Universal Synth Remote - VSTi midi Control

[Bump1]

As mentioned previously...I'd just prefer a controller with knobs, sliders and buttons with an editor that can save presets.

I was looking into making a Midibox hardware editor because the MBprogramma is pretty well developed and supported. It can hold "scenes" and it has LED scribble strips which can be programmed with relative labels.

I've been lusting after a hardware midi controller/editor that can do custom layouts for hardware synths and plugins forever.

[TabSel]

Then came the brillant Kore2 from Native Instruments. And they killed it...

[mcbpete]

I've been lusting after a hardware midi controller/editor that can do custom layouts for hardware synths and plugins forever.

I've been using PrEditor with my Push 2 for that sort of thing -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4FRXZdaxbY

[Bump1]

I was looking into switching to Ableton and getting a Push 2 just so I can do this but 24 encoders max was a dealbreaker

[No_Use]

Since this doesn't seem to use endless encoders, how is changing between controlling different synths handled in regards to parameter pickup / jumps ?

[Phil Sonic Academy]

It uses soft pick up... so nothing happens until you get to the current control value.

Works really well.

[Michael L]

Can you integrate different synths/fx in one small "improv controller"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Rp4xbmtRk

[beely]

Great to see someone tackling this.

I've been banging on about this product for *years* on forums and have been rather sad that no-one's done such an obvious product.

So good luck, and I will be interested to see how you've solved some of the problems and issues that come up when doing it.

[beely]

Beyond that, I've long been over this idea. It's the little differences that matter between synths and controllers like this simply won't map them in a universal way. For programming, I don't find controllers to be as much help, and for performance, I will have to do mapping anyway for some aspects.

I get this, and it's true, *nothing* beats a custom dedicated control surface designed specifically for one engine. So a generic controller that has to support many different engine/synths cannot be that.

So what should it be? As someone who has been thinking about this for a *long* time, and developed my own generic solutions, I pretty know what this product should be *to me*, even if I haven't done the work to think through the specific implementation problems that arise. But I know the problem domain I want a product like this to solve *for me*, however I'm not sure it's the same as what other people or the market at large would respond to - which is why I'm curious to see how you guys approach the problem and which solutions you pick.

I can see looking at the prototype that's it's in the ballpark of what I've been wanting, which is pretty cool...

[fwsuperhero]

It is the fastest way but not so creative because it is very boring to move by every knob by mouse, hands are more used to it .)

[joeyxl]

If this thing really is enjoyable to use and makes you want to use it ahead of a mouse (of course mouse always has it's place too), I'll be the first in line to buy one. I hope Sonic Academy pulls this off because this could be really big for you guys, and could create huge goodwill for your company as this is something so many of us have dreamed of for so long!.

Did you really pull it off?. If you did I'm truly looking forward to seeing how you did it. Have to wait and see. All the best Sonic Academy, and I'll be F5'ing away over this one. Cheers.

Joe

[ghettosynth]

Beyond that, I've long been over this idea. It's the little differences that matter between synths and controllers like this simply won't map them in a universal way. For programming, I don't find controllers to be as much help, and for performance, I will have to do mapping anyway for some aspects.

I get this, and it's true, *nothing* beats a custom dedicated control surface designed specifically for one engine. So a generic controller that has to support many different engine/synths cannot be that.

So what should it be? As someone who has been thinking about this for a *long* time, and developed my own generic solutions, I pretty know what this product should be *to me*, even if I haven't done the work to think through the specific implementation problems that arise. But I know the problem domain I want a product like this to solve *for me*, however I'm not sure it's the same as what other people or the market at large would respond to - which is why I'm curious to see how you guys approach the problem and which solutions you pick.

I can see looking at the prototype that's it's in the ballpark of what I've been wanting, which is pretty cool...

Lot's of things can be in the ballpark. My RS7000s were in the ballpark as well. They even use a standard that applies to many of the Arturia synths, for most of the support parameters at any rate.

I'm just not seeing a universal programming controller or performance controller but for somewhat different reasons. Honestly, I think that the right solutions are being converged on elsewhere. The row of eight knobs with visual interface is actually much better for programming. This is basically the ESQ-1 or the Matrix 12 U/I.

For performance, I always map and I can't see having something like this take its place. Knob pickup is a problem unless you're just controlling one synth. Sure, it works fine in the lab, but on stage when the knobs are too far from the performance state, it's all too easy to make mistakes or miss cues.

For me, and YMMV, I consider preparing the mapping a part of preparing the show. I find it more useful to view the entire setup as a single large instrument and prepare the mapping to my controllers in that way.

That's what I mean, I'm over it. I don't think that there can be a really good solution at the moment. I have some ideas about this, but I don't think that they're really worth discussing TBH.

[foosnark]

Ugh.

Things I don't like about this:

-- Limited to specific hosts.
-- Requires mapping files per synth. Are these user editable? Easy to make? Because if not it's going to be irrelevant/obsolete almost immediately.
-- Hard labels for controls. So it makes sense for synths with two oscillators, 3 envelopes, two filters, and two LFOs. That's a very small subset of synths, and makes little sense for anything that's not a basic subtractive synth. How about Chromaphone? FM8? Bazille? ArcSyn? That one weird Reaktor patch I like? Kontakt instruments? The chiptune VST synth I wrote?
-- How about effects and mixing?
-- Pots with "soft pickup" -- this is annoying enough to me to sell otherwise good synths and modules. I don't want the front panel to lie to me about the current value of something it's supposed to be controlling.

So this is not "universal" at all.

Maschine's controller, despite being tied to its specific host, handles synth diversity much better. While NI synths are mapped specifically, every other plugin just has automatic assignment of all exposed parameters to knobs, with a page button to flip through them. It works well for most effects, and any synth that doesn't have several pages of parameters, poorly named parameters, or particularly complex controls, and in the worst cases it can be remapped fairly easily by the user.

[Phil Sonic Academy]

User will be able to write their own scripts... currently it's a sort of XML.

We will probably create some sort of gui for this making it easier to create scripts.

In saying that it's pretty easy at the moment if you are familiar with scripting.

The controller supports up to 6 oscs with unlimited soft pages of osc controls. 4 mod envelopes and 4 pageable macro knobs that can have any parameters assigned

[Phil Sonic Academy]

Yeah it's not going to suit every type of synth... as you say it will work great with most subtractive based synths. And will give some useful but not complete functionality to more esoteric synthesis types.

It's not going to work for everyone but we build stuff we want to use ourselves and hope that there are enough people who work the way We do for it to be practical to make enough units to cover our costs.

I've loved using the prototype... I've mainly been using it in a writing/production environment for house, techno, pop, synthwave etc. Ive found it really useful not having to open plugin windows as much while I'm arranging and I'm defo automating more parameters more easily than I used to so it's doing it's job.