The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Considering a Touchscreen System? Control Surfaces
Old 3rd October 2018
  #1441
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcprod View Post
Does the Raven mti have its own faders that are used instead of the Studio One faders? (Overlay)
No. The RAVEN software has its own external mixer and floating mixer for S1.
Old 3rd October 2018
  #1442
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
That’s probably a good idea. I expect the raven faders to be much more useable than the S1 ones are with multitouch.
I’ve tried S1 on my DTouch system, and the S1 internal multi touch support on the faders seems unreliable.

I expect the Raven picks that up and flies it well into useful territories.
Old 3rd October 2018
  #1443
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Oracle View Post
No. The RAVEN software has its own external mixer and floating mixer for S1.
Would you know if the Raven's Studio One software is available for Windows users?

Thanks.
Old 3rd October 2018
  #1444
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcprod View Post
Would you know if the Raven's Studio One software is available for Windows users?

Thanks.
It’s either in beta or still in development.
Old 4th October 2018
  #1445
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~ufo~ View Post
That’s probably a good idea. I expect the raven faders to be much more useable than the S1 ones are with multitouch.
I’ve tried S1 on my DTouch system, and the S1 internal multi touch support on the faders seems unreliable.

I expect the Raven picks that up and flies it well into useful territories.


Seems to me that when using the Raven with Studio One you may still be just using the Studio One faders. I do not own a Raven but I am just trying to determine if this is correct.

If I bought a Raven for use with Studio One will I be manipulating the generic Studio One faders or a set of faders (layover) developed by the Slate team?
Old 4th October 2018
  #1446
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
You can do three things on Raven for Studio One.

1. You can use Studio One's own faders (I don't think there's an overlay for that, although Raven might react to some more gestures than S1 does, I'm not sure).
2. You can use the Raven floating mixer.
3. You can use the Raven External Mixer (which is weirdly named, since it's stil just a touch screen mixer).

I THINK, that when you touch the S1 faders, you are still just using the S1 faders/touch screen support.
But when you use the Raven's 'external' or 'floating' mixer, you are using the Raven faders, which I expect to be considerably more smooth and responsive than the S1 faders, when using touch.

Now, the differing feature set may have you want to use the S1 mixer for some things, and the Raven mixers for other things.
I expect you will prefer using the Raven faders over the S1 faders though.
Hope that helps.
Old 4th October 2018
  #1447
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~ufo~ View Post
You can do three things on Raven for Studio One.

1. You can use Studio One's own faders (I don't think there's an overlay for that, although Raven might react to some more gestures than S1 does, I'm not sure).
2. You can use the Raven floating mixer.
3. You can use the Raven External Mixer (which is weirdly named, since it's stil just a touch screen mixer).

I THINK, that when you touch the S1 faders, you are still just using the S1 faders/touch screen support.
But when you use the Raven's 'external' or 'floating' mixer, you are using the Raven faders, which I expect to be considerably more smooth and responsive than the S1 faders, when using touch.

Now, the differing feature set may have you want to use the S1 mixer for some things, and the Raven mixers for other things.
I expect you will prefer using the Raven faders over the S1 faders though.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for your reply. Would you mind explaining the difference between the Raven's floating and external mixers?
Old 4th October 2018
  #1448
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
I’m sorry, I don’t own a Raven, nor have I used one since Raven for PT v1.
I’m not the best guy to ask.
There’s some videos about it on YouTube though.

As far as I know, the external mixer is pretty much like you would have a 24 channel HUI setup, but then on a touch screen, so it’s a different full screen window from your DAW. You activate it from a button in the Raven toolbar.
The floating version is smaller, can also be activated from the Raven toolbar and will hoover over your DAW screen.
I’m not sure but I imagine it can be resisted and is probably a little more limited in functionality compared to the external, full screen mode.
But I’m not positive about this, so just watch th YouTube videos, and I’m sure some of them will cover it.
Perhaps a Raven user can chime in.
Old 4th October 2018
  #1449
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcprod View Post
Thanks for your reply. Would you mind explaining the difference between the Raven's floating and external mixers?
The RAVEN Floating Mixer is resizable and can show 8/16/24 faders.

