The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Why the lack of Hardware from Yamaha for Steinberg products?
Old 28th July 2018
  #1
Gear Maniac
 

Why the lack of Hardware from Yamaha for Steinberg products?

When I first learned way back Yamaha bought Steinberg I was excited. I was wondering guys why hasn't yamaha done what Presonus is doing for Studio One as for as intergration with hardware. Where is Steinberg's version of the faderport. Where is their version of the Studio Live III with Cubase. With Yamaha you would think Halion would give Kontakt a run. Any ideas here? I've always felt Yamaha would be doing more for Steinberg.
Old 29th July 2018
  #2
If you have a fortune to spend

Nuage

Yamaha 02R96VCM

Or just use a more affordable non Yamaha/Steinberg controller solution, including the FaderPort. I bought a used older Tascam FW-1884, and use it with Cubase, works great for me.

Personally I'd like to see more in the way of outboard FX's & hardware instrument sounds, with integration, which I believe Yamaha has some keyboard synths that are supposed to do this.
Old 29th July 2018
  #3
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatizright View Post
Where is Steinberg's version of the faderport.


Old 29th July 2018
  #4
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Fogal View Post
If you have a fortune to spend
To be fair though, and realistic and practical about it:

Presonus Faderport
Presonus Faderport 8 / Steinberg cc121
Presonus Faderport 16 / Avid Artist Mix 8 channels
Avid s3 (16 channels)
Yamaha Nuage single 'bucket'
Avid s6 cheaper version
Avid s6 expensive version

There's just not a lot of space left there. Between the Faderport 16 / Artist Mix 8 channels and the Avid s3 you can cover the range with multiples of the Artist Mix to get up to 32 channels. Between the s3 and the Nuage there's nothing, but you're now also moving into pretty expensive territory. I'm wondering if anyone who's willing to spend say 7,500 dollars wouldn't also be willing to spend 10,000 dollars for the Nuage. I mean, at that point, how much does that 2,500 really matter?

So, "fortune"..... mmmm….. I'm not sure I agree. Pretty great stuff for a competitive price I think.
Old 31st July 2018
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Tommy-boy's Avatar
 

I have the cc121 and love it. Works well. Solidly built. I only need 1 fader, so this is good for me. I like knob to scroll in the project. I thought I'd never use the EQ controls, but started to do so and love it.

All that being said, it does seem that there is a gap in the product line. Going from the cc121 to a Nuage is a HUGE leap. I would have expected Yamaha to come out with something in the middle. Something that worked really well with Cubase/Nuendo and had deep integration.

No way would I buy Avid hardware to run with Steinberg software. Too much chance of dropped support. They are competitors after all.

Just my 2 cents.

Tom
Old 31st July 2018
  #6
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy-boy View Post
All that being said, it does seem that there is a gap in the product line. Going from the cc121 to a Nuage is a HUGE leap. I would have expected Yamaha to come out with something in the middle. Something that worked really well with Cubase/Nuendo and had deep integration.
But they'd be fighting with all the other 8-16 channel controllers in that range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy-boy View Post
No way would I buy Avid hardware to run with Steinberg software. Too much chance of dropped support. They are competitors after all.
Well, the Euphonix protocol controllers have been out for over a decade, maybe two, I can't remember. From Avid's perspective I really, really doubt they'd get many new customers from users who absolutely need a controller that's below the s6 range. In other words, if Avid ceased support for Euphonix with Cubase/Nuendo, or cancelled the license or whatever, I doubt people would switch over to Pro Tools just so they could continue to use the controller with a higher version software. Because it'd still work with the older Cubase/Nuendo version so really it would all be about getting new features in Pro Tools.

