Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynaud
The S3 or S6 are closest to what I require in a control surface, and since these don't offer MCU functionality, it seems I need to give up on the idea of using a control surface with Reaper.
Perhaps I need to forgo control surfaces and simply use Reaper as a tape machine.
|
Well, you bring one of the goals of this project, which is to do exactly that, use Reaper more like a tape machine.
That is to say, offload the console functions, enabling a simpler UI in Reaper.
An example, if you use an Apollo, all record monitoring is done through the Apollo console app.
That means the input monitoring selection in Reaper now has no function (for audio), so it could be removed from the UI thereby reducing Reaper UI complexity.
On the topic of S3's and especially S6's, the main goal of this project is to give the user the ability to construct a poor man's S6 (one might even say a better S6) by integrating simpler components.
As a somewhat silly example to keep it simple:
A phone makes a great Transport controller, we already have some great stuff (and I'm sure a lot more coming) with the web interface.
A phone also makes a great large clock.
Usually the transport controller functionality is most needed whilst recording and the big clock functionality is needed less during recording.
You might want that phone functionality to change based on whether you were in record mode.
That means that whatever placed Reaper into record (mouse click, control surface, etc,) has to integrate somehow with the phone (perhaps OSC) telling it to switch apps.
That's the level of multi unit integration I think we should aim for.
From a single device viewpoint, any button press, fader movement, etc should be able to trigger any Reaper action, including script launch, etc.
This should be available either globally, or on a project specific basis (e.g. fader 6 on MCU1 is locked to vocal track in MyTune.RPP)
That's the level of customization I think we should aim for.
So the idea is to allow for custom setups/workflows/etc. tailoring whatever components you have at your disposal to maximize workflow in a given context.
Now as far as the Eucon stuff is concerned, my feeling, and to be very clear this is my view alone and not Cockos's or anyone else's, is that the basic EuCon design is very much in line with ProTools, it emphasizes standardization over flexibility/customization.
I think a better match for Reaper is a much more flexible/customizable approach (with the necessary added complexity), it's the Reaper way
