The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Game changing control surface - Do you Want one?
Old 11th October 2019
  #91
Gear Head
 
Hold the Mayo's Avatar
 

If you think about using DAWS it's similar to playing video games. So give me a PLayStation2 style controller.
Old 14th October 2019
  #92
Here for the gear
 

i consider the Mine s on the edge because they worked on this for years and lit looks to me that they are doing it the right way.
The Software looks very powerful.
Ofc you can make everything dynamic, thats not really on the controller side but on your software.
for example you can make different sensitivity curves, resolutions, colors, names, displayed animations etc etc.. for parameters, per preset, per Song/whatever, there are no limits really // ofc depending how deep your Program supports OSC

The modularity is nice but what it alswo does it allows for easy repair, so the very high end quality that costs an arm and a leg is not needed to have a device you can rely on.
they are already working on the next modules, motorized fader and a screen module.

don't wanna sound like a Salesmen for them but its pretty exciting to me
Old 14th October 2019
  #93
Gear Addict
 
ajscent's Avatar
 

I want a traditional desk

In that I want an eq section like a desk - ie the hi low mid WITH q control - i dont want ONE knob which i have to use a second button to click to access each control
Nor do I want an eq which is spread accross the top of the desk horizontally to utillise the stingy controls.

I appreciate this is expensive - errrr no I dont because look at Akais crap £70.00 mixer which has bass mid and treble controls - so yeah - up the game - give me 8 eq controls.

need motorised faders - just for faders

transport controls should be on the bottom of the unit running along the arm rest so they are reachable at all times - these must be the most accessable - dont put them up on the right - all out of the way with tiny buttons - put them along the armrest with a flip lid to hide them away ( physical flip lid or a slide lid would be prefferable )

Item should be lightweight so it can be flung away if space needed - buttons must not be plastic clicky things - they must be solid - pref metal - nice and chunky
Old 14th October 2019
  #94
Lives for gear
I already have a game changing control surface and it’s called the Slate RAVEN!
Old 16th October 2019
  #95
Gear Guru
 

I had a conversation today with a person working for a non-Avid company making controllers. His comment was basically that it's close to impossible to sell a decent number of high-quality controllers at profit simply because the people that would buy them at a reasonable price are using Pro Tools and therefore buy Avid controllers.

It's a very, very tough market.
Old 17th October 2019
  #96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I had a conversation today with a person working for a non-Avid company making controllers. His comment was basically that it's close to impossible to sell a decent number of high-quality controllers at profit simply because the people that would buy them at a reasonable price are using Pro Tools and therefore buy Avid controllers.

It's a very, very tough market.
That’s no surprise. It’s clear from all the threads on GS that there is no conclusion on what the perfect controller looks like. Just like Mac vs PC and which DAW is the best arguments, no one is wrong but no one is right. We all want different things and some want them at bargain basement prices and some are prepared to pay a reasonable price.

Last edited by blayz2002; 17th October 2019 at 10:00 AM.. Reason: Forgot something
Old 17th October 2019
  #97
Gear Addict
 
stixstudios's Avatar
I guess the best controller is a full-blown digital console and just use your DAW as a pretend tape machine. Other than that, it's a compromise and user satisfaction will vary.
Old 17th October 2019
  #98
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stixstudios View Post
I guess the best controller is a full-blown digital console and just use your DAW as a pretend tape machine. Other than that, it's a compromise and user satisfaction will vary.
Digital consoles typically don't reflect all the great stuff that DAWs provide that consoles don't though.

We'll always be looking at some sort of compromise, but Nuage and s4/s6 are great controllers and not that much is missing from them. People are just miffed because they're really expensive (relatively speaking).
Old 17th October 2019
  #99
Gear Addict
 
stixstudios's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
... People are just miffed because they're really expensive (relatively speaking).
Yep. That IS the point. People (including me) expect amazing things - hardware and software that can do everything you want, and if you can't, then "It" will do it for you. And we expect that control surface or software solution should be inexpensive! However, I'm lucky and smart enough (I think ) to understand the difference.
Old 17th October 2019
  #100
Lives for gear
 

The op has probably now turned attention to developing a new coffee maker instead.
Old 17th October 2019
  #101
Gear Addict
 
stixstudios's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
The op has probably now turned attention to developing a new coffee maker instead.
Yep. Likely more profitable.