Old 4th October 2018
  #1450
Lives for gear
 
brucerothwell's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JameyZ View Post
The RAVEN Floating Mixer is resizable and can show 8/16/24 faders.
Jamey -- do you know if the Batch Commander alone will ever be available for Studio One?
Old 5th October 2018
  #1451
Lives for gear
I am considering jumping the touchscreen ship. Looking at the Presonus Faderport 16 as an option to go along with my Console 1 for use with Studio One on a Windows PC.
Old 6th October 2018
  #1452
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucerothwell View Post
Jamey -- do you know if the Batch Commander alone will ever be available for Studio One?
Yeah, it will be very soon.
Old 9th October 2018
  #1453
Lives for gear
 
brucerothwell's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcprod View Post
I am considering jumping the touchscreen ship. Looking at the Presonus Faderport 16 as an option to go along with my Console 1 for use with Studio One on a Windows PC.
The Faderport 16 certainly looks intriguing.

I've been wondering if there is anything about it that makes it work more nicely with Studio One.... kinda like the Euphonix/Avid stuff can take advantage of Eucon.
Old 9th October 2018
  #1454
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucerothwell View Post
The Faderport 16 certainly looks intriguing.
Really? How so?
Old 9th October 2018
  #1455
Lives for gear
 
brucerothwell's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~ufo~ View Post
Really? How so?
Simply from a matter of it having 16 faders instead of 8, and the hope that if paired with Studio One, it has more functionality.

"looks intriguing" does not equal "savior of the world". ;-)
Old 9th October 2018
  #1456
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
Ha! Gotcha!

No I get it, it's not expensive, quite lean, 16 faders and displays.
It has no pots though, so I guess you can flip the pans to the faders.

If you're still on DTouch I'd say the upcoming DTouch controllers will be better because they will have a lower footprint than the presonus and will combine better with DTouch.
That won't help with S1 though.
I think I checked a video on the faderport 16 before and wasn't exactly impressed by its integration with S1.
I'm more impressed with how my Quantum 2 integrates with S1.
Old 9th October 2018
  #1457
Lives for gear
 
brucerothwell's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~ufo~ View Post
If you're still on DTouch I'd say the upcoming DTouch controllers will be better because they will have a lower footprint than the presonus and will combine better with DTouch.
I have not heard much about that lately.

Anymore info?
Old 9th October 2018
  #1458
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
Nope, probably said too much already :D
If you're on the DTouch forum, there's pretty candid information there.
Of course, the DTouch 22-24 fader controller, will probably be at least twice the price of the Faderport 16, possibly thrice or more.
Old 9th October 2018
  #1459
Lives for gear
 
brucerothwell's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~ufo~ View Post
Nope, probably said too much already :D
If you're on the DTouch forum, there's pretty candid information there.
I am... just have not been there in a while. Will check it out.
Old 9th October 2018
  #1460
Lives for gear
I really liked the original DTouch with Cubase but I am not a big fan of the floating mixer. After searching around I ended up trying/buying Studio One, and I'm pretty sure I will want to stick with Studio One. I like their implementation of Melodyne and how their mastering section integrates so well with the individual songs. It would be awesome if Devil Technologies would make a DTouch version for Studio One, but I understand why that will not happen since they would have to put in a lot of money developing it, only to have Presonus finally come out with a version of Studio One with decent multi-touch capabilities.

I currently have an original version of the single Faderport that I use with Console 1 and that may be enough. It may be the best fit for my setup ergonomically, although I could likely come up with a way of integrating the Faderport 16.
Old 10th October 2018
  #1461
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
S1 is a cool DAW.
It is young, lean and feels flexible and snappy.

Cubase is pretty cool too, it’s much older so it has much more features. It also means it’s less flexible to incorporate new feayrures into.

In the end, it depends on what features are most important for your workflow.

Since PT had been unreliable for me for an extended period of time, I decided I had to search for alternatives.
I tried a bunch of them.

Cubase and Nuendo both seemed very powerful but didn’t work as snappy with the touch screen as PT did. Luckily, there’s DTouch for them and that really helps. I could programme things into DTouch to compensate for lacking features and workflows.
I can understand that you prefer the integrated/overlay touch screen mixer to the seperate one. I do too.
But the integrated/overlay approach has a lot of limitations for both the programmers and the users.
While the seperate mixers are much more customisable and will be able to work more consistently throughout software versions.
The seperate ones don’t feel integrated with the daw as much, so I see them as a physical controller, but on a touch screen. Used to control the daw, but is seperate from it.
You could put it on a seperate touch screen and leave the daw on a seperate (touch)screen.

