Old 12-06-2011, 11:07 AM   #321
HOFX
Human being with feelings
 
HOFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Morris View Post
A 4 fader send section on the "focus channel". I like it.
Me too!
HOFX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 02:23 PM   #322
yagonnawantthatcowbell
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 344
Default

I also like the 4 sends faders, but does reaper support feedback so that when you focus a channel the sends faders jump to the correct position?

I also like the idea of 16 encoders, but can work with 8 if they have pages.
16 buttons are also crucial to the way I work. moddifier buttons are also necessary to allow up to 64 actions to be assigned and controlled from the master module.
yagonnawantthatcowbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 07:35 PM   #323
Nick Morris
Human being with feelings
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yagonnawantthatcowbell View Post

I also like the idea of 16 encoders, but can work with 8 if they have pages.
16 buttons are also crucial to the way I work. moddifier buttons are also necessary to allow up to 64 actions to be assigned and controlled from the master module.
I have been trying to figure a way to get down with g_punks workflow and idea that the encoder section/switch section would not be needed.
This would defeat the whole purpose for me.

I checked out the novation also referenced. I'd rather build my own and have it do what I like, its not the product for me.

So I think we should keep the 16 encoder/16 switch sections.

Is there anything else that you think should be added?
Nick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 09:12 PM   #324
yagonnawantthatcowbell
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 344
Default

Modifier buttons, ie: cntrl/alt/optn like the MCU has for turning x number of buttons and encoders into 4x(x) number of buttons and encoders.

I could see how the encoders may not be needed in certain workflows and if there is a separate "encoder module" a'la Mackie C4 than maybe it's not needed at all on the main module.

Buttons with modifiers, most definitely are essential. I have over 60 actions assigned to the buttons on my MCU.

On a side note, I don't know how this is implemented, but it would be great for encoders to send separate CC's depending on direction they are turned.
yagonnawantthatcowbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 03:07 AM   #325
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,223
Default

Yeah im fairly sure you are going to struggle with your encoders for focusing unless you have some idea of how the focusing is going to work, this is why i suggested the Novations with automap are unbeatable.
As i see it there are a few ways to do this

1 You code a VST wrapper like automap (If somebody can do this great i'm on board)

2 You spend the time every time you load a plugin assigning the encoders to that plugin and then saving it as a program on the controller (You will run out of programs at some point, and doing all those assigns will take forever)

3 You get Reaper to feedback the plugins controls to the encoders (How does Reaper know what is a menu or switch or dial, it doesn't, is this even possible with Reapers API no idea, what happens when you have a plugin that has way more controls than the available encoders, Reaper wont know which controls you want so two controls that really need to be sat together on the encoders could 16 pages away from each other)


If there are any more ideas on how to implement this i am all ears because right now it seems to me that anything other than the wrapper (Automap) is going to be a hinderance and time waster rather than a help and time saver.

The idea of the encoders controlling whatever is in focus is a good one, but it is not as easy to achieve as you may think
__________________
Reaper scripters, that is all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last edited by gpunk_w; 12-07-2011 at 03:13 AM.
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 03:24 AM   #326
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,223
Default

At some point we need to decide what we are trying to achieve here
If we are trying to build a mix controller then buttons for actions are not so needed
If we are building a unit for editing then i don't think those controls should really be in the master section anyway (You asked what an action pad was before Nick, now you can see what i had in mind, a separate unit entirely dedicated to actions on buttons)

If you want a universal encoder controller for controlling the focused plugin then Automap is nearly impossible to beat unless we can replicate it

Most people expect too much of a single controller and as such most controllers tend to try to be all things to all people, and fail massively.

My own personal take on this is the 8 fade and the master section should be just that, it gives us a fully modular set up to control Reapers mixer with a fairly easy design and fairly small outlay
Once we have that out of the way we then need to decide if we want an action pad for controlling reapers actions (I would say yes) then we need to decide if we want a separate universal controller for focused plugin (Again i would say yes, however like i have pointed out in the previous post this is quite hard to achieve and that is why for me it would be last on the agenda)

I think if we can pull off the modular mix section we will find that other people will jump on board and help out with the universal controller, right now it is all talk but get the modular mix section done and we are moving forward and who knows maybe even Cockos will jump in and help out with the focusable controller issue

Anyway its a thought worth mulling for a while
__________________
Reaper scripters, that is all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 04:28 AM   #327
chip mcdonald
Human being with feelings
 
chip mcdonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NA - North Augusta South Carolina
Posts: 3,704
Default

Just poking my head in here...

