Diva Controlle-scrapped ?

[CPCompany]

Just wondering if the plans for producing a Diva controller had been shelved?

I noticed that there hasn't been any mention of this for a while.

I am selling off my final hardware synth soon to go back ITB. I am considering waiting for a Diva controller if it was to come out in the not too distant future.

[Urs]

Sorry, building it was too messy and a bit over our heads. We would need a different workspace and we would have to get some guys in. This would cost too much time and money at this point, I simply can't take that risk

Have you checked out that Nektar controller? It has a pretty good Diva template. And also, Novation is adding a Diva template to Automap.

[bftucker]

That is good news for those of us who use Novation (though it isn't hard to roll your own, it is good to see how others do it). I would still like someone to make iPad app's to control U-He synths. Lots of possibilities there.

[Urs]

Yeah... thing is it was always more of a proof of concept type of thing. We've invested a lot of time into the new MIDI learn stuff. It'll be fully functional in a few months, probably alongside the release of Diva 1.3 and Bazille 1.0. All it needs is a connection to the similarly useful key control and a proper GUI representation.

We never had the plan to become a controller manufacturer, but we had had hopes that we could produce a small series of hand-made custom built goodies. But unfortunately the room where this was supposed to happen is only about 12 squaremeters and has merely evolved into a lumber-room.

Nevertheless... when our rental contract runs out, I'll keep a room for a workbench in mind.

[Ch00rD]

Hmm, I also see an upside to this: if there would already have been a hardware Diva controller, I bet it would not have worked with 14 bit MIDI CC#s, or at least not well enough. I really couldn't care much for a remote Diva controller which would only allow me to use 128 steps for filter cut-off frequency, no matter how pretty the wooden side panels would be. Making divine VA sound unnecessary 'digital', no thanks. So, imho, a dedicated controller only becomes (*really*) interesting once u-he has worked out the remaining quirks on the MIDI control front.

(Which reminds me... I wanted to post an illustrative example of a suggestion for improvement; I'll try to do so shortly.)

[werp]

I've just purchased the imposcar2 controller (at a great price) which I can use as generic controller for other soft synths.
I'm contemplating adding a Livid code 2 to expand on it.
A controller for Diva would be delightful but tricky as the visual interface changes with every patch.
Delighted that Novation is adding a template, I might exhume my novation sl mk2.

[Urs]

Hmm, I also see an upside to this: if there would already have been a hardware Diva controller, I bet it would not have worked with 14 bit MIDI CC#s, or at least not well enough. I really couldn't care much for a remote Diva controller which would only allow me to use 128 steps for filter cut-off frequency, no matter how pretty the wooden side panels would be. Making divine VA sound unnecessary 'digital', no thanks. So, imho, a dedicated controller only becomes (*really*) interesting once u-he has worked out the remaining quirks on the MIDI control front.

(Which reminds me... I wanted to post an illustrative example of a suggestion for improvement; I'll try to do so shortly.)

We have something better... "integer" and "fine selected" modes... works really welk IMHO and on generic controllers.

[electro]

I've just purchased the imposcar2 controller (at a great price) which I can use as generic controller for other soft synths.
I'm contemplating adding a Livid code 2 to expand on it.

How big is it? I understand its even bigger than the hardware OSCar. When I saw Creamware's ASB series I thought it was the most brilliant thing, the problem is that they couldn't pass digital audio. DIVA is far too complex for a surface controller and Urs keeps on adding new modules. I'm surprised anybody would expect a DIVA controller to be feasible.

I think Novation could pull off a sub $200 Minimoog surface controller with endless encoders for total preset recall. Nobody has done a really complete Hammond B3 controller that doesn't cost an arm and a leg either.

[werp]

I've just purchased the imposcar2 controller (at a great price) which I can use as generic controller for other soft synths.
I'm contemplating adding a Livid code 2 to expand on it.

How big is it? I understand its even bigger than the hardware OSCar. When I saw Creamware's ASB series I thought it was the most brilliant thing, the problem is that they couldn't pass digital audio. DIVA is far too complex for a surface controller and Urs keeps on adding new modules. I'm surprised anybody would expect a DIVA controller to be feasible.

I think Novation could pull off a sub $200 Minimoog surface controller with endless encoders for total preset recall. Nobody has done a really complete Hammond B3 controller that doesn't cost an arm and a leg either.

That big

[Ch00rD]

Hmm, I also see an upside to this: if there would already have been a hardware Diva controller, I bet it would not have worked with 14 bit MIDI CC#s, or at least not well enough. I really couldn't care much for a remote Diva controller which would only allow me to use 128 steps for filter cut-off frequency, no matter how pretty the wooden side panels would be. Making divine VA sound unnecessary 'digital', no thanks. So, imho, a dedicated controller only becomes (*really*) interesting once u-he has worked out the remaining quirks on the MIDI control front.

(Which reminds me... I wanted to post an illustrative example of a suggestion for improvement; I'll try to do so shortly.)