In fact, I've got an old cappuccino machine. It does a good job - I'd like a new one, but I can't see that a new one would make my coffee better. Maybe easier to make it, but not better. So it's gonna be hard to convince me to buy a new coffee machine.

I wouldn't mind a good coffee right now, except it's very late in the night / early in the morning and probably best to just go to bed.
Old 17th October 2019
  #102
Lives for gear
 
shatz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stixstudios View Post
Yep. Likely more profitable.

In fact, I've got an old cappuccino machine. It does a good job - I'd like a new one, but I can't see that a new one would make my coffee better. Maybe easier to make it, but not better.

I wouldn't mind a good coffee right now except it's very late in the night / early in the morning and probably best to just go to bed.
Have to disagree here. I recently got rid of my old coffee maker and got a Ninja coffee system. The coffee tastes so much better.
And yes, I blind tested it to exclude any bias.
Old 17th October 2019
  #103
Lives for gear
I'm actually one who believes a good control surface would be well received by many, and may even be profitable. I definitely think there's a market for it.

Everyone seems to have the same problems (too expensive, not enough features, not the right features, cheaply built, not compatible with someone's favourite DAW, or if it is, it's very limited compared to other DAWs). Ultimately, most of the problems seem to be focused on functionality (usually on the software side) and price.

A powerful, flexible and open-source, community focused approach eliminates the functionality problem entirely. The next big problem is price, and honestly, an extremely modular system can make for something that finds the right balance between price and hardware controls. Need a lot of faders? Buy the fader banks. Need just one master fader? Buy that. Need a lot of encoders and knobs? Buy those separately. Need just a transport section and scrub wheel? Buy that separately.

Develop two lines (low-end and high-end) and almost anyone can dip their toes into the ecosystem, without massively regretting spending a bulk of money. They can always expand hardware functionality as they grow or as they see fit. The-throw-everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach will always ensure that either it's too costly, or too compromised/cumbersome/unnecessary for some group of people.

I understand we all want different things, but it really isn't rocket science. Although we want different things, we all need the basics (transport, information screen/strip, knobs, reliability, solid build construction, faders (physical/digital or whatever) and something that isn't finicky or complicated and works with one's preferred DAW. Nail the basic needs, and then tackle the niceties.

With a modular approach to building this business, I think you can eliminate some risks, or greatly lower them. Crowd-fund a basic (high-end or low-end) device; maybe an encoder unit (with transport, perhaps?) and
a single, separate fader. All on a promised open-source protocol. If it's good and excels at the basic needs, and does well any extras, the target market will buy it. And that part is especially important - If you're building something high-end off the bat, then target the people who can afford such a thing. Once the target market buys it, and likes it (granted you promote and market it well), you can begin looking at expanding your product line up, with 8-fader units, specialised encoder units, etc. As your business grows (if it grows), you can extend your market with low-end options. Use more plastics, cheaper materials, cheaper packaging, less features such as no touch-sensitivity, no motors, no scribble strip, etc). Of course, if you start with the low-end option (which is cheaper to start-up, with less investment than starting with the high-end), and it is successful, you can then extend your market with the high-end range.

I truly do not think that is very difficult to do, granted you can find the money to do it. Is it a gamble? Sure. Is success guaranteed? No. But that's the nature of business.

Many of you seem to be able to list a million reasons why this won't work and why anyone getting into this shouldn't even bother (none of the reasons aren't absolutes either). One person's friend says it's a dead-end. Another person says people want different things; "there's no way you can satisfy enough people to make a profit." Another says... Yeah, pretty much the same thing ("We all want different things, so this can't work"). But a modular system is made for people who want different things. You can claim all these companies fail at it, but no other company has ever tried to do it this way before. Again; no guarantees of success, but there is also no guarantee of failure, especially if you look long and hard at the issues that cause so many other surface controllers to fail, and can alleviate them using new perspectives with relatively small investments.

"He'll fail because of X, Y and Z." No, he'll fail if he tries to do what everyone else has already tried and failed at. Currently, I don't think there is any modular system, based on an open-source platform, that can cater to the high-end and low-end. So until someone actually does something like that, and executes and markets it properly, we really can't say that he'd fail.