I am interested in 16 cheap motorized Alps faders.

Beyond that, I don't understand adding the expense of the OLED displays, nor light up buttons that costs as much as the faders. You're talking about trying to replace something like a Euphonix or SSL in that approach, and to be honest I don't think one can out-cheap Behringer. By the time you guys get it together, agree upon a design, prototype, blah blah, Behringer will have an equivalent for half as much.

I'd be looking at "the most realistic way to utilize a nice price break on 16 Alps faders with a single master control button set for toggling and selecting".

*16 motorized Alps faders* is the big deal here - that's $80, with a power supply, circuit board and I/O you *might* get it in under $100? That would be cool, provided it's not wonky and overly tricky to construct, but another $300+ just to have buttons (that could be provided by some cheapo USB device) when Behringer offers the BCF2000 for $200 misses the utility IMO.

Alternately, a single "channel strip" controller that could be modular would be more interesting with the added features - if one could buy one for $50 with the "nice" features and add more later.

Otherwise, as someone said - tablets are getting pretty cheap. A lot of ambition - but you've got to offer more than Behringer does for $200 with 8 faders, not "a little more than a BCF2000 for another $175". Just see if you can knock out an 16 fader for half the price of the Behringer.

Also - OLEDs are going to drastically add complication, and that's sort of like dipping your foot in the already established cheap-tablet approach, which doesn't make sense IMO - I'd rather see a cheapo USB connected tablet.

/ $.10
__________________
]]]>-guitar lessons - www.chipmcdonald.com-<[[[
Experiencing Guitar: Essays from Teaching by Chip McDonald https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521877823..._QZJxAbA4GVDC1
chip mcdonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 05:02 AM   #328
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,223
Default

Yeah i think you may have missed a bunch of the discussion here chip

Currently the 8 fade will run at about a similar cost to a Behringer
However it will offer per track naming and parameter display (LCD)
Touch sensitive Alps Ks (The berry is not touch sense and has cheap motor faders as far as i am aware)
Will be ethernet based so completely trashes the BCF in terms of bandwidth and reaction times

Like i mentioned in an earlier post today is that we cannot fall into the one size fits all trap (behringer) otherwise we end up so so

What we are planning is completely incomparable to any other system, because it is being designed from the ground up to work with Reaper nothing else

Quote:
Originally Posted by chip mcdonald View Post
*16 motorized Alps faders* is the big deal here - that's $80, with a power supply, circuit board and I/O you *might* get it in under $100?
I would love to see somebody do that, I know it isnt going to happen because as you can see in this thread i am the harbinger of doom when it comes to costs, and you are very wide of the real price here hehehe
__________________
Reaper scripters, that is all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 07:21 AM   #329
Nick Morris
Human being with feelings
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpunk_w View Post
At some point we need to decide what we are trying to achieve here
If we are trying to build a mix controller then buttons for actions are not so needed
If we are building a unit for editing then i don't think those controls should really be in the master section anyway (You asked what an action pad was before Nick, now you can see what i had in mind, a separate unit entirely dedicated to actions on buttons)

If you want a universal encoder controller for controlling the focused plugin then Automap is nearly impossible to beat unless we can replicate it

Most people expect too much of a single controller and as such most controllers tend to try to be all things to all people, and fail massively.

My own personal take on this is the 8 fade and the master section should be just that, it gives us a fully modular set up to control Reapers mixer with a fairly easy design and fairly small outlay
Once we have that out of the way we then need to decide if we want an action pad for controlling reapers actions (I would say yes) then we need to decide if we want a separate universal controller for focused plugin (Again i would say yes, however like i have pointed out in the previous post this is quite hard to achieve and that is why for me it would be last on the agenda)

I think if we can pull off the modular mix section we will find that other people will jump on board and help out with the universal controller, right now it is all talk but get the modular mix section done and we are moving forward and who knows maybe even Cockos will jump in and help out with the focusable controller issue

Anyway its a thought worth mulling for a while
g_punk, So that is what you meant earlier by action pad. NOW I understand where you are coming from. There would just be more modules rather than lost features. As long as the features/functions are provided in one of the modules, I am all for a completely modular approach, stripping the master of action switches, encoders and leaving that to your "action pad".

Count me in.