It all depends on your particular wishes and demands for a DAW though.

For my very particular workflow, neither Cubendo nor S1 was good enough to mix in, but they’re both cool to compose/produce in.

In the end PT is still my king and DTouch does what I need it to do.
The integrated mixer has drawbacks because of HUI etc, but it’s good enough for me.
Maybe the current S1 touch experience is enough for you and it can only get better.

It all depends on what you NEED your tools to do and what you DESIRE them to do in the future.

DTouch for cubendo is extremely powerful and can do things S1 or even PT with DTouch can’t do, but that flexibility comes at the price of added complexity.
The question for everyone is whether they need it.

If the simplicity of S1 is enough for you, then it’s undoubtedly a cool daw.
I use it too for certain things.
I prefer PT for all round, but S1 has some awesome features for composing that PT doesn’t.
Good luck!
Old 17th October 2018
  #1462
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~ufo~ View Post
S1 is a cool DAW.
It is young, lean and feels flexible and snappy.

Cubase is pretty cool too, it’s much older so it has much more features. It also means it’s less flexible to incorporate new feayrures into.

In the end, it depends on what features are most important for your workflow.

Since PT had been unreliable for me for an extended period of time, I decided I had to search for alternatives.
I tried a bunch of them.

Cubase and Nuendo both seemed very powerful but didn’t work as snappy with the touch screen as PT did. Luckily, there’s DTouch for them and that really helps. I could programme things into DTouch to compensate for lacking features and workflows.
I can understand that you prefer the integrated/overlay touch screen mixer to the seperate one. I do too.
But the integrated/overlay approach has a lot of limitations for both the programmers and the users.
While the seperate mixers are much more customisable and will be able to work more consistently throughout software versions.
The seperate ones don’t feel integrated with the daw as much, so I see them as a physical controller, but on a touch screen. Used to control the daw, but is seperate from it.
You could put it on a seperate touch screen and leave the daw on a seperate (touch)screen.

It all depends on your particular wishes and demands for a DAW though.

For my very particular workflow, neither Cubendo nor S1 was good enough to mix in, but they’re both cool to compose/produce in.

In the end PT is still my king and DTouch does what I need it to do.
The integrated mixer has drawbacks because of HUI etc, but it’s good enough for me.
Maybe the current S1 touch experience is enough for you and it can only get better.

It all depends on what you NEED your tools to do and what you DESIRE them to do in the future.

DTouch for cubendo is extremely powerful and can do things S1 or even PT with DTouch can’t do, but that flexibility comes at the price of added complexity.
The question for everyone is whether they need it.

If the simplicity of S1 is enough for you, then it’s undoubtedly a cool daw.
I use it too for certain things.
I prefer PT for all round, but S1 has some awesome features for composing that PT doesn’t.
Good luck!
Just finished an album using Studio One and I did not find anything missing in the work flow. Just curious what Pro Tools can do for you that Studio One cannot. Thanks.
Old 17th October 2018
  #1463
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
Sure,

My workflow is very particular though, so I fully expect that S1 is a perfectly capable all round DAW for most people.

Here's some things that S1 can't do for me or can do but not in a way elegant enough for me to be a viable platform.

- like Cubendo, it does not offer a SC bus independent of the insert. This 'my first routing' system, is handy for most users, who only want to sidechain single plugins. However, if you want to send a mix to 20 plugins across 20 stem busses.... you won't be happy. If you then decide you didn't like that particular type of plugin and want to try another type of plugin, you won't be happy because you will have to create all those sends again. This is a dealbreaker for me.
In PT you can assign any bus as the SC input on plugins. This means that the same SC bus can feed one or a hundred plugins. In S1/Cubendo, one ore one hundred unique buses will be created as soon as you press the SC button on a plug and you will have to create unique sends to those one, or one hundred buses and somehow find a way to distribute the signals to those one, or one hundred buses. Unusable, for me. S1 cool, Cubendo: cool, but I, personally, cannot mix on it the way I want to.