It's good to highlight problems and potential problems, but it's even better to try to find solutions to them.
Old 17th October 2019
  #104
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenVile View Post
A powerful, flexible and open-source, community focused approach eliminates the functionality problem entirely.
I don't think it does.

One thing that proprietary for-profit and often closed systems have going for them is a stated guaranteed functionality and an entity tasked with support. In other words if I buy a Yamaha Nuage there's a set of features that Yamaha guarantees and if it doesn't work I address that with Yamaha. For a more broad application the same applies to Avid and Eucon. The Eucon controllers provide a certain functionality for any DAW that uses that protocol. If I have a problem I go to Avid and complain.

Now what happens if you have a "flexible" open-source system instead? What functionality is guaranteed for a set of hardware? With which DAWs? Who do I address if it isn't working? Is anyone actually responsible for failed implementations?

The burden on the community would be quite large I think, and given how this subset of the market is like a bunch of un-herded cats I'm not really sure I see how it'd be better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenVile View Post
The next big problem is price, and honestly, an extremely modular system can make for something that finds the right balance between price and hardware controls. Need a lot of faders? Buy the fader banks. Need just one master fader? Buy that. Need a lot of encoders and knobs? Buy those separately. Need just a transport section and scrub wheel? But that separately.
Except that the per-unit price goes up as you break it down like that. When all individual items have to be manufactured you have to reset machinery to make them. That's costly. And what happens with supply? Suppose you expect to sell 500 pieces of each of the above. You end up selling 490 of the encoders. Do you put in a new order to manufacture another set of 500? Or do you do it at 480 units sold? 450? Or do you wait until you go above 500, place the order then and have customers wait? And if you do this and only sell 100 of each of the other ones you're now sitting on 1,200 unsold units while ordering 500 more that you may sell.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if that approach was feasible, but it just seems a bit... 'unrealistic', and I think a big reason for that is that people don't want to spend the money to cover the r&d costs plus production runs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenVile View Post
O understand we all want different things, but it really isn't rocket science; although we want different things, we all need the basics (transport, information screen/strip, knobs, solid build construction, faders (physical/digital or whatever) and something that isn't finicky or complicated and works with one's preferred DAW. Nail the basic needs, and then tackle the niceties.

With a modular approach to building this thing, I think you can eliminate some risks, or greatly lower them. Crowd-fund a basic (high-end or low-end) device; maybe an encoder unit (with transport, perhaps?) and single fader. All on a promised open-source protocol. If it's good and excels at the basic needs, and does well any extras, the target market will buy it. And that part is important; if you're building something high-end off the bat, then target the people who can afford such a thing. Once the target market buys it, and likes it (and you can promote it well), you can begin looking at expanding your product line up, with 8-fader units, specialised encoder sections, etc. As your business grows (if it grows), you can extend your market with low-end options (more plastics, cheaper materials, cheaper packaging, less features such as no touch-sensitivity, no motors, no scribble strip, etc). Of course, if you start wtlith the low-end option (which is cheaper to manufacturer, so less risk than starting with the high-end), and it is successful, you can then extend your market with the high-end range.
Ok, so just so we're clear: What do you define as "high end" in this case, both regarding features/quality and price, respectively?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenVile View Post
But a modular system is made for people who want different things. You can claim all these companies fail at it, but no other company has ever tried to do it this way before.
Both Avid and Steinberg have done it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenVile View Post
It's good to highlight problems and potential problems, but it's even better to try to find solutions to them.
Fair enough.

Let me put it like this though (reiterating); if we're looking at what is ultimately crowd funding I'd happily support it if I knew who was behind it. That'd be step one I think.
Old 17th October 2019
  #105
Lives for gear
 
greggybud's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
The op has probably now turned attention to developing a new coffee maker instead.
Unless it also makes hot chocolate, and can interface with my toaster maker, so both are ready at the same time, and also be under $15, I'm not interested.

And it needs quality knobs like Moog.
Old 18th October 2019
  #106
Gear Head
 
snoskit's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
The op has probably now turned attention to developing a new coffee maker instead.
DAW Control Surface with integrated coffee maker*



(c) 2019 Snoskit; patent pending
Old 18th October 2019
  #107
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Who's "we"?



If it's truly a "game changer" then of course people would want it. Pretty worn out term though.