I really don't see support being dropped. It's more money for Avid for very little effort.
Old 2nd August 2018
  #7
Lives for gear
It is a disaster for cubase. And the problem is yamaha. They have done "o1x" that is something between cc121 and nuage. However, yamaha doens not seems to understand the importance of software commitment needed to be successful hardware vendor. They do something. it looks promising and then i dies. Like the CMC.
Old 3rd August 2018
  #8
Lives for gear
Never had a problem using low cost generic controllers with Steinberg products. Including the $200 Behringer and about $1200 worth of Mackie MCU with extender... and adding Steiny's quick controllers for additional buttons as needed.
Old 7th August 2018
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatizright View Post
When I first learned way back Yamaha bought Steinberg I was excited. I was wondering guys why hasn't yamaha done what Presonus is doing for Studio One as for as intergration with hardware. Where is Steinberg's version of the faderport. Where is their version of the Studio Live III with Cubase. With Yamaha you would think Halion would give Kontakt a run. Any ideas here? I've always felt Yamaha would be doing more for Steinberg.
When I got the n12 I thought Yamaha was on the right track and there would be really cool products coming along. All this time has gone by and what? I can only guess but maybe the $$ margins are not there for them? I actually thought years ago now that Yamaha would keep up with Presonus. It's amazing because one would think Yamaha has the resources. I've wrote them off, I mean come on they aren't doing anything for Steinberg.
Old 7th August 2018
  #10
Lives for gear
 
bitman's Avatar
If you have a good software market going (especially today with download delivery) hardware is a pita in a box.
Old 7th August 2018
  #11
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundrage View Post
I've wrote them off, I mean come on they aren't doing anything for Steinberg.
I think Steinberg was better of without Yamaha. There only to trip Steinberg. Yamaha is a Japanese company, they are looking at the Japanese market. They understand the Japanese customers. If the products work else were that good, but it is not their focus.
Old 7th August 2018
  #12
Lives for gear
 

Before Yamaha there was no Nuage though. So as far as hardware goes I'm not sure SB was better off before. My hunch is that the same applies to other hardware such as interfaces, but I've never owned SB-branded ones so I don't know for sure.
Old 7th August 2018
  #13
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Before Yamaha there was no Nuage though. So as far as hardware goes I'm not sure SB was better off before. My hunch is that the same applies to other hardware such as interfaces, but I've never owned SB-branded ones so I don't know for sure.
Nuage is the problem.
Old 7th August 2018
  #14
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
Nuage is the problem.
How so?
Old 7th August 2018
  #15
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
How so?
Nuage dont need completion. Most of the function it have could also be implemented on MCU. But it has not. Very few new features that have been added to cubase have been added to any remote, except for Nuage. This is good for Nuage but I dont think it good for Cubase. The missing feature are low hanging fruits, sometimes a have doubts about Steinbergs programming skills, but this is so bad that it has to be a synthetic limitation. And I cant figure out anyone else than Yamaha to blame for that. And there is one reasonable cause for it. Yamaha hardware; and Nuage in particular.
Old 7th August 2018
  #16
Lives for gear
 

The MCU is running the open protocol created by Mackie. The more you move away from an open protocol the less compatibility you have between devices and software. The question here is what the respective companies (outside of Mackie) are allowed to do using that protocol.

But in addition to that the Nuage surfaces (mix/center) are far more comprehensive in terms of what they include, and there is simply no way to map all of that to a controller that's set up to use MCU. Just look at the buttons etc that the MCU compatible devices have and compare to the Nuage devices.

I do have concerns when it comes to Steinberg's programming, but not as far as controllers go. I've only heard good things about Nuage, and it's a different proprietary protocol than the MCU, so you can't compare the two that way.

Yamaha has a history designing and building mixers with touch-sensitive motorized controllers as well as a ton of button, a motorized joystick, and displays. They've made good products that have done well in the industry. From that standpoint it's really hard to complain about Nuage.

