrigued with different types of options for MIDI control, especially for synth work, but personally the extra $250 for a JAM doesn't seem worth it in my case. This has been an invaluable thread though, thanks all for the contributions.


----------



## Rohann

I'm trying to use TouchDAW as an interim before the FaderCtrl arrives, but I'm at a loss to the lack of explanations and tutorials for a program like Studio One re: mapping controls to realtime MIDI CC. I can draw these in manually in S1 in the part editor, but to do this in real time, does one actually need a program like MIDI Shaper?


----------



## JBQIII

charlieclouser said:


> There is an important difference between the two tasks that people use fader boxes for:
> 
> - MIDI CC control - this is the process of controlling a plugin instrument via standard MIDI Continuous Controller information like Mod Wheel (MIDI CC #1), Volume (MIDI CC #7), Expression (MIDI CC #11), etc. This is what I think you're talking about in your first post. This is usually done from a "dumb" fader box or the front-panel faders on a keyboard controller - which are usually NOT motorized faders. This is what most people do to control orchestral software instruments hosted in Kontakt etc. Think "expression control" on a strings instrument or whatever. There are dozens (hundreds?) of boxes that can accomplish this task, like the Korg NanoKontrol you mentioned.
> 
> - AUTOMATION - This usually requires a motorized fader unit. Most DAW software will support boxes that conform to the Mackie Control Universal (aka MCU) protocol, and some also support the older but similar Mackie HUI protocol, and fewer still will support the EuCon protocol (used by Avid / Euphonix boxes like the Artist Control series and the S3 etc.) and the FaderPort. "Automation" is the correct term to describe the process of writing and adjusting volume and plugin controls that usually operate as a separate layer to the MIDI or Audio events that they control. Most DAW software will refer to this as "Track Automation", and will usually have modes like Write, Trim, and Latch. These modes refer to what will happen when you want to adjust previously-written automation information - think "riding the vocal levels". The FaderPort you mentioned is a box that can do this, and if you're using Studio One (made by the same company) then the FaderPort (or the bigger FaderPort-8) should light up with a happy expression on their face as soon as Studio One boots up.
> 
> Why such a lengthy explanation? Because in most cases, a box that does MIDI CC control can not be used effectively to do Automation, and a box that does Automation can not be used to do MIDI CC control. There are a few exceptions and hacks, but this is generally the case. This is important to understand because in most cases the FaderPort can NOT be used to control the Expression, Mod Wheel, etc. in a Kontakt instrument, while the NanoKontrol CAN. Likewise, the NanoKontrol is clumsy or impossible to use to do actual Automation in your DAW, while the FaderPort is ideal for this. Now, I don't know Studio One inside and out, and for all I know it has special features that WILL allow the FaderPort to be used as a standard MIDI CC controller - this would make sense since both are made by the same company, and it would be a great selling point, but you'll have to scour the manuals to see if this is the case.
> 
> So when you're asking how people use a one-fader box like the FaderPort to control multiple things, like Expression, Mod Wheel, etc., well, the answer is usually "they don't". For that task they'd use something like the NanoKontrol, the old Peavey PC-1600, the upcoming Fader Ctrl box being made and sold by a forum member here, or the faders on the front of a keyboard controller like an M-Audio or whatever. There are tons of choices of boxes for this task, but this task is generally referred to as "MIDI CC Control", so don't get it mixed up with "Automation Controllers". The NanoKontrol is fine for this task, although the short-throw faders can make it less than ideal for some users. Frustration with short faders like these, or the typical 60mm faders on many boxes, let to the creation of the Fader Ctrl box, which uses full-size 100mm faders, and which you can learn about in this thread:
> 
> http://vi-control.net/community/threads/faderctrl-universal-midi-controller.58734/
> 
> Now, the FaderPort. It's a fine box. I have one and use it all the time. Having only a single fader is not a problem because it can't really be used to control Mod Wheel, Expression, etc. - it's ONLY for writing "Track Automation" as described above, aka "riding levels". That's why it has buttons to control the Write Mode (Write, Trim, Latch, etc.). Most DAW software has a display in the lower left that shows volume, pan, etc. of the currently selected track, and the FaderPort is basically automatically connected to that "hot track". As you switch tracks, the display in the lower left will show whichever track is selected, and the FaderPort will jump around to mirror the fader displayed on screen. Larger 8-motorized-fader boxes like the FaderPort-8, the Mackie Control series, etc. will let you control a group of channels at once, like when you want to balance a bunch of backing vocal tracks or a group of different strings tracks - but these 8 faders are NOT for controlling Mod Wheel on one, Expression on another, etc - they are for controlling the volume of 8 tracks at once.
> 