I suggest you go dig up one of the several regular threads on this topic. They contain the same complaints recycled, and you'll likely find that there's little consensus on just what this "game changer" would be.

Often it's just 'more for less'. More faders, more knobs, less money. Or better quality faders, same price.

Not exactly sure what vacuum you're referring to but just to reiterate (what you already know I guess):

Presonus Faderport
Steinberg cc121
Presonus Faderport 8
Behringer X-Touch
Mackie MCU
Avid Artist Mix (being discontinued)
Avid s1 (out soon)
Avid s3
Yamaha (for Steinberg) Nuage
Avid s4
Avid s6

That'll cover the range from about $100 to six figures...

I'm betting your problem will be implementing a protocol that's flexible or in-depth enough with the blessing of the DAW makers. Avid probably won't open up Eucon to your hardware, and Steinberg probably won't hand over their remote SDK willy-nilly, and coding for them all individually will be expensive... which leaves you with a generic protocol... which leads back to MCU... which leads back to all the already existing controllers that are either MCU or Eucon (+ the proprietary Nuage)...



If we're going to get a discount - which would be appreciated - then it'd be great to know what your company is.
Yet none of those are the tool I need. So yes, it’s still a problem.

Console One is the only thing that comes close. Yet it only works with their proprietary software which will make most my current investments redundant. I don’t like that.

What I want is something similar that will work with any plugin we want to throw at it, or directly with the DAW itself.

Console One is hugely popular, yet it has not direct completion. I believe it’s because controller manufacturers are still busy trying to emulate the workflow of an old mixer, without realising we are in a different time and in different environments. This is new school, but all the solutions seem to be old school, unless you go some kind of touch screen solution. But that lacks the tactile response, so it’s hardly what I would call a solution either.
Old 18th October 2019
  #108
For me, I like Console 1 because before I had it, I realised how much time I was spending on my mouse adjusting EQ's and compressor settings (plus a few other plugins) on every mix, especially before I bought Sonarworks and got a better-balanced sound in the first place. But my my aim is to have buttons, knobs etc. for the things I do many times in a mix.

Before I had used Mackie Control's Icon QCon Pro, Platform M and now I use a Behringer X Touch with Console 1. So, I've always had controllers since more than 10 years back. I can't really work without them now. I'm very interested in the Console 1 Fader as it's nice and compact, but may have to switch DAW's to get the best from it.

Last edited by blayz2002; 18th October 2019 at 08:13 PM.. Reason: Forgot something
Old 18th October 2019
  #109
Gear Guru
 

It'll be interesting to hear how people feel about finding channels in large projects with no name-strips on the controller.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #110
Lives for gear
 

It's interesting that Softube have bought out a fader companion for it now. Actually touching the faders will huilight which tracks you are dressing. Almost as good as having labels.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #111
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by simon.billington View Post
It's interesting that Softube have bought out a fader companion for it now. Actually touching the faders will huilight which tracks you are dressing. Almost as good as having labels.
In my experience it's not that great. It means you have to use your cursor to highlight a track before using its fader.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #112
Gear Addict
 
Emanuel23's Avatar
 

@OP, what is your location? Have you or your team produced gear in the past?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #113
Lives for gear
 
microwave's Avatar
A blend of physical faders and iPad style screen would be the best for me. Deep integration with Logic, 8 or 10 faders (expandable) with OLED scribble script, the possibility of working both by banking or “locking” different faders to particular tracks. Transport controls, some buttons that can be assigned to key commands and a scrub wheel, then - on top or side - a small but high resolution touch screen where plugins can be opened and tweaked.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #114
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
In my experience it's not that great. It means you have to use your cursor to highlight a track before using its fader.
It doesn’t seem to be the case as it responds straight away to controller movement. You can just highlight the strip before moving the controller to make sure you have the right one. Actually, now that I think of it, I think it does the same thing as selecting the strip with a mouse.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #115
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by simon.billington View Post
It doesn’t seem to be the case as it responds straight away to controller movement. You can just highlight the strip before moving the controller to make sure you have the right one. Actually, now that I think of it, I think it does the same thing as selecting the strip with a mouse.
I understand what you're saying and I guess what I left out was that it's faster to just highlight what you want to control in the DAW directly, using the cursor, and then look down on the controller to see which fader is the correct selected channel - rather than just select a fader on the controller, look at the screen to see which one that is, and then either still select a different one if it's wrong or have to count how 'off' you are to find the channel you want to control on the unit...

