New Control Surface – DESIGN INPUT NEEDED

[Mike Lapchick]

Hey all - I am trying to design a useable control surface that would sell for under $5k and fill a large void that continues to exist between the Mackie Contol and.. well, that's the problem. What's the next step up from the MC that is simply a robust, non-audio controller for ProTools AND other DAWs that's not the Eucon 5MC. Something that is both asthetically and functionally viable for professional use.
If I got enough support and encouragement to proceed, I will. It's within my capability to do this, but I need to know that I'm a) not alone seeing a need for such a device and b) what would you like to see in such a controller.

I can answer any questions you have on functionality, but the layout should be self somewhat self explanitory.

Thanks for any feedback you can provide.

Mike

(there is supposed to be an attachment - please pm me if you have any trouble with it)

[nukmusic]

much more affordable SSL AWS900 would be nice............maybe even 16 faders to do summing, but still have DAW control.

[nek]

Originally Posted by Mike Lapchick

Hey all - I am trying to design a useable control surface that would sell for under $5k and fill a large void that continues to exist between the Mackie Contol and.. well, that's the problem. What's the next step up from the MC that is simply a robust, non-audio controller for ProTools AND other DAWs that's not the Eucon 5MC. Something that is both asthetically and functionally viable for professional use.
If I got enough support and encouragement to proceed, I will. It's within my capability to do this, but I need to know that I'm a) not alone seeing a need for such a device and b) what would you like to see in such a controller.

I can answer any questions you have on functionality, but the layout should be self somewhat self explanitory.

Thanks for any feedback you can provide.

Mike

(there is supposed to be an attachment - please pm me if you have any trouble with it)

I read your thread and PDF.

Questions:
Is this for your own use or something you are going to just make for others?
And you were going to sell this for say $2800 USD?
And you don't see this product anywhere on the market right now?

[Mike Lapchick]

Originally Posted by nek

I read your thread and PDF.

Questions:
Is this for your own use or something you are going to just make for others?
And you were going to sell this for say $2800 USD?
And you don't see this product anywhere on the market right now?

No, this product - nothing close, exists on the market. The SSL passes audio (other post) this does not - except for the control room section.

No, this I would develop commercially. South of $5,000 US would be my goal. And from what I can tell, it'd be feasible if the market was there, of course.

Did the layout make sense?

[pixelhead]

I am looking for the same thing. I currently use a Tascam 1884 with 4 FE8 expanders. It is a great Idea but the Idiots at Tascam forgot to add Scibbel strips and meters so there is no visual feedback on the board and this drives me nuts. I am looking into the Mackie stuff since they got the visual feedback right. I would love to get a 24 channel control with the ability to add more faders if needed (I still like having a larger board in front of me). I would like it to be able to do monitoring and 2 track playback. I like what I see in the PDF.

I wish you could use the WK Audio ID Controller with Logic and was a bit cheaper. It looks bad ass.
WK Audio Controller

[u b k]

what i love about real desks, and the reason i recently brought a sidecar back into my room for primary mix duties, is the one-knob-one-function paradigm.

on an analog console, i can adjust an eq on two different channels at once, or move from one strip to the next instantly, tweak a low mid here, pull back the first send there, goose the fader here while sweeping a freq there. i can do all this without thinking about what is what, i can adjust 10 things in 15 seconds and in a minute's time move thru several radically different faces on a mix just to find what works and what doesn't.

control surfaces fall way short of offering this functionality. what are the odds that you could make one where each strip has 4 or 5 knobs for eq (each one programmable to address the plug of your choice), 4 for sends, and one for pan?

THAT, imo, is the biggest gap between the icon/ssl and everything else.


gregoire
del ubik

[title]

some comments:

an intergrated keyboard and mouse (trackball) should be front and center. lets face it, we're daw users and the second you get lost on a control surface the first thing you reach for is a mouse/keyboard. the only control surfaces that do this well is a D-Control and a MC Euphonix. so if yours had this it would be a rare thing at a lower price point.

i see you have a dedicated eq button, why no dynamcs? and why not make your eq section on the right of the console more flexible to accomadate comps or any plug, putting scribble strips under them could give you that flexibility.

i don't see any automation buttons. i know it's a moving target being that all daws deal with automation differently, but one of the biggest reasons people want control surfaces is to get their hands on controls and eventually automate a mix (even if its only fader gain and mutes)

nice to see you thinking about adding a surround panner, but it looks like the monitor section is only stereo, is this the case? a 5.1 monitoring section (with bass managemnet!!???) would be amazing.....

i wish you the best of luck and hope there is enough interest to get it made.

[pendejo]

Originally Posted by Mike Lapchick

Hey all - I am trying to design a useable control surface that would sell for under $5k and fill a large void that continues to exist between the Mackie Contol and.. well, that's the problem. What's the next step up from the MC that is simply a robust, non-audio controller for ProTools AND other DAWs that's not the Eucon 5MC. Something that is both asthetically and functionally viable for professional use.
If I got enough support and encouragement to proceed, I will. It's within my capability to do this, but I need to know that I'm a) not alone seeing a need for such a device and b) what would you like to see in such a controller.

I can answer any questions you have on functionality, but the layout should be self somewhat self explanitory.

Thanks for any feedback you can provide.

Mike

(there is supposed to be an attachment - please pm me if you have any trouble with it)

It looks great. I've been waiting for something like that to appear for Logic.

[Chrisac]

Originally Posted by u b i k

what i love about real desks, and the reason i recently brought a sidecar back into my room for primary mix duties, is the one-knob-one-function paradigm.

on an analog console, i can adjust an eq on two different channels at once, or move from one strip to the next instantly, tweak a low mid here, pull back the first send there, goose the fader here while sweeping a freq there. i can do all this without thinking about what is what, i can adjust 10 things in 15 seconds and in a minute's time move thru several radically different faces on a mix just to find what works and what doesn't.

control surfaces fall way short of offering this functionality. what are the odds that you could make one where each strip has 4 or 5 knobs for eq (each one programmable to address the plug of your choice), 4 for sends, and one for pan?

THAT, imo, is the biggest gap between the icon/ssl and everything else.


gregoire
del ubik

Ill second pretty much all of this. I cant emphasise KNOBS that simulate a REAL CONSOLE enough. Every single DAW controler I come in to contact with has this lack of feature.

Make a controler with 6 dedicated eq knobs on every channel. Those knobs can be doubled up as aux sends also''.....but it must be a one button change for all channels. Another must is a dedicated Master fader....there are still controlers being made without this. Whoever makes a controler with 24 faders, dedicated knobs on every channel will sell them like hotcakes.

ALSO A MUST: Proper monitoring facilities through the controler. BIG KNOB for volume, talk back, headphones, 2trk return, 2*alt monitors........and even 8 line inputs for monitoring stuff like CD players or live external synths/modules. Crucially though you need to make sure tha analog path is completely transparent.

With all due respect your controler has the obligatory one knob and that fact alone would steer me clear of it. It looks very similiar to the Tascam US2400 which has 24 faders and now costs a very cheap $799.

There is a lot you can do with a new controler design but ask real working engineers what they want. After that, ask them again and then ask their cousins Take time to research as your design and ergonomics will be crucial. I think you could get many responses on something like this but you need to take it a bit more seriously me thinks.

Anyway, good luck I hope you go through with it

[Matthew Murray]

I too would kill for something like this in Logic. And I don't agree that this is like the Tascam US2400 .. the major difference being the nice big fat meters (which I hope would be on a semi upright meter-bridge style thingy). One other thing I'd hope to see, however, is LCDs for each track, like the mackie control only more characters, that take on the name of each track. Such a feature is crucial if it's going to be useable, in my opinion.

[ProPower]

Another vote for enough knobs per channel to do plug in support (at least EQs and/or Comps).

If not this, then have a matrix of assignable knobs (AND scribble strips) so that you can have a complete complex plug at your fingertips. If we assign EQ as Plug A acros all channels (for instance) then one could have EQ mapped to the knobs and quickly bank/channel switch through the mix to hit various channels. But these have to be assignable so that the user could make configurations that made sense to them.

Good luck,
-Lee

[Mind-Over-Midi]

Been waiting for something like this for a long time!


Something that could take the place of the control 24 would be great! I think the price should be more toward the $5000.00 mark as opposed to the 2.5k mark hopefully the extra 2.5k would get us better faders, higher resolution, higher quality buttons and switches, and better overall quality. I guess what I'm saying is I don't mind paying for a high quality PROFESSIONAL control surface. (I'd actually be glad to pay $10K for a really nice PROFESSIONAL control surface) There is not much around at the 5k price point that's not semi pro. A control surface is a optional luxury item, after all we could just use a keyboard and a mouse, so it should be luxurious, it wouldn't hurt if it were slightly oversized (say 36" W as opposed to 17.5" W if possible) giving a little more elbow room. Control surfaces are all about feedback so the more characters in the scribble strips the better, the better the metering.....well you get the point. Now as to the monitor section........I don't need one. I use a Crane Song Avocet which was designed specifically for this task, cost a pile of money and would be hard for you to beat quality wise at this price point. Why bother? There are plenty of options available for control room monitoring from Mackie, Presonus, Grace, Cranesong, etc. why not take that money and use it to make a better control surface? Like a dedicated compressor control section, and more assignable knobs, and switches for controlling plugins and or Aux returns. The PDF that you included is a good start, a dedicated compressor section is a MUST, as is a dedicated compressor switch below the EQ switch on the channel strip. I know you are working to a budget, but at least one dedicated Aux send level control on the channel strip would be nice.

Good luck!

[title]

Originally Posted by Chrisac

Ill second pretty much all of this. I cant emphasise KNOBS that simulate a REAL CONSOLE enough. Every single DAW controler I come in to contact with has this lack of feature.

Make a controler with 6 dedicated eq knobs on every channel. Those knobs can be doubled up as aux sends also''.....but it must be a one button change for all channels. Another must is a dedicated Master fader....there are still controlers being made without this. Whoever makes a controler with 24 faders, dedicated knobs on every channel will sell them like hotcakes.

ALSO A MUST: Proper monitoring facilities through the controler. BIG KNOB for volume, talk back, headphones, 2trk return, 2*alt monitors........and even 8 line inputs for monitoring stuff like CD players or live external synths/modules. Crucially though you need to make sure tha analog path is completely transparent.

just thought it was funny, that almost all of your requests are already features of a d-Control...

[Diablo]

Originally Posted by Mike Lapchick

sell for under $5k and fill a large void that continues to exist between the Mackie Contol and.. well, that's the problem. What's the next step up from the MC that is simply a robust, non-audio controller for ProTools AND other DAWs that's not the Eucon 5MC. Something that is both asthetically and functionally viable for professional use.

There isn't that void in the ProTools market. It's filled with the Control 24. Street price is around $5 to $6K.

I use a Control 24 for my Pro Tools rig and I am extremely happy. To have a chance at the PT users you would have to add some serious value to your controller.

Not that it couldn't be done, but the firmware coding alone is going to take some serious money, because you must make it compatible with more than one protocol.

My suggestions (as a happy C24 user):

- Make it C24 size, to attract the professional market looking for the "wow" client factor.
- Use a modular approach. Some users will want built in mic pre's. Some won't. Give them a choice. Some want a monitor section. Some don't. Etc, etc.
- Keep the base price reasonable and charge for the extras.

Good luck. The market needs more competition.

[drummin4christ]

Originally Posted by Diablo

There isn't that void in the ProTools market. It's filled with the Control 24. Street price is around $5 to $6K.

I use a Control 24 for my Pro Tools rig and I am extremely happy. To have a chance at the PT users you would have to add some serious value to your controller.

Not that it couldn't be done, but the firmware coding alone is going to take some serious money, because you must make it compatible with more than one protocol.

My suggestions (as a happy C24 user):

- Make it C24 size, to attract the professional market looking for the "wow" client factor.
- Use a modular approach. Some users will want built in mic pre's. Some won't. Give them a choice. Some want a monitor section. Some don't. Etc, etc.
- Keep the base price reasonable and charge for the extras.

Good luck. The market needs more competition.

He is coming at this from a non Pro-tools veiw. The C24 only works with pro-tools so for people who choose to use a different DAW besides PT, the market is very slim in the price range.

I have always recorded ITB so this design looks great. It would sell better if you had 5.1 options and a few more knobs as others have stated.

[John Suitcase]

I'd like a simple fader strip with like 5 knobs and 5 buttons for solo, low cut, etc.

It should be totally open for the user to define what each knob/button does. It could have a knob at the bottom to allwo you to rapidly spin to the desired channel.

It would be something that could be attached to another strip or 20, side by side. Whatever control programming you've set up for the first fader would be copied to the others.

You could put miniature LCDs on the knobs and just above them, to allow you to have knobs that recall their settings, without having to move the knobs.

The fader would be motor controlled to recall, automate etc.

Something like this would be nice, even if I only ever used to for doing automation tracks. Trying to draw automation using my trackball is a pain, and almost always requires that I go back and edit the points to correct for my overly aggressive moves!

There's a keyboard on the market that has the LCD keys, so that shortcuts, alternate key layouts etc can be displayed right on the key caps themselves...

http://www.artlebedev.com/portfolio/optimus/

Something like that for the knobs would be nifty...

[TheSweetener]

First of all, I think this could even be more expensive than 2500.-$
There's a huge gap between the Tascam + Mackie 1000.-$ market and things like the Nuendo controller for 15000.-$

Of course a real channel strip (in every channel) is a desirable thing, but every encoder, display and fader (if hi quality) is really expensive!

