Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER Feature Requests

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-08-2011, 05:53 AM   #41
DanP2011
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 29
Default

+1 for action list/non-control surface based midi feedback.

I'm coming over from cubases Generic Remote, which is utterly painful to setup, but makes project/mix navigation a breeze once settled.

Does anyone know if this has become a FR, or if there's any noise coming from Cockos/Justin on the matter?

some of the 'half and half' setups do seem to have some degree of feedback, but mcu style non-assignability really doesn't seem to link with Reaper's mega customizable ethos and backend.
DanP2011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2012, 10:10 AM   #42
ZeeByeZon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: France
Posts: 18
Default

I think this is quite similar to what is requested here. There would be a simple and quick solution:
http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=94384
ZeeByeZon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2012, 10:22 PM   #43
Scoox
Human being with feelings
 
Scoox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Wuxi, China
Posts: 187
Default

+1

I will add that this is possible in PreSonus Studio One:



S1 forum member Bathmutz introduced me to this wonderful feature and I must say I am very impressed! Not sure all controllers accept MIDI feedback but my BCR2000 sure does and it's very very nice.
Scoox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 04:21 PM   #44
drewspuppet
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 16
Default

I would just like to add... Yup..this request would be awesome. Just got a BCR2000... wanted to control 32 track faders as well as my vsti's..unfortunately without midi feedback makes it unusable with fader control... Shame, it would be AwEsOmE
drewspuppet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 07:22 PM   #45
IOM
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3
Default Any news?

+100 000

I'm using Tascam DM-24 mixing console in my studio and we just started using Reaper instead of Cubase. In Cubase there was a bit painful to set the whole system up, but in the end we got 7 layers of 16 faders to mix our projects which proved to be really useful. I just found out how to use the mixers faders in Reaper but it really is a shame that there isn't any feedback to mixer. When I opened a new project in Cubase the faders automatically jumped in the right positions. I would really appretciate if devs would add this little feature. Right now it doesn't matter if you're using motorized faders or not, Reaper isn't controlling them anyway.
And I'm aware that there's even a custom made DM-24 Mackie HUI plugin for Reaper but compared to the possiblities to use 16 faders and pans at a time and so many layers, the HUI emulation isn't that exciting.
IOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 07:57 AM   #46
Seventh
Human being with feelings
 
Seventh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOM View Post
I would really appretciate if devs would add this little feature.
I think calling it a little feature is a bit of an understatement. I would think that this is an essential feature for any non-bedroom studio DAW. Anyway, here's another +1.
Seventh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2012, 04:59 AM   #47
reponicem
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 22
Default

+10000000000000000.0000
reponicem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2012, 09:19 PM   #48
formur
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4
Default

All my +1s, take them.

I have two BCR2000s. That's 64 knobs of wasted potential! This feature would make me so happy. Please devs, make it a priority!
formur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 03:39 AM   #49
DanP2011
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 29
Default

Right then gents,
Not having this feature is ruddy killing me. The FR ( http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=94384) has only 16 users respond. I can't imagine cockos doing anything for such a relativly small user base. I think we'll only see anything change if we help cockos see that there is a bigger need. With that in mind, has anyone any campaign ideas? I'm gonna get my sig to reflect the need, and i urge others to do the same. Any other ideas for increasing the visibility of this limiting non-feature, post or pm me :-)
Let's make this happen!
DanP2011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 04:57 AM   #50
vovaman
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2
Default

Greetings to all Reaper community, it's my first post.
I switched from Cubase to Reaper because Reaper is so much more versitile for mixing tasks, after testing it for two weeks I payed for it. It is a truly great product! But the absence of midi feedback is just killing my workflow. I do reggae music and love to mix dub versions on-the-fly, in oldschool fashion. Using just sends and mutes automation as the main technique for dub I'm suffering without visual feedback on BCF2000.. maybe I'm doing something wrong, still learning Reaper, but as far as I understand the feature is just not there yet..

Please please devs, make this happen!
Love from Russia
vovaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 01:48 AM   #51
ZeeByeZon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: France
Posts: 18
Default

I think we have to open a thread for this request in the "Track Bugs/Feature Requests" part of the forum. I did not find any existing entry there for our interest...
The new post in this section has to be simple and persuasive :-). At least this discussion (http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=70729) and the discussion http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=94384 should be quoted.

A proposal with a screenshot is more attractive, showing the adding of MIDI control outputs in the MIDI configuration panel for example. Is someone able to do this ?
ZeeByeZon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 09:07 PM   #52
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: City
Posts: 9,561
Default

Raise awareness of this as much as you can.

The developers are implementing OSC right now. Check out the pre-release builds(stable stuff) for that.

A guy got actual feedback via OSC to a BCR-2000 working, and posted videos of it too.

http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php...31&postcount=9 (video is 5 MB).
__________________
Dialogue/FX Editor & Re-Recording Mixer
Using Latch Preview
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 01:55 AM   #53
ZeeByeZon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: France
Posts: 18
Default

The new version 4.20 supports bidirectional communication with control surfaces in OSC. But reading the changelog, it seems that bidirectional communication has not been implemented for MIDI ?!?