And regardless, including screens is better. I just find it baffling that any company brings out a product that's claimed to be an alternative to other similar established controllers on the market yet fail to include this.

I guess if a person is only using twenty channels of Softube then fine. But if you're looking at a screen with 100+ channels then navigation becomes 'a thing' on a controller. Not having labels just plain old blows then.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #116
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
One thing that proprietary for-profit and often closed systems have going for them is a stated guaranteed functionality and an entity tasked with support. In other words if I buy a Yamaha Nuage there's a set of features that Yamaha guarantees and if it doesn't work I address that with Yamaha. For a more broad application the same applies to Avid and Eucon. The Eucon controllers provide a certain functionality for any DAW that uses that protocol. If I have a problem I go to Avid and complain.

Now what happens if you have a "flexible" open-source system instead? What functionality is guaranteed for a set of hardware? With which DAWs? Who do I address if it isn't working? Is anyone actually responsible for failed implementations?
mattiasnyc with all due respect, do you really want me to explain OSC to you again? Cant you just google it?

OSC is road tested and proven. It works in a handful of DAWs already and other DAWs really need to get with it, but there are not enough controllers. Apart from the DAWs that do have it there is the whole range of sound interfaces from MOTU and RME and others that have OSC.

Really, check out how awesome it can be by setting it up with Reaper and Touchosc or Lemur. The one for Reaper/Touchosc with KBooGIE ReaperOSC. It not only has bank following and mirrors selection, it also scolls when you scoll on one the other does to. It finds the addressable parameters of any plugin and assigns them to a bank of knobs with complete labelling etc in the controller.

OSC doesn't need support for the consumer any more than the MIDI does. Do you go and ask support from the MIDI foundation (or whatever its called) when you cant get a midi controller to play with a DAW? No, you ask the manufacturer of either the controller or the DAW who are implementing the protocol.

OSC works, it is open ended and alive and well. Any manufacturer can address any parameter (with feedback at fast speeds) they like and call it what they like in OSC. And they should keep it as OSC and open up the addresses if they weren't greedy....but AFAIK Native Instruments NKS uses a modified version of OSC, Avid/Eucon does to and I suspect Softube does. They just put a header in the packet that makes it proprietry. Thats greed for you, they are just dressing up OSC in a way such that no-other manufacturers can get involved and people have to invest in their whole system. Thats why proprietary protocol wont work because only one company has a say on what is made and what its priced at (high and locked in both cases). No competition etc... not healthy.

OP please ignore the pessimism in this thread and go forth with what sounds like an awesome project that is smart enough to have OSC as a translation layer.

I also agree with VenVile as in my previous post earlier...m o d u l a r !

Last edited by bcslaam; 3 weeks ago at 07:39 AM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #117
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thestarfire View Post
We have been struck by the vacuum in the market regarding intelligent useful control surfaces.
Absolutely!

Quote:
Do you want a versatile studio control surface that you can control your plugs/daw with that is customizable with active displays showing what the physical buttons/sliders/knobs/ are controlling?
YES. DAW/MIDI fader/knob controllers without hi-res displays are useless gimmicks IMO.


Quote:
Do you want physical encoders/sliders and buttons
Yes. For track faders I would be totally OK with LED touch faders a-la Maschine Jam ( but higher resolution) instead of bulky and expensive mechanised faders. If the touch strips are individually recessed then there is enough tactile feedback there IMO. Of course the LED strips can double as channel meters!


Quote:
or would a great iPad controller work?
No. swiping on glass really sucks.. Also, Apple=fail. You will get bogged down by Apple's bully policies.

Quote:
How much would you be willing to pay for the unit that met your requirements?
€667 if build is of good quality. I don't make money from music and don't expect to.

What I'd like to see is an evolution of the DAW controller- something compact but not tiny. Long throw touch strips, encoders with hi-res OLED displays above them, and support for full paramater names as opposed to cryptic abbreviations.

Large, easy to see transport controls consisting of rigid buttons with quality switches- no silicone buttons should be used in studio gear.

Ideally the control surface wil be able to display graphics so that plugins can have their own visual identity on the hardware. If an open protocol is established and companies such as Valhalla support it then the controller can integrate with plugins properly, beyond the lame MIDI/ MCU limitations...