- another routing problem with S1 (like Cubendo), which I file under this 'my first routing' system, is bus routing. In neither S1 or Cubendo do you have a simple channel.
A channel, with an independent input and output, which you can therefore use as a subgroup, FX return, or for anything else like SC signals.
Say you make a drum subgroup and you have tweaked a great chain of plugins on them, got some sends going that create a cool atmosphere... Awesome. Now say you want to, just for the heck of it, check out whether that chain would work on the GTRs. In PT I just go to the channel I did this on and change the inputs DRUM bus to GTR bus and see what that sounds like. If I like it I just copy that (sub)channel and set the original one back to DRUMS. Awesome.
Maybe this is possible in S1 and Cubendo, I couldn't find a elegant way of doing it.
Say you like your chain on your subchannel and you want to try it in paralel. In PT I just duplicate that (sub)channel again, and bypass the inserts.
Can you do that in S1? I don't recall exactly, but I seem to remember that neither S1 or Cubendo can do that elegant like that but in stead you need to do a whole bunch of steps, which is pretty annoying when you've got to duplicate sends on 10-40 tracks.
- considering stem processing: can you gang the controls of identical plugins across several tracks/channels? Can you specify which slot to do that on and which slot to not do that on?
- can you freeze up to a certain insert or only all of the track?
- can you even have a bus without a channel married to it?
- can you recall mixer views including the plugins/floating windows you had open last time you were on that mixer view?

All of these things are very important to my work flow.

In Cubendo, I could deal with some of these functions not being available because I could programme workarounds in DTouch.
In S1 I would be stuck with what it can do until it can do better.

I realise that for most people S1 is perfectly sufficient. For me it isn't, not for my whole workflow (mainly mix, stem mix, stem mastering).
For my recording/songwriting/composition/production workflow, however, it might just be cool and maybe cooler than PT.
I haven't used it enough to know.

In terms of editing though, even without DTouch running and only using the touch driver, PT (which doesn't support touch) is so much faster for editing audio/midi/automation than S1 is.

S1 is cool and a lot younger than PT is, this has both advantages and disadvantages and they show.
Old 17th October 2018
  #1464
Lives for gear
 
brucerothwell's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcprod View Post
Just finished an album using Studio One and I did not find anything missing in the work flow. Just curious what Pro Tools can do for you that Studio One cannot. Thanks.
We also just finished a single, mixed in Studio One. If anyone is interested in checking out the sample:

Trevis Rothwell (Featuring Hannah McDonald) | CD Baby Music Store
Old 18th October 2018
  #1465
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcprod View Post
Just finished an album using Studio One and I did not find anything missing in the work flow. Just curious what Pro Tools can do for you that Studio One cannot. Thanks.
To me personally... "Import session data" in Pro Tools, I can't live without.
Old 18th October 2018
  #1466
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~ufo~ View Post
Sure,

My workflow is very particular though, so I fully expect that S1 is a perfectly capable all round DAW for most people.

Here's some things that S1 can't do for me or can do but not in a way elegant enough for me to be a viable platform.

- like Cubendo, it does not offer a SC bus independent of the insert. This 'my first routing' system, is handy for most users, who only want to sidechain single plugins. However, if you want to send a mix to 20 plugins across 20 stem busses.... you won't be happy. If you then decide you didn't like that particular type of plugin and want to try another type of plugin, you won't be happy because you will have to create all those sends again. This is a dealbreaker for me.
In PT you can assign any bus as the SC input on plugins. This means that the same SC bus can feed one or a hundred plugins. In S1/Cubendo, one ore one hundred unique buses will be created as soon as you press the SC button on a plug and you will have to create unique sends to those one, or one hundred buses and somehow find a way to distribute the signals to those one, or one hundred buses. Unusable, for me. S1 cool, Cubendo: cool, but I, personally, cannot mix on it the way I want to.