So does that finalize the components of the master module?
Nick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:02 AM   #330
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,223
Default

After speaking to one of the extension coders around these parts, it does seem that we are going to need stuff added to the csurf API to get the focus encoders working
So yeah i think the simple fader board and simple master is what we should get designed and built and then once that has been undertaken and we can show we have intent, we can work on the encoder focused plugin thing hopefully in conjunction with Cockos to get what we need added to the API so that it acts as much like automap as possible (But with no wrapper, very exciting thought )
__________________
Reaper scripters, that is all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:25 AM   #331
Nick Morris
Human being with feelings
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 424
Default

http://liine.net/en/products/lemur/

This seems pretty cool, I like the editor for building pages of functions like our action pad would be doing. Maybe this could solve some problems/difficulties?
Nick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:32 AM   #332
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,223
Default

Not really
You already decided remote pads are a bit laggy (Will be worse than the www plugin for sure) and dials on touch screens are pretty much a non no for me personally
__________________
Reaper scripters, that is all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 02:14 PM   #333
Nick Morris
Human being with feelings
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpunk_w View Post
Not really
You already decided remote pads are a bit laggy (Will be worse than the www plugin for sure) and dials on touch screens are pretty much a non no for me personally
Yeah, just a thought.

Now back on track. Unless someone else has any specific features we overlooked for these two modules, I think thats the setlist of features then.
Nick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 03:04 PM   #334
yagonnawantthatcowbell
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpunk_w View Post
Yeah im fairly sure you are going to struggle with your encoders for focusing unless you have some idea of how the focusing is going to work, this is why i suggested the Novations with automap are unbeatable.
As i see it there are a few ways to do this

1 You code a VST wrapper like automap (If somebody can do this great i'm on board)

2 You spend the time every time you load a plugin assigning the encoders to that plugin and then saving it as a program on the controller (You will run out of programs at some point, and doing all those assigns will take forever)

3 You get Reaper to feedback the plugins controls to the encoders (How does Reaper know what is a menu or switch or dial, it doesn't, is this even possible with Reapers API no idea, what happens when you have a plugin that has way more controls than the available encoders, Reaper wont know which controls you want so two controls that really need to be sat together on the encoders could 16 pages away from each other)


If there are any more ideas on how to implement this i am all ears because right now it seems to me that anything other than the wrapper (Automap) is going to be a hinderance and time waster rather than a help and time saver.

The idea of the encoders controlling whatever is in focus is a good one, but it is not as easy to achieve as you may think
Reaper has saveable maps per plugin now. So it would just be a case of calling up the plugin, mapping the vst controls to the hardware controls and saving as default. The map is called up automatically the next time you load the plugin. I have a button on the mcu that calls up and scrolls through the plugins on the currently selected track. I have it configured so for instance the first plugin comes up floating and controllable from a nanoKontrol, hit the button to scroll to the next plugin and that one pops up floating and nanokontrol now controls this plug (focused) and the previous disappears. I then have another button that closes all floating windows.

We could include maps in the software package for at least the stock plug-ins to get people off to a start.

The biggest problem is that there is no feedback from reaper to the control surface. I'm not sure if klinke has worked around this, but might need a change to the API

I use buttons for actions while mixing, IE: Record mode, monitor, phase, plugins, menu sets, macros, calling up routing window, open and closing mixer window, video window, etc... the Master control module MUST have buttons (16x4modifiers) for this to be worth it to me.


Focused control of plugins is already possible, however, feedback from the plugin to the control surface is not possible, ie: lighting up the correct led on an endless encoder to indicate the position of the knob in the vst GUI....
yagonnawantthatcowbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 03:20 PM   #335
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,223
Default

No feedback is pointless so focused control is not yet doable simple as that
I am not spending a lot of money out for something that is the same as any of the bunch of MIDI controllers i have here, lets do it right

On the buttons thing you will need to discuss it between each other
I'm out on that discussion, simply because i don't work that way , i quite like the mouse so my opinion is not really valid
All my wanted actions will be taken care of by the action pad
__________________
Reaper scripters, that is all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 03:20 PM   #336
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Morris View Post
Yeah, just a thought.