I don't disagree that it would be nice if there was a controller made by Steinberg/Yamaha that was smaller and cheaper than Nuage, but I really don't think it'll happen any time soon. The market for controllers in general is small, and for Steinberg software even smaller. The difficulty is creating a controller and then making a profit off of it relative to everything else the companies do to make a profit.
Old 7th August 2018
  #17
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
The MCU is running the open protocol created by Mackie. The more you move away from an open protocol the less compatibility you have between devices and software. The question here is what the respective companies (outside of Mackie) are allowed to do using that protocol.
That might be a problem. But I doubt it. The functions are very different mapped on different DAWs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
But in addition to that the Nuage surfaces (mix/center) are far more comprehensive in terms of what they include, and there is simply no way to map all of that to a controller that's set up to use MCU. Just look at the buttons etc that the MCU compatible devices have and compare to the Nuage devices.
That just rubbish. There are more button combinations in a MCU than there are functions in cubase. Add to that double press and long press.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I do have concerns when it comes to Steinberg's programming, but not as far as controllers go. I've only heard good things about Nuage, and it's a different proprietary protocol than the MCU, so you can't compare the two that way.
The only thing that differs is the information Nuage can present for the user. MCU is very limited. Everything else is imagination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Yamaha has a history designing and building mixers with touch-sensitive motorized controllers as well as a ton of button, a motorized joystick, and displays. They've made good products that have done well in the industry. From that standpoint it's really hard to complain about Nuage.
No complains about Nuage, other than it is competitors are being forced to compete with one hand tied behind their backs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I don't disagree that it would be nice if there was a controller made by Steinberg/Yamaha that was smaller and cheaper than Nuage, but I really don't think it'll happen any time soon. The market for controllers in general is small, and for Steinberg software even smaller. The difficulty is creating a controller and then making a profit off of it relative to everything else the companies do to make a profit.
I think the controllers should be standardised with some protocols with AES/IEEE/IETF as its guardian.
Old 7th August 2018
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
That just rubbish. There are more button combinations in a MCU than there are functions in cubase. Add to that double press and long press.
There are of course not more button combinations in the MCU than functions in Cubase. You have to remember that when you press buttons on a Mackie unit it doesn't send out key commands, it sends out a specific command. While it's true that you could program the receiver (Cubase/Nuendo) to reinterpret that command and do something else with it, you're still stuck with however many commands the actual device is capable of sending out using the specific protocol. The second you stray from the device sending out specific protocol commands you end up having to support each "Mackie" controller individually, i.e. one profile for the Behringer unit, one for the Mackie, one for the Presonus etc. It doesn't work that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
The only thing that differs is the information Nuage can present for the user. MCU is very limited. Everything else is imagination.
No dude, they're not using the same protocol to communicate with the DAW. If you use Mackie Control UNIVERSAL that's a specific protocol that both devices and DAWs stick to. A DAW can reinterpret some of it, but devices stick to the protocol. You can't have a standard if companies stray from the implementation.

Nuage by contrast uses the Steinberg remote SDK instead, not some generic control protocol. There are significant differences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
No complains about Nuage, other than it is competitors are being forced to compete with one hand tied behind their backs.
That doesn't make sense. How does Nuage force competitors to compete with one hand behind their backs? It has nothing to do with the controller.

You said "Nuage is the problem", and it isn't really. The problem is maybe that Steinberg/Yamaha chose to price it a bit high compared to the low-end. On the other hand it's not priced high compared to the Avid high-end. Nuendo competes with the latter, not the former, and it wouldn't surprise me if they figured out that most users who would invest in a control surface are willing to either spend only up to about 2-2,500 dollars, or are willing to make it five digits. So the profitability might be in the higher category.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
I think the controllers should be standardised with some protocols with AES/IEEE/IETF as its guardian.
Sure. That'd be nice.
Old 8th August 2018
  #19
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
No dude, they're not using the same protocol to communicate with the DAW. If you use Mackie Control UNIVERSAL that's a specific protocol that both devices and DAWs stick to. A DAW can reinterpret some of it, but devices stick to the protocol. You can't have a standard if companies stray from the implementation.
The mackie unit send key events and fader events. They are key-pressed, key-relased mapped to midi. What ever they are doing is completely up to the programmer of the DAW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Nuage by contrast uses the Steinberg remote SDK instead, not some generic control protocol. There are significant differences.
MCU does not use the generic control. It has function to grouping faders over multiple devices, it has character information about channels. This can not be done without remote sdk, therefore MCU is also using the remote SDK or even deeper. However Im not sure that SDK really has since they need NDA. However there are functions that remote SDK does not have that Nuage has. (This is the excuse I got from commercial vendors when requesting functions. I can not prove them to be wrong)
Old 8th August 2018
  #20
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
The mackie unit send key events and fader events. They are key-pressed, key-relased mapped to midi. What ever they are doing is completely up to the programmer of the DAW.
So you get a controller, press "bank" right, and the mixer window opens. You press "latch" and it creates a crossfade. Makes sense? Or you move the controller from Cubase to Pro Tools and all of a sudden stuff does different things.