- another routing problem with S1 (like Cubendo), which I file under this 'my first routing' system, is bus routing. In neither S1 or Cubendo do you have a simple channel.
A channel, with an independent input and output, which you can therefore use as a subgroup, FX return, or for anything else like SC signals.
Say you make a drum subgroup and you have tweaked a great chain of plugins on them, got some sends going that create a cool atmosphere... Awesome. Now say you want to, just for the heck of it, check out whether that chain would work on the GTRs. In PT I just go to the channel I did this on and change the inputs DRUM bus to GTR bus and see what that sounds like. If I like it I just copy that (sub)channel and set the original one back to DRUMS. Awesome.
Maybe this is possible in S1 and Cubendo, I couldn't find a elegant way of doing it.
Say you like your chain on your subchannel and you want to try it in paralel. In PT I just duplicate that (sub)channel again, and bypass the inserts.
Can you do that in S1? I don't recall exactly, but I seem to remember that neither S1 or Cubendo can do that elegant like that but in stead you need to do a whole bunch of steps, which is pretty annoying when you've got to duplicate sends on 10-40 tracks.
- considering stem processing: can you gang the controls of identical plugins across several tracks/channels? Can you specify which slot to do that on and which slot to not do that on?
- can you freeze up to a certain insert or only all of the track?
- can you even have a bus without a channel married to it?
- can you recall mixer views including the plugins/floating windows you had open last time you were on that mixer view?

All of these things are very important to my work flow.

In Cubendo, I could deal with some of these functions not being available because I could programme workarounds in DTouch.
In S1 I would be stuck with what it can do until it can do better.

I realise that for most people S1 is perfectly sufficient. For me it isn't, not for my whole workflow (mainly mix, stem mix, stem mastering).
For my recording/songwriting/composition/production workflow, however, it might just be cool and maybe cooler than PT.
I haven't used it enough to know.

In terms of editing though, even without DTouch running and only using the touch driver, PT (which doesn't support touch) is so much faster for editing audio/midi/automation than S1 is.

S1 is cool and a lot younger than PT is, this has both advantages and disadvantages and they show.
Thanks for taking the time to write that response. I couldn't have asked for more detail. Likely will give me a hint at other things I should be doing. Cheers!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #1467
Lives for gear
Have a question for those who are experienced with both Slate and DTouch. It seems from reading and watching videos that Slate has a much deeper learning curve. I love the idea of a touch screen for Protools but i'd rather not spend a month relearning the DAW on either platform. I apologize if this has already been dealt with on the thread, but the basic question is which is quicker to set up and get going on? Longtime ProTools user here.

And does someone make a matte screen protector one can use with either platform to make things easier on the eyes?

Thanks!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #1468
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by raal View Post
Have a question for those who are experienced with both Slate and DTouch. It seems from reading and watching videos that Slate has a much deeper learning curve. I love the idea of a touch screen for Protools but i'd rather not spend a month relearning the DAW on either platform. I apologize if this has already been dealt with on the thread, but the basic question is which is quicker to set up and get going on? Longtime ProTools user here.

And does someone make a matte screen protector one can use with either platform to make things easier on the eyes?

Thanks!
The setup is the same for Dtouch and RAVEN, so both will take time to learn and customize for your workflow. However, any new console will take time to learn.

Nobody can jump on a NEVE VR, SSL 9K, or Avid S6 without taking the time to learn what all the buttons do.

I had to spend two weeks reading the SSL 9k manual to learn all the features and become comfortable for the automation modes and I still never figured out how to write pan automation with small fader.


Old 2 weeks ago
  #1469
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by JameyZ View Post
The setup is the same for Dtouch and RAVEN, so both will take time to learn and customize for your workflow. However, any new console will take time to learn.

Nobody can jump on a NEVE VR, SSL 9K, or Avid S6 without taking the time to learn what all the buttons do.

I had to spend two weeks reading the SSL 9k manual to learn all the features and become comfortable for the automation modes and I still never figured out how to write pan automation with small fader.


Yes, started watching it some days ago. A 49 minute 'quick start' guide is one of the reasons i looked for a thread where i might get some quick answers. Speaking of large consoles we had a VR in each of our two rooms so i know the drill, but i can't count the times a new AE walked in, and with the 2nd we provided, he was flying through the session in no time. If you can work one channel and know a bit about signal flow, the rest isn't all that complicated, except for the automation part maybe, but there was the 2nd.