The best compromise IMO can be found in two digital desks. The Sony DMX and the Tascam TM-D8000. Here you have one COMPLETE channel strip (4 band eq with bypass for each band, some auxs, pan and at the Sony even dynamics).
This is enough for tweaking at least one channel really fast and intuitive!

The most important disadvantage of a small controller is, that each time you open a new plugin, you don't now which encoder is which parameter. Even if every parameter has an own encoder, it's sometimes faster to just use the mouse.

So, I would not concentrate on making 500 knobs for tweaking hundrets of parameters at the same time. I would choose the Sony DMX way (which is very ergonomic by the way) and try to be compatible with as many EQ and dynamic plugins as possible.

This means that typical parameters like Treshold, Ratio, Band 1 Q Factor.....
are always at the same spot. And it would be very cool to have a little display under every encoder that shows you which paramter you're controlling. But please, not something like RELSTM, but RELEASE TIME!


Meters? YES!

Many faders? At least 12, but expandable

Control room section? Everyone wants something else and there are alread many great alternatives out there.

Thanks!

[Berolzheimer]

A few suggestions that arise out of my experiences with ProControls, C-24, Hui, us-2400, & Motormix-

put the meters just above the faders so it's easy to see the signal activity on the fader you're reaching for, and if you have a monitor over the board it won't block the meters- this is something that drives me crazy on the c24.

make sure it's easy to put plug in parameters onto the faders- this I love in the C24.

To me dedicated controls for EQ & dynamics aren't that important, I'd rather have those parameters on nice, big ,assignable, touch sensitive faders. Dedicated controls aren't always going to match up to every plug in anyways.

I'm glad to see you've included a joystick- make sure it's a one hand operation, on the us2400 you have to hold down a button with one hand while panning with the other, needless to say that sucks.

The monitor section will be 5.1 and high quality audio, right? unlike the C24 monitor section which sounds like dogmeat.

Generally it looks good, you're on the right track. Feel free to PM me if you want more input, I use controllers a lot for both music & film sound.

I find it ironic that here we all sit, wishing for....a console. What the heck? Originally, the big selling point to Digi, etc was the fact that the expensive studio could be smaller and more affordable. Now we are spending 100k on a huge simulated console that can't do a dang thang if the computer crashes. Why put all of your eggs in one basket? Why not go back to a real desk. Maybe someone will design real desks with a kickin' control in the middle.

[jindrich]

Originally Posted by Lowdbrent

I find it ironic that here we all sit, wishing for....a console. What the heck? Originally, the big selling point to Digi, etc was the fact that the expensive studio could be smaller and more affordable. Now we are spending 100k on a huge simulated console that can't do a dang thang if the computer crashes. Why put all of your eggs in one basket? Why not go back to a real desk. Maybe someone will design real desks with a kickin' control in the middle.

as you wish
magic audio console

yar welcome

[nek]

Wow, the control surface that most of you are looking for already exist.

Mixed Logic M24

24 Faders and Pan Controls
Dedicated Aux section
Dedicated EQ section
Dedicated Dynamics section
Transport and Navigation Controls
Jog Shuttle Data Wheel
Select, Solos, Mutes and Soft Switches
Bank and Channel Swap
LCD Display and Scribble Strip
Fader Flip Modes
Works with all major DAWs including Pro Tools LE and TDM, SONAR, Digital Performer, Logic, Nuendo and Cubase

$2880.00 USD

Now lets all go be Slutty!

[DrFrankencopter]

Is there a standard that exists to allow control surfaces to communicate with DAW's? I'm not sure. It seems to me that there's lots of work that needs to be done on the DAW software side of things in order to most effectively integrate a control surface.

Here are some things I'd like to see:
1) A standard plugin window size (imagine the software equivalent to the 19" rack), and standardized control locations. Now, a portion of your control surface can contain something like an 8" LCD with rotary encoders mounted over it. Select a pluggin to insert or edit on a track, and it automatically pops up on the LCD where I can reach out and grab its controls. Ditto for channel EQ.

2) Metering...I want to see meters on the control surface, not only on the DAW monitor. If they're high resolution meters, put them right beside the faders. Low resolution can go right on top.

3) Rotary encoders per fader...I want 2. I have 2 hands and can adjust two things simulatneously (like doing a manual crossfade between aux sends). I don't need more, as long as its very easy/fast to change the parameter that is assigned to the rotary encoders.

4) Transport control....I want a wireless remote. Let me hit play on my mix when I'm at the back of my room lounging on the couch, or hunched over my guitar rig getting ready to track. Shuttle wheel, trackball, keypad....pay good attention to the ergonomics here, as this is where the edits will happen.