> The big difference between motorized and "dumb" fader boxes is that a motorized box needs two-way communication with the DAW, so the software can tell the motorized fader how to move in response to automation events (or just the static level) of the currently selected track(s). Movements of the motorized faders gets recorded as Track Automation, NOT as MIDI CC data, but you usually get options like Latch and Trim write modes, and editing this data is done "on top of" any underlying MIDI or Audio regions in the tracks. As the sequence plays back, the DAW sends the automation info to the motor fader box so that it can move in response to this info, and so you can touch the fader to override the pre-recorded automation data, and / or use that touch sensitivity to automatically drop into automation write mode when your finger contacts the fader cap (that's why these always have silvery metal touch-sensitive fader caps). This is why a motorized fader box needs a two-way link to the DAW software, and why the DAW has to explicitly, directly support two-way communication with the specific model of fader box you want to use.
> 
> Dumb boxes don't need this two-way link - they are basically a box with a bunch of mod wheels that look like mixer faders. You move the faders and it gets recorded into the tracks as standard MIDI data. Editing this data is done in the "strip chart" or key editor in your DAW, and there usually is no provision for the Latch or Trim modes that you'd get when using a motorized box to control actual Track Automation.
> 
> Here's the thing though - most DAW software will NOT let you use a motorized fader controller to control standard MIDI CC's - on boot up they see the fader controller and grab hold of it, permanently linking it to control the volume automation. With a dumb fader box, this is not the case - the DAW doesn't "sense" it and as far as the software is concerned it's just another input device and can therefore be used to control MIDI CC's on your software instruments.
> 
> TL:DR = you might eventually want BOTH types of boxes.
> 
> I have a FaderPort for doing Track Automation and controlling the level of the selected track, and I'm waiting on the new Fader Ctrl box to do my MIDI CC control. At the moment I have an older Novation Launch Control XL which has dozens of faders and knobs but I will be happy to switch to the 8-fader Fader Ctrl because it looks slicker, has longer faders, and 8 faders is more than enough for me to do MIDI CC control.
> 
> For what you initially described, controlling Expression and Mod Wheel in software instruments, the NanoKontrol is a cheap 'n' cheerful solution, as are dozens of similar boxes - but using these to "ride the levels" of tracks, or write Track Automation, will either be clumsy or impossible, depending on the capabilities of your software and your pain threshold. You may find, as many have, that the short-throw faders of the NanoKontrol are frustrating to use when you're trying to get exacting control over delicate expression controls or whatever, which is why the Fader Ctrl (with the full-size 100mm faders) is such a hot item on this forum. There have been very few boxes with 100mm faders - in fact, I can only remember one: the original JL Cooper FaderMaster Pro. It is, in theory, still being made, but nobody has it in stock and it is listed on their website at the original list price that I paid in the late 1990's of around $900 (!!!!). No wonder the Fader Ctrl is so appealing!
> 
> Now, before someone writes a post even longer than mine about how Trevor Morris got his Avid S3 to write standard MIDI CC's using half the faders while the other half were still in EuCon Track Automation mode - okay, fine. Once you get deep into this stuff, almost anything is possible if you beat your head against it for long enough. But still, using the NanoKontrol to "ride the levels" on a bunch of adjacent tracks will suck big time, and, conversely, convincing the FaderPort to let you use its single fader as a Mod Wheel is not going to be fun.
> 
> So, yeah.... for now grab a NanoKontrol, Launch Control XL, or Fader Ctrl. They are handy to have around for sure. When you get to the point of wanting to ride the levels of tracks and record that as Track Automation, a FaderPort is fine, and a bigger Mackie Control Universal or FaderPort-8 will be even slicker - if, that is, you actually need such a thing. Check that your DAW software directly and explicitly supports the motorized fader box you want to use before you buy it - but direct support is not needed with dumb fader boxes like NanoKontrol or whatever, they just do what they do (which isn't all that complicated) and will work with any MIDI device or software on the receiving end.




I logged in simply to say how great of a post this is!!!!


----------



## easyrider

robgb said:


> NanoKontrol works fine for me. I use it for expression and vibrato mostly and it does a great job for a low price.



is that the studio version?


----------



## robgb

easyrider said:


> is that the studio version?


This was the old version. I no longer use NanoKontrol. I use TouchOSC and OSCulator instead. Much more versatile and far less expensive.


----------



## edhamilton

Sooo, what's the consensus in 2020 on this?
I'm re-doing my setup to be more ergonomic and need faders where I need them, not where the keyboard controller company put them.

Is an iPad with TouchOSC more ergo friendly than any current fader box?

What ya'll using these days?


----------



## Robert Kooijman

It's not that tricky to make a MIDI CC fader-controller yourself. Made one about a year ago, wanted it to be small and easy to use. But for DAW fader automation a "real" mixer with motorized faders is the way to go as previous posters have suggested. But then you're dealing with a much larger footprint...


----------