In the case of DTouch/Slate, i know the Protools 'console' quite well, but since neither platform offers a complimentary 2nd engineer, it's a given that this noob will have to figure out the integration part. If the consensus is, they're both equally easy or difficult to set up and learn, it would then be down to which is the 'better' interface, and things like, if in the end i find that touch screens aren't my thing, with DTouch i'd still have a use for whatever screen we purchase, while with Slate we'd have to try to sell the whole system. Another consideration would be screen quality, eye fatigue, etc. with both options but i'm sure that's been covered in this thread.

I actually tried to find these answers in the thread itself but it must be a contender for longest thread. So if some compassionate person could give me a lowdown as to what most people agree on i'd really appreciate it. Again, from what i've seen on youtube and read on GS and elsewhere, my impression is that there's a steeper learning curve with Slate, while DTouch seems to be fairly straight forward for a ProTools guy. Of course i may be wrong. I realize 'better' is highly subjective, but maybe a very summarized pro and con list for both platforms, to have a starting point? I'm in Mexico City. Literally don't know of anyone who has experience with either, let alone both. Thank you for any advice in advance and for taking the time to read this.

Last edited by raal; 2 weeks ago at 06:19 AM..
Old 1 week ago
  #1470
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
I cannot really comment on Raven much, since I only tried it on v1 on an original MTi. Compared to that version, I’d say that DTouch was and is a little easier in the GUI alignment part. DTouch does that automatically. If you accidentally move something to misalign the pro tools mixer with the DTouch overlay, you only need to press the SYNC button and it corrects it for you. I remember that in Raven v1 you had to do that manually.
I expect that in modern Raven versions this has been corrected. Perhaps a Raven user could comment on this.
I’m just bringing it up because having to manually align it could be something that makes a guest engineer, who’s obviously not ‘at home’ with the room and setup, have a worse time, especially during stressful moments.

I will say that if a guest engineer is unfamiliar with the system, you can tell them that they can always turn the Raven/DTouch part off. Providing you leave their drivers/launcher apps running, they’ll have the familiar PT GUI in front of them but will still be able to touch some elements if they want to, albeit only via single touch.
Still, this is handy for solos and mutes, for example.
Still if you make a Raven or DTouch template with some handy macros for novice users, and you have an assistant engineer with them at least for the first hour or so, I think that a lot of them will keep the DTouch/ Raven software running.

Regarding eye fatigue:
I use a 27” iiyama and I don’t experience any. I have natural lighting so I just make sure to manually adjust the brightness to blend in with the surrounding as much as I can. I don’t like bright screens, they give me headaches.
As long as I keep the brightness down to only slightly above ambient levels, I can work for hours on end without issues.
Same goes for my MacBook, and other computers screens inside and outside my studio.

Regarding screen quality:
At the start, Slate made a big deal about how their screens were customised to have quicker response time than regular touch screens and that this made a significant difference in usability for DAW.
Now I don’t doubt that they optimised their proprietary systems and I haven’t compared them side by side. All I can say is that months after my experience with the MTi(1), I didn’t feel my items DTouch combo with their drivers performed noticeably worse than I remembered the Raven performing.
I haven’t noticed any downsides since.
For my usage, it’s just fine.

In the end I think both systems are fine.
I chose DTouch in the end for several reasons.
It was easier for me to afford.
Cheaper to expand/upgrade.
The gui is more elegant and takes up less screen real estate, allowing for three insert/send banks visible on a 27” model compared to two banks on the Raven MTi.
Another reason is that I didn’t like slate being late on delivering on promises.
The DTouch team have been very honest with me on what to expect and when to expect it. They’ve also been very quick with responding to requests and troubleshooting emails.
But that was then and this is now. I cannot comment on how the Raven team are now and I read a lot of comments from happy users and comments stating that the Raven support team is particularly good, so you should take that into account.
I may have just experienced some growing pains during the two weeks I had the MTi for testing.
I was promised a v2 beta to test during those two weeks and I never got it.
Not a huge deal, but I’m sure you can understand that was disappointing.
Water under the bridge.
The Raven business has expanded, I’m glad to see they’ve got considerably more affordable.

I’m still happy with DTouch, I know people who are happy with Raven so I don’t think there’s a clear better one.
Both systems take slightly different approaches to the matter and it’s up to the user to decide whether those differences are important to them and which approach suits their wishes and requirements best.

I hope I touched on all of your points.

I’ve got some DTouch tutorials and touch related videos online on my studio one on one and yvovangemert YT accounts.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump