A dream hardware controller for soft synths?

[noiseboyuk]

The loss of Kore was indeed a great shame. But this would be a very different and I think better proposition than that.

Touch The Universe - I sort of thought the same thing, and that would be fantastic of course. But that's all unproven or pretty flaky tech, so would need an awful lot of R&D. One of the compelling things about this idea for me is how simple it is, using just cheap off-the-shelf components.

Dunc - they both look interesting, but I do love my knobs (no sniggering at the back, please). I'm the same with mixing surfaces, I don't get on with any ipad controller for faders, I use an Artist Mix. So squidgy rubber doesn't quite work for me (again, NO SNIGGERING)

TBH the biggest downside I can think for it is that I do think it would need to be physically pretty big... a 21" screen actually might be smallest it should be, not the biggest. And I don't have anywhere to put it! I guess in theory it should be quite thin and not very heavy, so it could be easily moved when needed.

[Elektronisch]

What about Nektar Panorama series? It seems that for now its a best choice since it also has motorised sliders.

[noiseboyuk]

What about Nektar Panorama series? It seems that for now its a best choice since it also has motorised sliders.

Again, that's just another variant on the mapping for performance option, it's not really viable for programming. Aside from the Roland plugouts, there's no real option at all for that currently.

[CrystalWizard]

Again, that's just another variant on the mapping for performance option, it's not really viable for programming. Aside from the Roland plugouts, there's no real option at all for that currently.

I want better controllers for live performance much more than for programming. My SL MKII and a mouse is fine for 'studio' (agree with Teksonic on this point) but leaves a lot to be desired for live shows. The key to drop down menus and other functions that are hard to implement with tradional hardware is touch screens. As for controls on top of a touchscreen, i would prefer controls around a touchscreen, and the thought of two controls that one could move around for different functions makes me cringe. The main point for me is an (almost) one to one corellation. This is what makes hardware so fun and fluid compared to 8 or 16 knob controllers that constantly change function.
As for knob layout (IMO) having certain controls clustered is better than just rows of knobs. Our brains are wired to recognize patterns. A cluster of 6 knobs all way on left for Oscillator and sound generator functions, a cluster of 6 knobs in the middle for Filter functions, 4 knobs on bottom for LFO style modulation, etc. I realize this doesn't sync well with knobs around a screen that well...
*the one exception is the already mentioned UC33 with the overlays, clunky but effective.

I agree with the posts about automapping being the least important angle.

FWIW i'm experimenting with a combo of my SL MKII and ipad running touchOSC. Not ideal but hopefully a step in right direction for my desire.

[sjm]

Yes, I see how touchscreen may be useful - actually I had an idea of a controller consisting of a keyboard with pitch and modwheels and an ipad-sized touchscreen. Something that might look like that
The touchscreen would display the GUI of the plugin which is currently in focus thus being a control sufrace.

Indeed, that's pretty much what I would like to see. A decent-size (like decent-sized tablet) touchscreen that could handle different "commands" would be superb. So you could switch from mixer to plugin UI to wave editor at the click of the button, and display the appropriate window/widget on the screen.

Only thing is, I'd lay the touchscreen a lot flatter. Having it perpendicular to the keyboard will make it uncomfortable to use both physically and because you will be looking at the screen from a bad angle.

[sjm]

One other thing that has come up here, and that I've though about myself, is the fact that the layout for one task isn't necessarily good for another task. I do wonder if there would be any value in a semi-modular approach. A bit like eurorack or whatever, where you'd have several types of modules: 8 sliders, 8 pots, 8 buttons, 8 pads or whatever that you could arrange the way you want. I just guess that that will start overcomplicating everything significantly. But we can dream, right?

I'm assuming some sort of sliding puzzle like system wouldn't really work in practice, but being able to easily move things around would be cool.

[whyterabbyt]

But we can dream, right?

Im sure there's another couple out there, but:

http://special-waves.com/

[noiseboyuk]

Well it looks to me as if there isn't any one clear product that people are after, unfortunately. I haven't detected any kind of "yeah, that's the thing" over the 4 pages so far. There's a lot of smaller companies out there with various interesting projects, but none of them come close to what I'd be looking for. For me the OP proposal is a slam dunk, but it just doesn't float enough boats... I guess the likes of NI are ahead of me having done their research an concluded much the same thing.

Ah well, c'est la vie.

[sjm]

But we can dream, right?

Im sure there's another couple out there, but:

http://special-waves.com/

Yes, kind of like those and the other chainable things, but I think it'd have to be a bit easier to rearrange on the fly. Going back to the Eurorack thing, I think you'd want some sort of standard unit size (say an 8x4 matrix of those components, as well as a larger 8x8 matrix). And I think you'd want to offer preconfigured standard components (like 8x faders with 1 pot at the top, pads etc.) that cater to most people's needs and are thus cheaper to mass produce than lots of individual components.

And then have the additional option to configure your own. I'd want to easily be able to shuffle them around at the matrix level, not have to redo the whole layout at the pot/slider/button level.