Now back on track. Unless someone else has any specific features we overlooked for these two modules, I think thats the setlist of features then.
You maybe right Nick, it is definitely something worth looking into if you have an Ipad you can test on
If it is workable then it is definitely worth thinking about
__________________
Reaper scripters, that is all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 03:21 PM   #337
Klinke
Human being with feelings
 
Klinke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Berlin / Germany
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yagonnawantthatcowbell View Post
Focused control of plugins is already possible, however, feedback from the plugin to the control surface is not possible
The extension API allow to get the actual values for a FX, so just poll for the values and you have feedback. The same is true for the send-levels.

I find the ignorance about existing solutions astonishing.
Klinke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 03:34 PM   #338
Klinke
Human being with feelings
 
Klinke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Berlin / Germany
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpunk_w View Post
What we are planning is completely incomparable to any other system, because it is being designed from the ground up to work with Reaper nothing else
To come at the end with a design for the channel stripes that matches the MCU exactly. And i also don't see anything in your discussion for the master section that is Reaper specific. E.g. you still ignore that the sends in Reaper are more then just levels. I see nothing regarding folder tracks. How about the fact, that tracks in Reaper are not just stereo tracks and allow complex routings inside. For a "Reaper specific" controller i would expect a lot of discussion about this features and about the possibility to handle them on a control surface.
Klinke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 06:23 PM   #339
Nick Morris
Human being with feelings
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klinke View Post
To come at the end with a design for the channel stripes that matches the MCU exactly. And i also don't see anything in your discussion for the master section that is Reaper specific. E.g. you still ignore that the sends in Reaper are more then just levels. I see nothing regarding folder tracks. How about the fact, that tracks in Reaper are not just stereo tracks and allow complex routings inside. For a "Reaper specific" controller i would expect a lot of discussion about this features and about the possibility to handle them on a control surface.
Not quite the same as the MCU, but similar.

So far, everything discussed has been on the hardware side, and I know most probably have their own ideas as to what this switch, and that button, should do. The problems you bring up would be solved by the hardware we are trying to decide upon. After we have an initial hardware plan, we can start brainstorming the functionality of it, edit that hardware list, discuss, edit, and so on.

One of the biggest aspects of this has been cost. Cost is all about the hardware at this point. Nailing down a starting point for this is essential to discuss the next phase, control surface functionality.
Nick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 06:40 PM   #340
Klinke
Human being with feelings
 
Klinke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Berlin / Germany
Posts: 758
Default

I worked in the past for a big company that produced hardware/software combos, and the development was in a different order, which make much more sense for me. First the team thought about use-cases and the feature set (and of course part of this work was to study competitors, if similar products already exists, to find the weak points and USPs), then about the hardware elements that are necessary to fulfill this use-cases in a good workflow (with the minimal/cost-effective hardware). The hardware must follow those elements, so starting with the hardware before thinking about the functionality seems to me a waste of time. But okay, it's your time.
Klinke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 07:56 PM   #341
Nick Morris
Human being with feelings
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 424
Default

Well, we are not experts in that area, ha!
Nick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 10:10 PM   #342
yagonnawantthatcowbell
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klinke View Post
The extension API allow to get the actual values for a FX, so just poll for the values and you have feedback. The same is true for the send-levels.

I find the ignorance about existing solutions astonishing.

This is good news. I thought I remembered your plugin having feedback from FX, but it's been a while. I'm not a programmer so I don't know what is technically possible with existing solutions. It's good to have your input on this thread, methinks...

I agree that we really need to figure out what is Reaper specific and start thinking outside the box a little on the functionality of the master module. So far we've just been dancing around a modified/slimmed down MCU.

Quote:
On the buttons thing you will need to discuss it between each other
I'm out on that discussion, simply because i don't work that way , i quite like the mouse so my opinion is not really valid
All my wanted actions will be taken care of by the action pad
I'm the opposite here... I would prefer not to touch the mouse at all.... Even better If I can actually turn the monitor screens off completely. At work the studio is 100% analog, no computer in the control room at all. If we go digital, it's RADAR. Pro Tools is third on the list and would have to be taken out of the shop, rolled to the control room, lids off the flight cases, patch everything in, etc...
yagonnawantthatcowbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 12:39 AM   #343
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,223
Default

No disrespect to Klinke here (I'm sure his MCU work is great)
But i am astonished that you would think a DIY project would follow the same ideals in design as a commercial project
They are nothing alike whatsoever, many different factors come in to play when designing DIY projects, not least of which is cost and ability to build

Thanks for letting us know that fx parameters for the focused effect can be read and updated

So how good is the MCU support provided by Klinkes plugin ? can it use multiple devices chained together, should we just be going out and buying MCUs instead (Not that i would, Mackie will never get a pennie out of me theyre a*sholes)
__________________
Reaper scripters, that is all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 12:48 AM   #344
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klinke View Post
To come at the end with a design for the channel stripes that matches the MCU exactly. And i also don't see anything in your discussion for the master section that is Reaper specific. E.g. you still ignore that the sends in Reaper are more then just levels. I see nothing regarding folder tracks. How about the fact, that tracks in Reaper are not just stereo tracks and allow complex routings inside. For a "Reaper specific" controller i would expect a lot of discussion about this features and about the possibility to handle them on a control surface.