Or mostly stick to the protocol that everyone that makes a Mackie control device is using?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
MCU does not use the generic control. It has function to grouping faders over multiple devices, it has character information about channels.
You're right, I shouldn't have said "generic", I meant specific and open for all to use protocol; available to the general public. That was my point. Nuage doesn't do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
This can not be done without remote sdk, therefore MCU is also using the remote SDK or even deeper.
But this would mean that the Steinberg SDK was given to Mackie so that they could implement it into the Mackie control protocol, and that everyone else, Behringer, iCon, Presonus etc are partially using the Steinberg SDK indirectly in their products. I don't think this is the case.

As far as I know the actual protocol was developed by Mackie, and released by Mackie, and it does not include Steinberg-specific commands, only general commands applicable to any software that supports the protocol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
However Im not sure that SDK really has since they need NDA. However there are functions that remote SDK does not have that Nuage has. (This is the excuse I got from commercial vendors when requesting functions. I can not prove them to be wrong)
Again, the point was only that Steinberg has a software and allows the developers of Nuage to access specific functions within that software, and you can't get to those functions "from the outside" with just the Mackie protocol. It's probably true that the remote SDK isn't all that the Nuage unit uses to communicate with Cubendo, but that's beside the point; the point is that whatever it's using it isn't what's found in the Mackie protocol.

---------------------------

At any rate though: So what?

Nuage was the problem you said. How is it the problem?
Old 8th August 2018
  #21
Deleted User
Guest
For the Cubase user. Steinbug makes this then DC's it to the recycle bin
Models | Steinberg

CC121 hasnt been updated in forever. Not to mention the cost is high for what you get

This leaves us Nuage which for the normal Cubase user is way cost prohibited

Add my MR816X to the dust bin and you can see why I will look elsewhere when I change out the I/O here.
Old 8th August 2018
  #22
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
So you get a controller, press "bank" right, and the mixer window opens. You press "latch" and it creates a crossfade. Makes sense? Or you move the controller from Cubase to Pro Tools and all of a sudden stuff does different things.

Or mostly stick to the protocol that everyone that makes a Mackie control device is using?
That has NOTHING to what protocol you are using. It is an abstraction that cubase do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
But this would mean that the Steinberg SDK was given to Mackie so that they could implement it into the Mackie control protocol, and that everyone else, Behringer, iCon, Presonus etc are partially using the Steinberg SDK indirectly in their products. I don't think this is the case.
Steinberg is shipping the MCU drivers. And steinberg as ****ed them on some release so Mackie can not do any changes to improve their products for cubase users. Many years ago Mackie wanted Steinberg to do the C4 as well. But they did not and Mackie did not want to do it. Now the C4 is dead and we dont have what ever cool stuff we could have had. Both Mackie and Steinbergs customers lost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
As far as I know the actual protocol was developed by Mackie, and released by Mackie, and it does not include Steinberg-specific commands, only general commands applicable to any software that supports the protocol.
The command is that a button is pressed or released. It is not a specification of mixer functionality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Again, the point was only that Steinberg has a software and allows the developers of Nuage to access specific functions within that software, and you can't get to those functions "from the outside" with just the Mackie protocol. It's probably true that the remote SDK isn't all that the Nuage unit uses to communicate with Cubendo, but that's beside the point; the point is that whatever it's using it isn't what's found in the Mackie protocol.

---------------------------

At any rate though: So what?

Nuage was the problem you said. How is it the problem?
If there was no Nuage, Steinberg would be open to have others to access the functions because it would be beneficial for Cubase to be competitive. Now they sacrifice Cubase competitiveness to give Nuage unique function to make that competitive. But yamaha could make the opposite, make the Nuage open for all DAW's and lead the development for a open standard of remotes for DAW and music production. They are one of the MIDI founders but they have done nothing the last 30 years to develop the standards. So in my view Yamaha sucks and destroy Cubase potential with their products.
Old 8th August 2018
  #23
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
If there was no Nuage, Steinberg would be open to have others to access the functions because it would be beneficial for Cubase to be competitive.
Ok. So explain why there wasn't other devices that were "beneficial for Cubase to be competitive" before Nuage came out.

They had the chance. Why didn't it happen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
yamaha could make the opposite, make the Nuage open for all DAW's and lead the development for a open standard of remotes for DAW and music production.
Nuage already runs a Mackie protocol as well if I remember correctly. So I don't see why that would be attractive.

And if the Mackie protocol is so "open" as you suggest, why aren't we already seeing these devices you're missing?

Again: There are controllers in most price ranges, and most of the people that lament the lack of hardware don't want to spend the amount of money in the range where there's a space.

Again:

200 Presonus Faderport
500 Presonus Faderport 8 / Steinberg cc121
1000 Presonus Faderport 16 / Avid Artist Mix 8 channels
5000 Avid s3 (16 channels)
10,000 Yamaha Nuage single 'bucket'
20,000+ Avid s6

What gap do you want filled?
What do you want that hardware to do?
or
How are the currently available devices insufficient?
Old 8th August 2018
  #24
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Ok. So explain why there wasn't other devices that were "beneficial for Cubase to be competitive" before Nuage came out.

They had the chance. Why didn't it happen?
They have added a lot of nice features in cubase regarding mixing functions since the days. But nothing has been added to the controllers since Nuage get in to their plans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Nuage already runs a Mackie protocol as well if I remember correctly. So I don't see why that would be attractive.
I have not have any access to "reverse engineering" Nuage. But It has
functions that makes impossible. However it can be based on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
And if the Mackie protocol is so "open" as you suggest, why aren't we already seeing these devices you're missing?
There is a lot of devices using Mackie Universal or HUI protocol. Very few
are certified. Mackie is not open protocol, it is the functionality that is open.
The the problem is not the protocol. it is the cubase that does not use them
with for the new functions within cubase.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Again: There are controllers in most price ranges, and most of the people that lament the lack of hardware don't want to spend the amount of money in the range where there's a space.

Again:

200 Presonus Faderport
500 Presonus Faderport 8 / Steinberg cc121
1000 Presonus Faderport 16 / Avid Artist Mix 8 channels
5000 Avid s3 (16 channels)
10,000 Yamaha Nuage single 'bucket'
20,000+ Avid s6

What gap do you want filled?
What do you want that hardware to do?
or
How are the currently available devices insufficient?
You dont get it. There is nothing wrong with the controllers it is the "hidden/closed" functions within cubase. All the Faderport devices is using Mackie protocol. CC121 is using it's own protocol., but it is the same problem the new functions that Steinbergs do are not accessible thought the controller.
Old 8th August 2018
  #25
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
They have added a lot of nice features in cubase regarding mixing functions since the days. But nothing has been added to the controllers since Nuage get in to their plans.
And what was added before Nuage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bace

yamaha could make the opposite, make the Nuage open for all DAW's and lead the development for a open standard of remotes for DAW and music production.
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc

Nuage already runs a Mackie protocol as well if I remember correctly. So I don't see why that would be attractive.
I have not have any access to "reverse engineering" Nuage. But It has
functions that makes impossible. However it can be based on it.
Huh? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

You said Yamaha could make it open for all. It is via HUI. HUI is a Mackie protocol. It is how Nuage can connect to Pro Tools.

If your point is that Nuage has functionality outside of what HUI can provide, then that's exactly what my point was several posts ago, something you disagreed with. So now you appear to agree....

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
There is a lot of devices using Mackie Universal or HUI protocol. Very few are certified. Mackie is not open protocol, it is the functionality that is open. The the problem is not the protocol. it is the cubase that does not use them with for the new functions within cubase.
Again: There are far more functions within Cubendo than there are controls on the standard control surfaces. The problem is always going to be how you either choose to use the number of HUI/MCU commands available, or how you "layer" them on the DAW-side which would be essentially breaking whatever "standard" layout currently exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
You dont get it. There is nothing wrong with the controllers it is the "hidden/closed" functions within cubase. All the Faderport devices is using Mackie protocol. CC121 is using it's own protocol., but it is the same problem the new functions that Steinbergs do are not accessible thought the controller.
1. See above.
2. You can't have all functions accessible through any one controller.
3. Steinberg makes the software, not Yamaha. So if the problem is with software, the problem is not with Yamaha and not with Nuage, because it's with software, which is what Steinberg makes.
4. This thread is about hardware options.

