New Euphonix Controller now at Sweetwater

[indie]

Raven11,
Do you happen to know how the eucon protocol will work with PT? Would it convert to midi somehow and we'd be stuck with the 128 midi step resolution for faders etc?

[dkatz42]

Originally Posted by Raven11

EuCon can support upto 65,536 values on a single knob depending on the parameter. Compared to 128 using MCU I think you can begin to see the difference in power!!!

The faders on the MCU have a resolution of 1024 steps. It's not 65K, but it's an order of magnitude better than 128. That's tight enough for small fractions of a dB over the entire range of the fader. Whether 65K steps is audibly better than 1024 is open to argument, I suppose.

[dkatz42]

Originally Posted by indie

...somehow and we'd be stuck with the 128 midi step resolution for faders etc?

MIDI is not inherently limited to a resolution of 128; it's only continuous controller messages that are so limited. SysEx messages (which the Mackie stuff uses in spades) can be any arbitrary length. For that matter, pitch bend messages have 14 bits of data (+-8191).

It is true that if your controller/DAW combination is stuck with using controller messages, you are limited to 0-127, so it comes down to the level of integration between the two. Basically, you need vendor-specific software support to get better resolution.

[BrianT]

To correct some info:

The Fusion is not just a controller. It's a full pop console with hardware I/O and DSP. It's very similar to the Bigger S5.

The System 5 MC is what people should consider as the Grandaddy controller. It's the controller only version, and it's much less expensive. That unit is like an Icon D, but in some ways cooler. It looks much like the Fusion, but it does not have the I/O and DSP of a full console. Just the controller for a lot less $$$.

It works with any DAW that supports the Eucon protocol.

[SlowCooker]

not sure how it will work for these units. With the S5MC it uses a EuCon version of HUI. That is for the control of panners and faders, mutes, etc... additionally the key-injection and custom buttons allow for even deeper editing functionality. Really cool stuff actually.

They demo-ed the EuCon HUI stuff at AES and they have actually done some really creative tweaking to make it much more powerful than the generic HUI control was intended...
Plus there is no MIDI-hardware limitations so the response is better.

One example is the EQ knobset on the S5MC - you press EQ and it opens the EQ plug-in (if there is one on that channel).... same for the DYN button. I thought it was clever. Cant do that on MCU.

again - if they implement much of this functionality into these units it will be worth every penny. And since EuCon is software, it will be easy to update and new features will likely be implemented with every release.

[BrianT]

Originally Posted by vixapphire

so if this thing's OS has "nothing to do with EuCon", is it safe to say that most of the talk about how "in-depth" and beyond belief the DAW capabilities of these little faderboxes are is fanboy panting at the inner thigh of Euphonix, and not representative of reality?
.

Actually, what is safe to say is that you're either not paying attention, or you are somehow opposed to learning. And your condescending "fanboy panting at the inner thigh" language says a lot about where you're coming from. Nice attitude you have going, there.

I think you should stick with your MCUs. From what I've seen of your comments so far, it doesn't seem like you can understand or appreciate the difference. OTOH, you could friendly it up some, and then somebody who has used Eucon controllers in the real world (that would be me), might be able to give you some more info.

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by funkcity

The programmability and the experience with the larger more-expensive EuCon-based products come along for the ride. There will be lots happening on the TFT screen that you just cannot do or get to with the Mackie/Tascam/M-Audio solutions.

Grim up gsqd. Don't be so negative. Every product has things you might want.

After doing a live record gig this past weekend with a Yamaha DM2K MADI and a Nuendo system this past weekend, (and I'm a post engineer) I could see lots of things that needed changing in both camps.

I was curious because of how you slotted these new boxes in at the same point in the "product hierarchy" as I'd put the MCU's (e.g., above mere faderboxes, but beneath products like the $20k Euphonix desktop box).

I'm sure there'll be sexy features that make me go "ooh, ahh", but it appears I'll have to wait and see for myself which ones do the trick for me. The screen is neat; would've been nice of them to put the scribble strips on the faders on the TFT box too, and not only the faderbox. But you can't have everything (esp. at these prices)!

I'm pretty set with my system (this is a year of updating my computer and audio interface; the control surface is (thankfully) finally done and operating to my liking), but I'm sure the adopters here will have lots to thrill to with these things. The transition from mouse to control surface will leave you wondering why you waited so long; hopefully for you the Euphonix proves to have been worth waiting for. That's all that matters, anyway.

