Best hardware controller for Zebra

[musiklov3r]

I'd love to create the interactivity and ability to improvise that the interface of the Moog Voyager creates, but on Zebra.

Has anyone found a hardware controller that provides this level of control?

I thought the Kore programming was a great idea, but I'd rather find a controller with more than eight knobs. Having the ability to access all of the important parameters at one time would be best of live improvisation, wouldn't it?

[beej]

All generic controllers are a compromise, I'm afraid.

I wish someone would develop a custom synth controller, really well-thought out with standard controls and a flexible system to cope with stuff beyond the norm.

That hands-on programming feel is really missed with softsynths. I've never particularly liked synth-programming via the mouse, but you make these concessions because modern soft-synths are so good.

Assigning the important stuf to generic controls (typically, envelopes, filters, waves etc is a start, but then you have to flip back to the screen for anything beyond those few controls, and controls aren't labelled, or even the correct type for the control (eg using a knob for an on-off switch) - it's all rather too much of a compromise for me...

So, either get a real synth which can send MIDI from it's knobs so you can map up equivalent controls on your softsynths, or hope someone will make a "proper" dedicated soft-synth controller keyboard, because so far, they don't...

[R.J.Dubya]

I would definitely suggest the Novation Remote SL line. For one major reason. The LCD screens. For a big synth like Zebra, custom templates are the way to go I'd say.

Automap can be nice too, but mainly for host controls/effects and simple devices. It's also good for zebra's x/y controls. There is also plug-in automap which looks great, but you have to use a wrapper, which I'd personally rather not.

But for a complex synth like Zebra, I'd just make your own template, merging 2 or 3 pages, with all the controls written on the LCD. It also has a good layout with knobs as well sliders and buttons.

[aMUSEd]

Its hard making templates for Zebra though because it's modular so every patch has different components. That's why I had to create a separate user page for each module in my KORE template for Zebra - then users can assemble the pages they need for each patch - but it's still relatively time consuming - I doubt there's an easier option though - lots more knobs is not the whole answer in this case.

[beej]

I have a microKontrol, which has screens, and the parameters are labelled. It's still a compromise - it's a *looong* way from a custom designed console with the correct controls and grouping.

I'd like to see a companby tackle this problem, and really think through the issues, in the same way that emagic did when they went to design the Logic Control.

No solution will be perfect, but I'm sure it's possible to intelligently design a custom *synth* control surface which will solve the controller problem vastly better than generic controllers. At the very least, knobs for common oscillator, filter, envelope, lfo and global controls, and then really think through to find solutions for accessing the more exotic parameters of common softsynths.

I have a number of ideas for implementing something like this, and I'm sure working through the problems would provide a bunch more. With modern screen and touch technology, it should be possible to combine the best of virtual completely configurable touch surfaces with regular dedicated controls to come up with something that works 1000% better than generic solutions.

Unfortunately, the market is probably not there to do this - how many people would spend £1000 on a synth controller that looks, feels and works fantastically but makes no sound of it's own? Some would, of course, but whether enough to make the project worthwhile is debateable.

But it would be fantastic.

[R.J.Dubya]

Well sure you won't get every paramter into a template easily. But with three pages of an SL devoted to Zebra, you can sure get a lot. All envelopes, lfo's, main osc controls etc. More than enough for improvisation purposes.

[zerocrossing]

I would definitely suggest the Novation Remote SL line. For one major reason. The LCD screens. For a big synth like Zebra, custom templates are the way to go I'd say.

Automap can be nice too, but mainly for host controls/effects and simple devices. It's also good for zebra's x/y controls. There is also plug-in automap which looks great, but you have to use a wrapper, which I'd personally rather not.

But for a complex synth like Zebra, I'd just make your own template, merging 2 or 3 pages, with all the controls written on the LCD. It also has a good layout with knobs as well sliders and buttons.

I'll second this. I've been able to do some really cool things with the x/y controller, though I had to modify a template.

[beej]

Its hard making templates for Zebra though because it's modular so every patch has different components.

This is what I mean - of course it's impossible to custom design a fixed controller that will work 100% with all features of everything.

However, it *is* possible to come up with fixed/configurable control surfaces that are going to to 70% of the basics, and *also* provide controls to access some of the more exotic stuff too. This is what I mean by working through these issues, to find solutions optimised for those particular problems.

For example, ADSR controls are great, but plenty of synths have more exotic envelopes - what can we do to cater for this?