I still absolutely don't get what your point is in relation to the topic of this thread.
Old 9th August 2018
  #26
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
And what was added before Nuage?
Im not 100 familiar with the exact history of Nuage.
But Stenberg did the AI and QC for the CC121. They did some good stuff with
the RSDK with vendors like Frontier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Huh? I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Protocols that do the same thing as a tendency to look the same, so
you can extend the existing one. But they are midi protocols so they are not that great to work with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
You said Yamaha could make it open for all. It is via HUI. HUI is a Mackie protocol. It is how Nuage can connect to Pro Tools.
I don't care about protools. If I was it seems like the S3 is great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
If your point is that Nuage has functionality outside of what HUI can provide, then that's exactly what my point was several posts ago, something you disagreed with. So now you appear to agree....
Yes, it has more physical knobs. That is a limitation for Mackie and HUI protocols. The size of the map is not big. However this can be solved by having one controller acting as multiple units. It's ugly from an engineering view, but fairly common in computer industry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Again: There are far more functions within Cubendo than there are controls on the standard control surfaces. The problem is always going to be how you either choose to use the number of HUI/MCU commands available, or how you "layer" them on the DAW-side which would be essentially breaking whatever "standard" layout currently exists.
Again. There is NO commands in the protocol. It is key and knobs events.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
1. See above.
2. You can't have all functions accessible through any one controller.
3. Steinberg makes the software, not Yamaha. So if the problem is with software, the problem is not with Yamaha and not with Nuage, because it's with software, which is what Steinberg makes.
4. This thread is about hardware options.

I still absolutely don't get what your point is in relation to the topic of this thread.
2. That is correct. There is a limitation. However it is a huge number.
If you limit it to 10 fingers on a Mackie Control it 102208857800726476800 numbers of function you can have direct access to. Add long-press and double press. (Protools do this on their HUI implementation). Of course this is a lot more than anyone can have in their head. So the limitation should be the user not the software. So there is plenty of rooms for the missing functions on the Mackie. It's a bit harder on the CC121. They already have mode switching for EQ/QC so they need to add more modes, and they could do a lot with the function buttons. Some of the really basic EQ's are missing, like HighCut/LowCut.

3. Yamaha owns Steinberg. They do what ever the owener tell them to do or not to do.
4. I agree. And Im trying to explain why there is no good ones. and why it will not be any. As it is for now I would not recommend anyone that like controllers to get in to Cubase. You will not get anything that is good unless you get a Nuage. (Not that I recommend anyone to get Nuage either, I doubt that it as good as it could have been if steinberg was more in to have good hardware controllers support)
Old 9th August 2018
  #27
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
Im not 100 familiar with the exact history of Nuage.
But Stenberg did the AI and QC for the CC121. They did some good stuff with
the RSDK with vendors like Frontier.
I think you're missing the point. You were implying that if Nuage didn't exist it would make it easier for companies to come up with more products. Since Nuage hasn't existed forever it means that if what you say is true they had the opportunity already.

But if I remember correctly a lot of them had problems because the market is so tiny, and they eventually just ceased to exist or stopped making the hardware (like Radikal, WK-audio etc).

So, the problem with a lack of controllers that you want to see doesn't seem to be Nuage, it seems to be something else. And as I said there are plenty of options in different price ranges. There are gaps, but those gaps aren't at points where non-professionals want to spend money. I'm assuming you and others are not making a living off of Cubase btw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
2. That is correct. There is a limitation. However it is a huge number.
If you limit it to 10 fingers on a Mackie Control it 102208857800726476800 numbers of function you can have direct access to.
What does "102208857800726476800" refer to? How did you end up with that number?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
Add long-press and double press. (Protools do this on their HUI implementation).
Which functions? I'm curious because I've never used HUI that way with Pro Tools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
Yamaha owns Steinberg. They do what ever the owener tell them to do or not to do.
That's not how that relationship works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
You will not get anything that is good unless you get a Nuage. (Not that I recommend anyone to get Nuage either, I doubt that it as good as it could have been if steinberg was more in to have good hardware controllers support)
What is lacking for you on the Nuage controller then?