Aaaaah i think i see what you are misunderstanding, maybe you only scanned the thread and didnt get all the info
The idea here is to create a modular set up, that allows expandability, rather than having to page through menu after menu or whatever other stuff you have to do on the limited controls available on the MCU, our idea is that if you want control of the multi channel nature of a track, then that should be a control panel in itself, if you want control of routing then that should be a control panel in and of itself

Nothing worse than using a limited controller like an MCU for me personally and paging and scrolling through menus, no thanks

But if everybody does want to follow your route of pushing everything into one board and paging through menus, im cool with it, ill just build 8 fade boards and be happy with that
__________________
Reaper scripters, that is all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 03:01 AM   #345
Klinke
Human being with feelings
 
Klinke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Berlin / Germany
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpunk_w View Post
But i am astonished that you would think a DIY project would follow the same ideals in design as a commercial project
I don't see why starting with thinking about Use Cases should be only best practice for commercial projects, but not for DIY. I only see a lot of: We know it better and it isn't necessary to look around what other people are doing in this thread and especially in your answers. It's okay, if you are doing your DIY stuff mainly for the fun of doing it, but i don't think that this is a good approach, if you want to create a great product.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gpunk_w View Post
They are nothing alike whatsoever, many different factors come in to play when designing DIY projects, not least of which is cost and ability to build
For sure the cost and ability to build is a really important factor in commercial projects too, i would say much more important as for DIY projects.

Thanks for letting us know that fx parameters for the focused effect can be read and updated

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpunk_w View Post
So how good is the MCU support provided by Klinkes plugin ?
How about read the manual or better: try to test it somehow? E.g. you will find no menu with pages, every function is only one button press away (sometimes combined with a modifier button). And there is a lot of functionality in the extension.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpunk_w View Post
can it use multiple devices chained together, should we just be going out and buying MCUs instead (Not that i would, Mackie will never get a pennie out of me theyre a*sholes)
Till v0.6.4: yes. Since v0.8: no. But reintroducing them would be much, much less work then the coding works that impends your project.
Klinke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 06:50 AM   #346
Nick Morris
Human being with feelings
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 424
Default

Klinke, Thanks for the input on the Mackie. You did a really good job with it.

Back to the real matter.

g_punk, the more I think about the totally modular approach, it makes more and more sense. The master module would have a channel strip, extra faders for sends and things, transport controls, and a handful of global commands(and all the switches we took off the strip), right?

Outside of the most basic control, you would need the "action module" to really get anything deeper done. This is where plugin control would be, actions, commands, etc.

What would the fader bank select switches do if you did not have the action module?
Nick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 07:16 AM   #347
natierau
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 105
Default

Count me in, if this gets off the ground. I love Reaper and would rather want something that is Reaper specific.

16channels would be awesome 24 better, 8 great. 8 modular would with 1 master section would also work. Only thing is to try and not use MIDI but Ethernet, that would give great flexibly, as well as more faders.
natierau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 09:47 AM   #348
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,223
Default

No disrespect Klinke, I am sure you have done great work
but
1 My answers have been honest if nothing else
2 I have no interest in reading the manual for your extension, like i said, wont ever buy anything Mackie ever again
3 Just wondering if you have anything to say about this idea/project other than your MCU extension is better and we should just use that (Don't take this the wrong way , I am not trying to be offensive but other than letting us know that we can achieve plugin feedback, which coincidentally was veiled in a negative comment again, you have not put much into this discussion in a very positive way)

I know me saying this may annoy some people because you have given time to create an extension but really, i could care less what you have done for yourself when you are just being negative for the sake of it as far as i can tell
You have completely ignored the modular aspect of this idea/project (Which would make an MCU look a joke at best) and you also completely ignore the many other advantages we may be able to leverage out of this.