5) Size...the size of the control surface should relate to the size of the DAW monitor. Ideally, the DAW window should be scalable to the point where it can line up perfectly with the control surface. Otherwise there's an obvious 'disconnect' when your attention shifts from the control surface to the monitor.

Just my thoughts....

Kris

[Mike Lapchick]

Originally Posted by nek

Wow, the control surface that most of you are looking for already exist.

Mixed Logic M24

24 Faders and Pan Controls
Dedicated Aux section
Dedicated EQ section
Dedicated Dynamics section
Transport and Navigation Controls
Jog Shuttle Data Wheel
Select, Solos, Mutes and Soft Switches
Bank and Channel Swap
LCD Display and Scribble Strip
Fader Flip Modes
Works with all major DAWs including Pro Tools LE and TDM, SONAR, Digital Performer, Logic, Nuendo and Cubase

$2880.00 USD

Now lets all go be Slutty!

Not even close.

[topslakr]

The Mixed Logic board does look nice.. but it doesn't have touch sensitive faders. That for me is a deal breaker, and a feature worth the money for the way I work. Plus, I would really love to have meters on the board.

Robert

[Mike Lapchick]

Guys - keep the ideas coming - I've read every one of your posts and am working on modifications for the suggestions I feel I can add while staying at/below the budget (price). I have a number of questions for some of you that I am still working on combining.

There have been some fantastic ideas. Some of which I can do within budget, some that would definitely increase the cost. So in my next round, I'll have a description of what can be done at what costs so everyone can have a clear picture of compromise and make more suggestions for round 3.

Thanks - Mike

[pan60]

not really up on controllers but looking at them.
with my ignorance on this matter it is hard ti suggest anything as i am not real sure what it out and what all they offer.
i would like something that was had eq, aux, and dynamics on each channel as well.
good faders, a master, and expandable in say groups of eight.
meters would be nice.
something that dose not feel like a plastic toy!

[DrFrankencopter]

Mike,

Since you're designing this thing, is there a standard interface/protocol for DAW control surfaces? If not, I think there needs to be one...an open standard no less. If a standard existed,and was widely accepted, then software vendors would be forced to design their DAW software with all the necessary 'hooks' to enable it to be controlled by a control surface. Without that kind of support I'd say that DAW control surfaces face an uphill battle as it's up to the control surface manufacturer to come up with the code to interface to the various DAWs out there.

Cheers,

Kris

[Mike Lapchick]

Originally Posted by DrFrankencopter

Mike,

Since you're designing this thing, is there a standard interface/protocol for DAW control surfaces? If not, I think there needs to be one...an open standard no less. If a standard existed,and was widely accepted, then software vendors would be forced to design their DAW software with all the necessary 'hooks' to enable it to be controlled by a control surface. Without that kind of support I'd say that DAW control surfaces face an uphill battle as it's up to the control surface manufacturer to come up with the code to interface to the various DAWs out there.

Cheers,

Kris

Hey Kris - do you mean a protocol? Right now, it's MCP (Mackie Control Protocol) that is behind the US2400 and other similar controllers. I don't have the resources to reforge that and there are a lot of options within it (and limitations, unfortunately). Reading your post again - I think this is what you're talking about. Yes?

Thanks, Mike

[faeflora]

Originally Posted by nek

Wow, the control surface that most of you are looking for already exist.

Mixed Logic M24

24 Faders and Pan Controls
Dedicated Aux section
Dedicated EQ section
Dedicated Dynamics section
Transport and Navigation Controls
Jog Shuttle Data Wheel
Select, Solos, Mutes and Soft Switches
Bank and Channel Swap
LCD Display and Scribble Strip
Fader Flip Modes
Works with all major DAWs including Pro Tools LE and TDM, SONAR, Digital Performer, Logic, Nuendo and Cubase

$2880.00 USD

Now lets all go be Slutty!

Not touch sensitive. Also fugly.

[TheSweetener]

Originally Posted by DrFrankencopter

Is there a standard that exists to allow control surfaces to communicate with DAW's? I'm not sure. It seems to me that there's lots of work that needs to be done on the DAW software side of things in order to most effectively integrate a control surface.

Kris

No, of course not. On some plugins the "Band 1 boost" is the first parameter on some not.

Like I said earlier, I'd like a simple inerface, where I have a complete EQ section (only one, not in every channel) that has the same parameter always at the same place, no matter if I choose a WAVES EQ or an URS EQ.

There should be a compatibility list, which standard EQs work with the surface. I don't need the flexibility of tweaking every freeware EQ with the surface. I need some standards like WAVES, URS, Uaudio, TC + the Cubase or Logic channel EQs.