Problem with these custom things is that unless you have a big enough market, it can get expensive fast.

[timbesamusca]

This controller looks interesting and maybe fairly close to the vision laid out in the op: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtQ_-pw6ESY

[noiseboyuk]

That is interesting, thanks for posting timbesamusca. Yes, that broadly follows my Version A idea, controls around the touchscreen (as opposed to my Version B idea with the controls overlaid on a touchscreen). There's quite a few areas of the UI where it could use some improvement - the on-screen graphics are pretty ugly, the knobs oddly high and I think a smattering of switches wouldn't hurt (along the bottom perhaps). Given that everything would be tab-based, it looks better than anything currently out there at the moment, and I like the form factor - should sit nicely on top of controller keyboards. I'm guessing there would be user community of maps for instruments and effects.

[whyterabbyt]

But we can dream, right?

Im sure there's another couple out there, but:

http://special-waves.com/

Yes, kind of like those and the other chainable things, but I think it'd have to be a bit easier to rearrange on the fly. Going back to the Eurorack thing, I think you'd want some sort of standard unit size (say an 8x4 matrix of those components, as well as a larger 8x8 matrix). And I think you'd want to offer preconfigured standard components (like 8x faders with 1 pot at the top, pads etc.) that cater to most people's needs and are thus cheaper to mass produce than lots of individual components.

And then have the additional option to configure your own. I'd want to easily be able to shuffle them around at the matrix level, not have to redo the whole layout at the pot/slider/button level.

Problem with these custom things is that unless you have a big enough market, it can get expensive fast.

Yeah, Ive seen others with blocks of controls before. Looks like Livid had one in Eurorack format.

http://lividinstruments.com/news/elemen ... ol-system/

And Livid's Omni board and Brain2/Brain Jr would be another DIY route.

[timbesamusca]

That is interesting, thanks for posting timbesamusca. Yes, that broadly follows my Version A idea, controls around the touchscreen (as opposed to my Version B idea with the controls overlaid on a touchscreen). There's quite a few areas of the UI where it could use some improvement - the on-screen graphics are pretty ugly, the knobs oddly high and I think a smattering of switches wouldn't hurt (along the bottom perhaps). Given that everything would be tab-based, it looks better than anything currently out there at the moment, and I like the form factor - should sit nicely on top of controller keyboards. I'm guessing there would be user community of maps for instruments and effects.

The touchscreen can be used for buttons I think, but I agree physical buttons are better. Here's a video I found showing it in use, looks really interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raCEIiWt_Dc

[noiseboyuk]

Mmm, yes and then this one shows programming templates - certainly easier than Lemur:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfs8ipc2wyM

One thing that confused me on this video was that when he starts setting up Osc 1, he presses Osc and the first control and starts working along the top row. Then for Osc 2 he presses the 2nd control and I thought.... hold on, the 2nd control was used as a parameter for Osc 1???

I assumed you could keep pressing Osc to tab through different pages of Oscs, which IMO would be a good way to do it.

But one bit of hopefully good news there - in the version on that video there are 4 buttons and 4 fields to control them, also the knobs are of a much more sensible height, so hopefully that's more representative of the final product. Think I need to join up with the kickstarter thing....

EDIT - ah, I fear the white version is more representative as the website says 8 buttons, and it would 12 with those 4 soft ones. The black version looks superior in every way. Can't see any way to contact them on their website.

[Miclop]

hello, I'm Roberto the creator of ctrl x

the on-screen graphics are pretty ugly

I agree I have never liked them but they were the ones that we had when we recorded the video. I have made new ones, I do not know if they will be the last ...(photo)

the knobs oddly high

yes, they were, those of now are lower

I think a smattering of switches wouldn't hurt

in previous prototypes they had them, but we decided to integrate them in the touch screen, it is due to the shape of the new pcb.

The touchscreen can be used for buttons I think, but I agree physical buttons are better

I agree that the buttons are better, but sometimes you have to decide between the price and the functionality and in this case I win the price, but all the suggestions of our sponsors will be listened to, and if it is necessary to do so it will be done

One thing that confused me on this video was that when he starts setting up Osc 1, he presses Osc and the first control and starts working along the top row. Then for Osc 2 he presses the 2nd control and I thought.... hold on, the 2nd control was used as a parameter for Osc 1???

I assumed you could keep pressing Osc to tab through different pages of Oscs, which IMO would be a good way to do it.

our controller is designed to get instantly to any parameter, so we do not use pages unless strictly necessary, all encoders are dynamic (may contain different CC)
you have to see it as layers, all the encoders have 15 CC posivilidades (more pages if necessary)
the button of general osc, will show you all the oscillators without the need of browsing through pages.

on our facebook there is still a video, which explains more extensively the behavior of the controller, it is called "Ctrl boy Chapter 1" it is done with a previous prototype but the operation is the same.
http://www.facebook.com/miclopelectronic/


I opened a post the other day, you can put any question there if you want
viewtopic.php?f=102&t=505145

regards