Like i say i am probably not going to be Reaper user fo the month by stating this, but in my world arrogance isn't suffered gladly
__________________
Reaper scripters, that is all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 09:55 AM   #349
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,223
Default

Yeah Nick
Basically we need to decide on the global controls that will be constants
Those will be on the master section
Things like transport/fader banking/automation controls and so on

Then when we design the action pad itself we can be very indepth and go to town with the really deep clever stuff
With the whole modular idea you can see why i originally designed a module that looked like an EQ too, the price of encoders would allow you to build that simply just for EQs and nothing else, would be in the $50 or so region, this is the power of the modular approach
We can just design and build modules as we see fit
__________________
Reaper scripters, that is all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 10:51 AM   #350
yagonnawantthatcowbell
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpunk_w View Post
No disrespect Klinke, I am sure you have done great work
but
1 My answers have been honest if nothing else
2 I have no interest in reading the manual for your extension, like i said, wont ever buy anything Mackie ever again
3 Just wondering if you have anything to say about this idea/project other than your MCU extension is better and we should just use that (Don't take this the wrong way , I am not trying to be offensive but other than letting us know that we can achieve plugin feedback, which coincidentally was veiled in a negative comment again, you have not put much into this discussion in a very positive way)

I know me saying this may annoy some people because you have given time to create an extension but really, i could care less what you have done for yourself when you are just being negative for the sake of it as far as i can tell
You have completely ignored the modular aspect of this idea/project (Which would make an MCU look a joke at best) and you also completely ignore the many other advantages we may be able to leverage out of this.

Like i say i am probably not going to be Reaper user fo the month by stating this, but in my world arrogance isn't suffered gladly
I think maybe you are misreading what Klinke has said here. Contribute it to miscommunication due to the limitations of the written word. Klinke's plugin is well implemented for his workflow and he has spent a lot of time thinking it out and logically making the best of what is available on the MCU. He also is stating he has experience bringing hardware/software combos to market. That seems like someone whose input here would be very much appreciated.

Regarding reading the manual, I think it's a good idea. It will give you an idea of how the current best option for controlling reaper works. File that under basic R&D

To be honest, if his plugin worked on mac and supported multiple surfaces, this whole DIY would be a nonstarter for me. The biggest problem with his csurf, besides what I just mentioned, is that it is tailored for his workflow. Can't hold it against him, though, as that was his stated purpose and he thought others might get some use out of it so he shared it with the community.

That said, let's get this back on track...

I do like the modular approach, but I think the master module should have a bit of the action module integrated. Maybe like a light version or half functionality of the action pad. I'm thinking that one of the biggest costs associated here is going to be the chasis/case and the power supplies.

We're talking two chasis' and two power supplies just to get anything but the most basic control out this. And if all you need is basic control, there a number of products on the market already.

Again, I don't have any experience building or designing a control surface so I could be way off here...
yagonnawantthatcowbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 11:57 AM   #351
Nick Morris
Human being with feelings
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yagonnawantthatcowbell View Post
I think maybe you are misreading what Klinke has said here. Contribute it to miscommunication due to the limitations of the written word. Klinke's plugin is well implemented for his workflow and he has spent a lot of time thinking it out and logically making the best of what is available on the MCU. He also is stating he has experience bringing hardware/software combos to market. That seems like someone whose input here would be very much appreciated.

Regarding reading the manual, I think it's a good idea. It will give you an idea of how the current best option for controlling reaper works. File that under basic R&D

To be honest, if his plugin worked on mac and supported multiple surfaces, this whole DIY would be a nonstarter for me. The biggest problem with his csurf, besides what I just mentioned, is that it is tailored for his workflow. Can't hold it against him, though, as that was his stated purpose and he thought others might get some use out of it so he shared it with the community.

That said, let's get this back on track...

I do like the modular approach, but I think the master module should have a bit of the action module integrated. Maybe like a light version or half functionality of the action pad. I'm thinking that one of the biggest costs associated here is going to be the chasis/case and the power supplies.

We're talking two chasis' and two power supplies just to get anything but the most basic control out this. And if all you need is basic control, there a number of products on the market already.

Again, I don't have any experience building or designing a control surface so I could be way off here...
While its true things like the faderport and other simple control surfaces exist, This project will not be like it. I too, thought that the master module should have action module in it, but now I agree with g_punk. Some may not want much more than simple faderport features and fader banks. This option of adding fader banks alone makes it enormously different and superior. Now you have the OPTION to have deeper control if you want by adding modules, the Reaper way, right?