[outcastrising]

killahurts,
Thank you for those dimensions and clarification!

vixapphire,
I can appreciate the investment you have made and I have A Mackie Control Universal myself I am also acutely aware of the fact it IS a great system.
However, to get an idea of how much better the Euphonix is please watch these videos I think they will give you an idea where they are heading :

Euphonix - InDepth MC & System 5-MC Videos

Also if you look in the upper left of these boxes it says "Eucon" on them so I believe that means it IS the eucon protocol at an unheard of price!
There smallest console until now if I am not mistaken is $15,000!

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by BrianT

Actually, what is safe to say is that you're either not paying attention, or you are somehow opposed to learning. And your condescending "fanboy panting at the inner thigh" language says a lot about where you're coming from. Nice attitude you have going, there.

I think you should stick with your MCUs. From what I've seen of your comments so far, it doesn't seem like you can understand or appreciate the difference. OTOH, you could friendly it up some, and then somebody who has used Eucon controllers in the real world (that would be me), might be able to give you some more info.

easy there, charger. while the "fanboy..." comment may have been a little strong for some, it was intended as a joke (if a poorly told one). so much for trying to be humorous in "arial normal"...

funkcity's post to which i was responding gave the impression that these boxes have a different, perhaps mildly de-balled implementation of EuCon that's not the same as the larger System 5 MC, which I've demo'd at AES and was really impressed with.

my question then, and my question now, is, if the foregoing is in fact true, then what are the differentiators that make these new Euphonix boxes superior to the MCU? they're about the same price, and not having to take up a USB port with the control surface is a nice plus, and as someone above said, 65xxx steps versus 1024 steps is of debatable value, but are there any other compelling features here?

if the answer is, "you're wrong, these use the full-blown EuCon that's found on the 5MC", the question answers itself.

on the other hand, if the answer is, "nice attitude, you're a moron who's not listening and opposed to learning so you should stay with the kit you've presently got", well, that answers itself too, doesn't it?

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by outcastrising

in the upper left of these boxes it says "Eucon" on them so I believe that means it IS the eucon protocol at an unheard of price!
There smallest console until now if I am not mistaken is $15,000!

hell yeah; at the price, these products are going to be category killers based on their name-brand alone, and if they haven't software-hobbled the EuCon implementation, the value will be incredible.

all this talk is just bullsh!tting; can't wait to put my hands on one of these and see what it does that's especially keen.

these damned trade shows can't come soon enough this year, it seems.


p.s. i've drooled over those videos you linked to at various times in the past. *sigh*

[BrianT]

These controllers use the same Eucon protocol as their big brothers.

As to whether or not there are any software based limitations on features, as compared to the big brothers, I don't yet know. Obviously, there are a few hardware differences.

In any event, I'm quite certain that the control options available through Eucon seriously exceed currently available controllers. How exactly that is implemented is subject to change from DAW maker to DAW maker. And it's hard to imagine they will allow unlimited control of multiple DAWs at this price point. I would expect control of 1 DAW at a time.

[vudoo]

BrianT,

You seem familiar with the Euphonix and Eucon protocol. Can you tell me what advantage will i have ( if any ) if my main DAW is PT.
I did a quick demo on the MC and unless you use a DAW that supports Eucon...you're stuck with the dreaded HUI protocol for Protools...even some say that it's an improved HUI interaction via these controllers...i really don't see why i would want the MC over a PT controller if my main DAW was PT.

[BrianT]

Sorry vudoo, but I don't think there's an answer about that short of a little hands-on or a comprehensive review.

I'm not a PT user, I'm a Nuendo guy. Obviously, Dig has a much broader range of controllers for PT than any other DAW maker and they've done a good job. Whether or not this new Euphonix brings something to the PT party that Digi doesn't, I don't know. I would think some NAMM feedback would help you out there, and that's only 2 weeks out.

What I do know is that for all the other DAWs, this brings a lot to the party over what's out there now.

[pigpen]

Yea I am with the previous post....I gotta know more about how it works with PT and what it can do that the Control 24 can't to make me move over. However, I would for it kick my ass!

[pixelhead]

Those dimensions were incorrect. here are the correct ones.