We have something better... "integer" and "fine selected" modes... works really welk IMHO and on generic controllers.

I respectfully disagree. If I need separate controls for coarse and fine tuning a value, there is no way I can do so expressively with a single movement of one hand. Having separate fine / coarse controls is a great system for workflows like engineering / patch design where precision is most important, but not at all for performance / recording workflows where typically expressiveness, speed, and smoothness of parameter changes are more important.

For a perhaps illustrative example: if a Moog Phatty would require a separate fine tune control, imho controlling it would suck compared to how its MIDI controls are actually implemented: a single continuous 14 bit range per parameter (the most important ones, anyway).

[Urs]

I respectfully disagree. If I need separate controls for coarse and fine tuning a value, there is no way I can do so expressively with a single movement of one hand. Having separate fine / coarse controls is a great system for workflows like engineering / patch design where precision is most important, but not at all for performance / recording workflows where typically expressiveness, speed, and smoothness of parameter changes are more important.

Point taken.

(just as a note though, we managed to barely get 10 bit resolution out of a rather expensive setup... one needs a lot of internal shielding and all to get 14 bit reliably with a proper ADCs and potentiometers)

[Ch00rD]

I respectfully disagree. If I need separate controls for coarse and fine tuning a value, there is no way I can do so expressively with a single movement of one hand. Having separate fine / coarse controls is a great system for workflows like engineering / patch design where precision is most important, but not at all for performance / recording workflows where typically expressiveness, speed, and smoothness of parameter changes are more important.

Point taken.

(just as a note though, we managed to barely get 10 bit resolution out of a rather expensive setup... one needs a lot of internal shielding and all to get 14 bit reliably with a proper ADCs and potentiometers)

I see what you mean... When you'd want to build the ideal hardware controller, it indeed is tricky to get the ideal behaviour of rotary knobs at such a high resolution. However, that should not be a limiting factor in the design of the MIDI implementation on the software side. And imho there are good compromises (which may be quite subjective, though): using knobs with a relatively low physical resolution but with well-designed acceleration schemes. Perhaps you should try something like a BCR-2000 or BCF-2000: the physical resolution of the encoders may be only 96 steps per full rotation, but with appropriately configured acceleration one can achieve a very decent 14 bit control range, with fine tuning at (very) slow movement, and sweeps over the full range with a single turn at higher speeds. Not perfect, but very precise, zero jitter, much more expressive than using separate coarse/fine controls (imho), and extremely affordable. Give me a bit of time, and I'll try to show you some illustrative examples.

(Btw, the faders of the BCF-2000 also have a 10 bit resolution, iirc - not expensive at all, but they are a little noisy (and may suffer from a bit of jitter - but if the resolution is high enough, that typically doesn't really matter much.)

[Ch00rD]

That big

They're large enough to spot from a distance. A while ago I noticed Dave Clarke has one in his home studio as well (an ex-gf of mine now happens to live next door, err, on the next houseboat - no pun intended - in the same canal).

[electro]

A controller like Novation Remote Zero can work once you realize that not every single button on every GUI has to be mapped.

For example, I will often map ADSR and VCF controls to the endless encoders while leaving other controls unmapped. You can still use mouse control in addition to surface controllers.

[Ch00rD]

A controller like Novation Remote Zero can work once you realize that not every single button on every GUI has to be mapped.

For example, I will often map ADSR and VCF controls to the endless encoders while leaving other controls unmapped. You can still use mouse control in addition to surface controllers.

Indeed, and many people seem to like the 'less is more' approach of using only a small number of controls, see for example the 8 'macro' knobs in Live or Massive.

In general, I personally don't like that approach very much; to me, the more knobs, the better. The only instrument that I can comfortably manage to control with 8 or less knobs is a 303 without any effects. And then I'm not even talking about the number of knobs and buttons I like to use for the modular sequencing setups I prefer to use with most of my (real or virtual) instruments... (e.g. a single pattern of 16 steps may already require 48 dedicated knobs for pitch, gate and velocity values). But I can definitely see how the simplicity of this approach makes it very attractive for some users / workflows. Lugging around a cockpit typically requires many other parts of an airplane as well.

With regard to mouse control, I'd even go as far as saying that a good pointer device can be extremely expressive, fast, and precise - the Wacom Intuos series for example not only has a very decent horizontal and vertical resolution (easily 10 bit resolution each), but also pressure (at 10 bit resolution) and angle (not sure about its resolution, but definitely better than 7 bit). I don't think I have much if any hardware controls with knobs that are as responsive, sensitive and accurate (a junXionboard with some ultrasound sensors is on my wish list, though). Still, imho pointer devices are typically not very practical while playing / sequencing an instrument, as one is typically limited to tweaking one parameter at a time, or making some custom controller setups. (Also, some popular applications intended mainly for performance such as Live or Traktor don't even work properly with absolute pointers, go figure...)