In my experience a power supply should be pretty inexpensive. The chassis part, I have no prior experience. This I would expect to be costly compared to the rest of the individual components.

All you would need is one chassis and power supply for the most basic control (master module). If you also wanted fader banks, then yes, it looks like you need another chassis and power supply.

I know for myself I would want 32 to 48 faders, a master module, and action module. A meter bridge module would be nice with this too. I would want to design a frame to place all the modules in which would supply power for all the modules( this would not be cheap, but I do not care at this point, it would have to have it).

Anyway, what are the global commands on the master section going to be? We need to brainstorm this, I'm seeing: transport (record, start, stop, pause, go to next marker, go to first marker, loop... what else?) Automation: Trim, read, latch , touch, write, bypass... What else?
Bank up and down, .... what are your thoughts?
Nick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 01:24 PM   #352
Klinke
Human being with feelings
 
Klinke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Berlin / Germany
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpunk_w View Post
No disrespect Klinke, I am sure you have done great work
but

2 I have no interest in reading the manual for your extension, like i said, wont ever buy anything Mackie ever again
I read the manual for the MCU implementation of Cubase & Logic at the beginning of my project, and for sure i will also never buy anything from Steinberg again (and also not Logic). Nonetheless i found good ideas into the manual, e.g. like the anchor feature. I don't think that i would had this idea on my own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpunk_w View Post
3 Just wondering if you have anything to say about this idea/project other than your MCU extension is better and we should just use that...
I find my comment that in my opinion you are concentrating to much on the hardware design before thinking about Features/Use Cases/Workflow constructive. Some time ago i gave reasons why i think that also the channel stripes would benefit from a large display instead of small pro channel ones. Or that buttons dedicated to support the Reaper folders would be a good idea.

And i never said something like you should use my extension, i said just: Take a look at it too find good points/weak points (i know that they exist) and think about how you can improve the weak points. Learn from what other people have already done. And this include Geoffs/Padres work, and maybe even the work for other hosts too.
Klinke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 03:22 PM   #353
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,223
Default

Yeah apologies, I think I took what you typed the wrong way
Sorry about that
__________________
Reaper scripters, that is all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 03:39 PM   #354
Klinke
Human being with feelings
 
Klinke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Berlin / Germany
Posts: 758
Default

Another more generic tip: Developing such a complex project only with this forum as a collaboration platform can get unclear. Maybe it would be a good idea to select a project managment web application like Redmine, where you have Wikis, an area for uploaded files etc..

In the past a lot of them where free for small projects, but it seem that this has changed, but i have only checked Huddle, GoPlan and Huddle. And i have bad experience with commercial web application that are hosted from the company itself (because of changing payment plans, forced updates to new versions...), so if someone of you have access to a server and have some time, the best solution would be to install Redmine there (IMHO).
Klinke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 06:11 PM   #355
yagonnawantthatcowbell
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 344
Default

I've recommend Wiggio for collaboration. Support for unlimited file uploads, threads, online meetings, white board, etc... and free...
yagonnawantthatcowbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 07:26 PM   #356
chip mcdonald
Human being with feelings
 
chip mcdonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NA - North Augusta South Carolina
Posts: 3,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpunk_w View Post

Currently the 8 fade will run at about a similar cost to a Behringer
However it will offer per track naming and parameter display (LCD)
Touch sensitive Alps Ks (The berry is not touch sense and has cheap motor faders as far as i am aware)
Will be ethernet based so completely trashes the BCF in terms of bandwidth and reaction times
It just sort of looks overly optimistic based on the prices of parts I'm seeing here - and discounting the end user's willingness to put everything together.

Quote:
I would love to see somebody do that, I know it isnt going to happen because as you can see in this thread i am the harbinger of doom when it comes to costs, and you are very wide of the real price here hehehe
You misunderstand, it's not that I'm wide of the costs, it's that I'm positing the notion that to get this truly off the ground that's the kind of value you're going to have to present to people. Otherwise it might turn into a few guys trying to put together a bunch of different aspects and trying to get them to work for 2-3 years, meanwhile Behringer comes out with something similar already put together for half the cost. I'm not trying to be a party pooper, I really would like to see such a thing happen but it strikes me as being overly ambitious and tenuous at the same time.