"Hey Chuck,
I just realized that the dimensions I gave you yesterday for the new units included the shipping box they come in. Here are the specs WITHOUT the box:

MC Mix Specifications
Dimensions: 16.8" (420mm) x 9.5" (238mm) x 1.2" (30mm)

Weight: 4.8 lbs (2.2kg)

Line voltage: 100 – 240V AC

Frequency: 50Hz to 60Hz

MC Control Specifications
Dimensions: 20" (500mm) x 9.5" (238mm) x 1.2" (30mm)

Weight: 5.5 lbs (2.5kg)

TFT screen size: 6.02" x 3.62"(153mm x 92mm)

Line voltage: 100 – 240V AC

Frequency: 50Hz to 60Hz

Sorry for any confusion. Thanks again for your interest!"

[F5D]

After looking at the pictures, for me it seems that these controllers are meant to be used alone rather than building a bigger "mixing desk" controller which is very easy to do with MCU units. At first the new euphonix controllers looked nice but if I was going to purchase controllers, I would like to build a bigger setup, not just 4 or 8 faders. IMO these controllers look "too wide" and don't have enough depth. I currently don't have any controllers but it seems that for me, the MCU with 1 or 2 fader extenders + c4 would be optimal.

[Ruphus]

Some might prefer trade in fader mapping if it gives them smaller footprint and lesser reflective surface before monitors.

I guess that could be especially of interest to mastering guys, but for mixing peeps too, ... provided switching fader groups works flawlessly and quickly.

Ruphus

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by BrianT

These controllers use the same Eucon protocol as their big brothers.

As to whether or not there are any software based limitations on features, as compared to the big brothers, I don't yet know. Obviously, there are a few hardware differences.

In any event, I'm quite certain that the control options available through Eucon seriously exceed currently available controllers. How exactly that is implemented is subject to change from DAW maker to DAW maker. And it's hard to imagine they will allow unlimited control of multiple DAWs at this price point. I would expect control of 1 DAW at a time.

Hi
is the screen the same as the one on the MC? i compared the two using the biggest pictures from sweatwater and the euphonix site and the graphics looked a bit different to me, but i couldn't really make i out that well.

i noticed the way the 4 faders' scribble info appears at the top of the touchscreen, and that seems to take care of that issue pretty nicely. will be nice to see/touch/run one of these when they hit the streets.

[coder]

Originally Posted by F5D

After looking at the pictures, for me it seems that these controllers are meant to be used alone rather than building a bigger "mixing desk" controller which is very easy to do with MCU units. At first the new euphonix controllers looked nice but if I was going to purchase controllers, I would like to build a bigger setup, not just 4 or 8 faders. IMO these controllers look "too wide" and don't have enough depth. I currently don't have any controllers but it seems that for me, the MCU with 1 or 2 fader extenders + c4 would be optimal.

no, you're wrong.

Euphonix Artist Series

[Shaman]

[Killahurts]

Again, after speaking at length with someone who is trained on these, I think he said you can have up to 128 faders with the Artist. You would run them into a multi input Gigabit ethernet switch/hub, and then from there into the computer, from what I understand.

I don't use PT, but I know that it does not have to use the Mackie emulation, even for PT.

[nightjar]

The thought that some want to put together a 128-fader system makes me barf in my mouth.

Taking a beautiful concept of simplicity and elegance ..... and making it overblown and ugly.

Barf.

[vixapphire]

Originally Posted by nightjar

The thought that some want to put together a 128-fader system makes me barf in my mouth.

Taking a beautiful concept of simplicity and elegance ..... and making it overblown and ugly.

Barf.

c'mon man; 128 of these would make a great alternative to wainscoting!

[gearsux]

Originally Posted by Killahurts

I don't use PT, but I know that it does not have to use the Mackie emulation, even for PT.

that's all Euphonix would be able to use if it is going to work with Pro Tools (Eucont>HUI emulation layer)....

[Nowak]

Dunno if this interests anyone, but found these in my travels...........

Stefan Nowak

[tobymusic]

INCREDIBLE!!! Thanks!

[H-Rezz]

That looks identical to my future control surface

[musikwerks]

Placed my order last week. Sooooo cool.

[TheSweetener]

Great pics but it's a pity we still don't have any closeups!

[Pip]

So are these going to work with a PC/Cubase set up? Reading I suspect not for a few months.