Another idea: If you look at the Zaquencer and BCR2000 there is an interesting story there. If the hardware comes with some kind of open API or whatever that allows people to write alternative firmware for it, or add functionality, all the better. Reason :A control surface that doubles up as a hands-on MIDI sequencer would be extremely awesome, especially if it supports MIDI 2.0 spec...
Developing a sequencer would be a lot of extra work and may be best left for others to tackle.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #118
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcslaam View Post
mattiasnyc with all due respect, do you really want me to explain OSC to you again? Cant you just google it?

OSC is road tested and proven.
I wasn't talking about OSC in that post you quoted. I was making a general comment based on what the other person was saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcslaam View Post
OSC doesn't need support for the consumer any more than the MIDI does. Do you go and ask support from the MIDI foundation (or whatever its called) when you cant get a midi controller to play with a DAW? No, you ask the manufacturer of either the controller or the DAW who are implementing the protocol.
Re-read what I wrote in context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcslaam View Post
OSC works, it is open ended and alive and well. Any manufacturer can address any parameter (with feedback at fast speeds) they like and call it what they like in OSC. And they should keep it as OSC and open up the addresses if they weren't greedy....but AFAIK Native Instruments NKS uses a modified version of OSC, Avid/Eucon does to and I suspect Softube does. They just put a header in the packet that makes it proprietry. Thats greed for you, they are just dressing up OSC in a way such that no-other manufacturers can get involved and people have to invest in their whole system. Thats why proprietary protocol wont work because only one company has a say on what is made and what its priced at (high and locked in both cases). No competition etc... not healthy.
Ok, so go and get these prospective manufacturers to create these hardware controllers using OSC with a sufficient amount of DAWs supporting them with no effort then. I have no problem with that.

All I know is that Steinberg's Nuage + Nuendo combo and Avid's Pro Tools + Avid controllers combo work far better than any other controller / DAW combo I've seen so far. So, go figure...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcslaam View Post
I also agree with VenVile as in my previous post earlier...m o d u l a r !
Sure. We all want the same thing, except different. We've been here before a number of times over the years. I'm sure this time it's different with some anonymous group behind it.

How would you solve the financial issues I brought up?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #119
Gear Guru
 

I spent a few minutes just blowing through all the posts in this thread only and below are quotes that show the 'consensus' - highlights by me for emphasis:

Quote:
For track faders I would be totally OK with LED touch faders
swiping on glass really sucks
need motorised faders - just for faders
a fader is just a bad design in it self
give me good throw/length touch sensitive faders
A blend of physical faders and iPad style screen would be the best for me
I really don't need an LCD description readout of what's on that channel
forget faders, they are dead.
Please, no more software (iPad) controllers


encoders with hi-res OLED displays above them
i think Oled is the wrong choice
more complex edit commands in page-able text buttons
expression knobs for instruments
16 good quality rgb rotary knobs (4 with surrounding ring rotary) and graphics/text surrounding them on an oled screen
imagine 128 led ring knobs with a tiny screen for each

Voice activated actions-response to spoken commands
Re-invent the mouse.
give me physical patch points that I can use to insert plugs manually
something like a Studer Vista
focus on plugin control and forget about DAW control

an extremely modular system
Develop two lines (low-end and high-end)
the best controller is a full-blown digital console
I want a traditional desk
Slate RAVEN!

€667 if build is of good quality
Id pay up to $1500 for 18 physical rgb rotary faders
For the 24 channel 'mixer' $1600, for the 32 channel :$2000
individual 8 channel add-on modules for $900 each
Best of luck..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #120
Lives for gear
 
greggybud's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Best of luck..
My guess is the majority of potential DAW controller buyers don't do the necessary research required for a purchase. It's easy to buy motorized faders to impress, however does that feature really enhance your workflow?

Then once purchased, and after the honeymoon, reality sets in unless you have set your expectations very low..i.e just a basic mix console controller. Unless you specifically read about the drawbacks of MC protocol, plus other system drawbacks before purchasing, you are in for disappointment.

Then post in forums and complain being oblivious as to why the DAW manufacturer largely ignores this area.

Every controller with the exception of Nuage, seems to have drawbacks.
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