The bottom line utility lies in the faders, everything else is frosting. If you've got a good line on good faders cheap, it strikes me as being the logical realistic thing to work around rather than a more elaborate system that's probably better undertaken by a company who is spending their working hours trying to make it work.

/ There's a lot of remnants of well-intentioned DIY group projects scattered across the net...
__________________
]]]>-guitar lessons - www.chipmcdonald.com-<[[[
Experiencing Guitar: Essays from Teaching by Chip McDonald https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521877823..._QZJxAbA4GVDC1
chip mcdonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 08:17 PM   #357
jacobestes
Human being with feelings
 
jacobestes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 415
Default

Bet you won't hit him.
jacobestes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 02:04 AM   #358
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chip mcdonald View Post
It just sort of looks overly optimistic based on the prices of parts I'm seeing here - and discounting the end user's willingness to put everything together.



You misunderstand, it's not that I'm wide of the costs, it's that I'm positing the notion that to get this truly off the ground that's the kind of value you're going to have to present to people. Otherwise it might turn into a few guys trying to put together a bunch of different aspects and trying to get them to work for 2-3 years, meanwhile Behringer comes out with something similar already put together for half the cost. I'm not trying to be a party pooper, I really would like to see such a thing happen but it strikes me as being overly ambitious and tenuous at the same time.

The bottom line utility lies in the faders, everything else is frosting. If you've got a good line on good faders cheap, it strikes me as being the logical realistic thing to work around rather than a more elaborate system that's probably better undertaken by a company who is spending their working hours trying to make it work.

/ There's a lot of remnants of well-intentioned DIY group projects scattered across the net...
You have some valid points
However hehe
This is why i suggested MIDIbox and it seems its the route we are taking, other than a few PCB designs and the actual building, there really isn't as much work involved in this as you may think
The backlog of knowledge and available implementations of MIDIbox allow us to get this up and running very quickly
Now although it may take us a while to get the csurf programmed for Reaper itself (Will be a continuous process i am going to guess, more models added, csurf needs updating) the actual hardware WILL work as soon as it is built albeit in a reduced capacity

I will look into installing something on my server for this, but i am not entirely convinced that the MIDIbox WIKI could not be used for this directly (The more we interact with the MIDIbox guys about this, the more help we will receive)
__________________
Reaper scripters, that is all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 05:55 AM   #359
roygbiv
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 227
Default

as long as we are trying to think outside of the box (literally), and my apologies if you guys have already said this (I've followed this thread since the inception, but not done a contiguous read in one setting)

Why not build a box/module with just faders and and one or two knobs, that is embedded in/sits below some tablet/iPad-like display device?

That way you have the best of both worlds - tactile sensation for the faders/knobs, infinitely variable information/displays for the "values" on the tablet. All the selection/solo/etc. buttons could be on the tablet display if it was touch sensitive (those actions don't need as much "real" tactile feeling, as evidenced by the popularity of the iPhone/iPad, etc.)

just a thought - I can't imagine a tablet/screen would cost more than ~$200 or so, and be future upgradable (in the software). Maybe you could even use an array of old iPhones across the top

Last edited by roygbiv; 12-09-2011 at 06:07 AM.
roygbiv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 06:24 AM   #360
Nick Morris
Human being with feelings
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roygbiv View Post
as long as we are trying to think outside of the box (literally), and my apologies if you guys have already said this (I've followed this thread since the inception, but not done a contiguous read in one setting)

Why not build a box/module with just faders and and one or two knobs, that is embedded in/sits below some tablet/iPad-like display device?

That way you have the best of both worlds - tactile sensation for the faders/knobs, infinitely variable information/displays for the "values" on the tablet. All the selection/solo/etc. buttons could be on the tablet display if it was touch sensitive (those actions don't need as much "real" tactile feeling, as evidenced by the popularity of the iPhone/iPad, etc.)

just a thought - I can't imagine a tablet/screen would cost more than ~$200 or so, and be future upgradable (in the software). Maybe you could even use an array of old iPhones across the top
While it is an idea we have been tossing around, it would have to come after the fader bank module, and after the master module. The Action module is where this would be a feasible idea. The problem is I have no idea how to implement it. I can not write software, getting talking with the rest of the hardware and have enough of these tablets around to make a wise decision on which to use. Can't use an ipad( no ports, and I am not using wifi) .

We can look at this again later, when we are on the action module.
Nick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.