Virtual Analog synths with up to three oscillators are relatively easy, but what about a synth that has 6 oscillators? How do we handle that? A synth that has two filters, in serial or parallel? WHat about a synth using FM, the oscillator controls will be different. A modular synth - how could be let the user be able to configure & wireup the modules? These types of issues.

There are ways to tackle all these things, and of course, *any* generic solution will involve compromise, but I'm convinced this can be done way way way better than it is now. It wouldn't be cheap, but the costs would come down. Maybe it could be possible to create a new protocal like the Mackie Control protocol, that will work generically but developers can choose to implemented more direct support, and it becomes a standard.

[beej]

I've been able to do some really cool things with the x/y controller, though I had to modify a template.

Of course it's currently possible to map real controls to the parameters of your choosing. This is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about having a synth control surface that let's me access, in one surface, a much higher proportion of controls than just assigning banks of 8 parameters onto some generic knobs. It's about layout and accessibility. Paging in sets of 8 is no way to program synths...

And - I don't want to have to manually map all the controls into pages, or even have this done automatically. What happens when I want to be tweaking the filter cutoff on page 1, and the oscillator wave 1 knob on page 4? I can't.

I want a controller that has an envelope section, a filter section, an oscillator section on the front panel, not just generic knobs. This is an entirely different thing than mapping up *some* parameters in advance for every synth you own into a generic controller.

[aMUSEd]

Its hard making templates for Zebra though because it's modular so every patch has different components.

This is what I mean - of course it's impossible to custom design a fixed controller that will work 100% with all features of everything.

However, it *is* possible to come up with fixed/configurable control surfaces that are going to to 70% of the basics, and *also* provide controls to access some of the more exotic stuff too. This is what I mean by working through these issues, to find solutions optimised for those particular problems.

For example, ADSR controls are great, but plenty of synths have more exotic envelopes - what can we do to cater for this?

Virtual Analog synths with up to three oscillators are relatively easy, but what about a synth that has 6 oscillators? How do we handle that? A synth that has two filters, in serial or parallel? WHat about a synth using FM, the oscillator controls will be different. A modular synth - how could be let the user be able to configure & wireup the modules? These types of issues.

Yeah - that's why the best solution I could come up with was to make the controllers modular as well so 1 module = 1 page (or occasionally 2) - then you can select which pages to use depending on the patch. If it has 6 oscs and 3 filters use 6 osc pages and 3 filter pages. Only thing is there's so many modules and elements to control in Zebra 2 that even prioritising the filters and oscs took 27 pages and I've not done lfo's or evnvelopes yet!

[Meloday]

http://www.mawzer.com/index.php

[bmrzycki]

Even if you had dedicated knobs for all 4 Oscs + 4 FM Oscs + 4 LFOs + 4 Filters + 2 XM Filters there are still a ton of things you can't do in Z2 with midi or even sending to VST variables.

For example:

1. draw in waveforms for the Oscs
2. create/remove modules
3. place modules in the grid
4. change inputs/outputs of a module on a grid
5. Draw Msegs
6. modify key velocities for OSCs/FMOs
7. load Oscs, msegs, presets
8. draw/modify LFO steps
9. assign a modulation source to a knob

I don't see any way getting around mice with Z2 as it stands today. It'd take a pretty creative controller to do all of those things. The only way I can see waveforms, LFO steps, and MSEGs working with a hardware interface is with a touch screen + modifications to the code by Urs. The only way I could see it happening is a custom hw + sw zebra and that's not inexpensive at all.

I am interested in seeing what Novation does with Automap 2.0 though. It's probably the best interface for the complexities of VSTs today.

[amoeba]

i think, at least in zebra's case (being modular/not fixed, that is) we will just have to wait for 22" multi touch screens to become cheap and available. forget all this mapping silliness - i want direct access to exactly what i see on screen at any given moment. and with tactile feedback.

mmmmmm iTouchZebra.

[rsmus7]

I would be interested how LEMUR
http://www.jazzmutant.com/lemur_overview.php
could handle this,
tho I never might have the money for it

[amoeba]

I would be interested how LEMUR
http://www.jazzmutant.com/lemur_overview.php
could handle this,
tho I never might have the money for it

(i think) even with lemur, you have to make the interface then map, so you still have the issue of dynamics to deal with.

but getting back to what i said, i think that is the ideal solution, ya know? forget the middleman (mapping), get straight to the meat & taters!