Also, why are you saying that the other controllers are no good? I've mixed shows on those other controllers, shows that go on air on anything from NBC to HBO to ESPN. Just what is the problem with those?
Old 9th August 2018
  #28
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I think you're missing the point. You were implying that if Nuage didn't exist it would make it easier for companies to come up with more products. Since Nuage hasn't existed forever it means that if what you say is true they had the opportunity already.
If it was not for Nuage, steinberg would have to open for others. For example adding the new functions to RSDK. Now they have not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
But if I remember correctly a lot of them had problems because the market is so tiny, and they eventually just ceased to exist or stopped making the hardware (like Radikal, WK-audio etc).
I have no idea, and finding any number seems very hard got any.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
So, the problem with a lack of controllers that you want to see doesn't seem to be Nuage, it seems to be something else. And as I said there are plenty of options in different price ranges. There are gaps, but those gaps aren't at points where non-professionals want to spend money. I'm assuming you and others are not making a living off of Cubase btw.
There was a good solution, unfortunately Avid bought it. However it wont be any better than the software you it with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
What does "102208857800726476800" refer to? How did you end up with that number?
Basic computer science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Which functions? I'm curious because I've never used HUI that way with Pro Tools.
For example toogle automation write modes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
That's not how that relationship works.
It is not relationship, it is ownership.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
What is lacking for you on the Nuage controller then?
Integration with logic,protools and other DAWs. Full protocol spec so ANYONE can implement full functionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Also, why are you saying that the other controllers are no good? I've mixed shows on those other controllers, shows that go on air on anything from NBC to HBO to ESPN. Just what is the problem with those?
You can do good work with poor tools. The are not good since they dont have support for the functions added into cubase.
Old 9th August 2018
  #29
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
If it was not for Nuage, steinberg would have to open for others. For example adding the new functions to RSDK. Now they have not.
I have no idea, and finding any number seems very hard got any.
Ok, but again: Nuage is only about five years old or whatever.

If you are correct about the above, how many controllers did you see made for Cubendo before 2013???

I count 1.

Your logic is just not correct here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
Quote:
What does "102208857800726476800" refer to? How did you end up with that number?
Basic computer science.
Ok, so you're talking about just grabbing a bunch of on-off buttons and calculating possible permutations, and then assuming that whatever combination you press the device will send out and the DAW can then just reinterpret, correct?

I think the definition of "protocol" in this case is more than just sending midi #X when pressing a key labeled Y, and also includes that the DAW should stick to executing a specific function when that key is pressed.

If you're just counting possible permutations then fine, but so what?....

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
It is not relationship, it is ownership.
Steinberg isn't told how to develop its software by Yamaha. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Do you really think Yamaha micromanages to that degree? Why then keep the businesses separate (excluding ownership) with different workforces?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
Integration with logic,protools and other DAWs. Full protocol spec so ANYONE can implement full functionality.
Something seems inconsistent here.

Avid owns the Eucon protocol and make the controllers that run it.
Steinberg does the same with regards to Nuage.

Avid allows others to use Eucon and thus those controllers.
Avid does NOT allow others to make Eucon controllers.

Do you really think it's Steinberg's decision to not be able to control Pro Tools with Nuage? The only logical conclusion is that Avid doesn't want that because Nuage is a competitor to their hardware. Steinberg has already opened up for the Artist series, the s3 and the s6, so why on earth would it not allow Nuage to work on Pro Tools???

Quote:
Originally Posted by bace View Post
You can do good work with poor tools. The are not good since they dont have support for the functions added into cubase.
Christ you're narrow-minded.

If I can mix shows for those networks using a Mackie controller or an Artist series - and I do mean shows that cost hundreds of thousands to produce - then those tools aren't "poor". They do the job. A "poor" tool would be one that doesn't work or breaks. These don't.

Like I said though, this is just really more of the same: Users on the low-end of the spectrum want a controller that does a bunch of things. Others point to the controllers that do, and the response is always "too expensive".

So what it boils down to, as it usually does, is "I just don't want to pay that much".

Now, take that into account and ask yourself why these companies aren't developing these 'complete' tools for a crowd that doesn't want to pay....
Old 9th August 2018
  #30
Lives for gear
I'd love to see a mid range S3 type controller from Steinberg but if they don't want too create one, I'd settle for a paid Eucon option for Cubase. This would give Steinberg some budget/motivation to do the further development on protocol integration with Cubase (e.g. when I hide tracks in Cubase, I want them also to be hidden on the controller). Eucon and Cubase are a great combination but Steinberg just need to do some more development/improvement.
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