Do you know which software tool can be used to convert OSC to MIDI ?
ZeeByeZon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 02:16 AM   #54
ZeeByeZon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: France
Posts: 18
Default

OK the answer is here:
http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=97255
He's using puredata. It would be so simple to directly output MIDI... Well at least wa have now a workaround...
ZeeByeZon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 03:48 AM   #55
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeeByeZon View Post
OK the answer is here:
http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=97255
He's using puredata. It would be so simple to directly output MIDI... Well at least wa have now a workaround...


I've only posted about it in the pre subforum so far, since it wasn't official yet.

For plain vanilla feedback to MIDI it's quite a silly workaround indeed. I'll post a few simple examples when I get around to it, hopefully within the next few days.

But mind you, the real fun only starts with feedback, both OSC and the concept of using an intermediate layer offer additional benefits (see for example another video here, on the same thread).

Seriously, if I'd have MIDI feedback available now, I'd probably not even use it, since it's easy enough to use such an intermediate layer as Pd. Btw, *lots* of other platforms can be used - my main reason for using Pd is the fact that *all* REAPER users can simply get it with a few clicks and run it for *free*, coupled with easy portability elsewhere too. And unlike some other platforms, it doesn't require any actual coding (or you'd have to call programming a drum machine or a modular synth patch "coding" too ).
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 03:56 PM   #56
muttlee
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 26
Default

many thanks to you Banned on just the sniff of your examples and all stuff u've posted with reaper OSC and pd...been out of the dev loop for a bit now as i've been focusing the little time i have for music on actually music makin'...but i;m super keen to get it all up and running on my bcr, bcf and ipad
muttlee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 05:19 AM   #57
nofish
Human being with feelings
 
nofish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home is where the heart is
Posts: 6,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned View Post
Seriously, if I'd have MIDI feedback available now, I'd probably not even use it, since it's easy enough to use such an intermediate layer as Pd.
Just wanted to ask...do you notice any significant latency using this PD bridge ?
I mean 'controller latency' so to say, not audio latency.
I ask because I'd like to know if this solution is also suitable for live work where immediate reaction of Reaper to the controlled parameters is critical.
nofish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 05:24 AM   #58
ZeeByeZon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: France
Posts: 18
Default

I've been studying OSC and its implementation in Reaper. My conclusion is that this OSC feature is really interesting, but does not respond to my needs for MIDI feedback (or at least not simply).

I want to use a BCR2000 as dedicated controller for EQ and compression on the selected track. The current MIDI features in Reaper are great because you can save MIDI control assignments for each plugin, and have them active only when the track is selected. But there is no feedback!
Using OSC learn on FX parameters behaves exactly like with MIDI: there is no feedback on the learned address!!

Using OSC for this purpose is probably possible but requires quite a complex processing to get this behaviour...

MIDI feedback STILL needed! Or may be more precisely: FX MIDI/OSC feedback needed...

Last edited by ZeeByeZon; 03-22-2012 at 06:12 AM.
ZeeByeZon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 06:12 AM   #59
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nofish View Post
Just wanted to ask...do you notice any significant latency using this PD bridge ?
I mean 'controller latency' so to say, not audio latency.
I ask because I'd like to know if this solution is also suitable for live work where immediate reaction of Reaper to the controlled parameters is critical.
None. I may allow the GUI to be lazy, but controllers react 'instantly'. Note: everything I do needs to be suitable for making music in realtime, thus without pops, clicks or anything else. Don't worry, I'm a musician, not an engineer.

Btw, do you know the latency / bandwidth specs of a MIDI cable?
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 06:15 AM   #60
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeeByeZon View Post
[...] you can save MIDI control assignments for each plugin, and have them active only when the track is selected. But there is no feedback!
Using OSC learn on FX parameters behaves exactly like with MIDI: there is no feedback on the learned address!! [...] Or may be more precisely: FX MIDI/OSC feedback needed...
Exactly. Please support the FR I and others have made to implement feedback at least for Track FX parameters, and perhaps also my FR to bump up the number of such parameters from 16 to at least double that, preferably much more even.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 08:31 AM   #61
ZeeByeZon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: France
Posts: 18
Default

Can I get a link to your FR?
And what do you mean by "also my FR to bump up the number of such parameters from 16 to at least double that, preferably much more even". What is this limitation?
ZeeByeZon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 09:35 AM   #62
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeeByeZon View Post
Can I get a link to your FR?
There is no formal FR in the tracker, it has just been discussed a few times at this OSC bug/FR thread when OSC was still in pre only. But by now it is perhaps time to put up a formal FR so we can count votes and such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeeByeZon View Post
And what do you mean by "also my FR to bump up the number of such parameters from 16 to at least double that, preferably much more even". What is this limitation?
Pics are sometimes better than words:

Attached Images
File Type: jpg only16TrackFX.jpg (65.5 KB, 690 views)
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2015, 12:21 PM   #63
Jalcide
Human being with feelings
 
Jalcide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 8
Default

Is there still no way for Reaper to transmit MIDI feedback to a generic controller? So that LEDs and such show their correct values on recall (and during interaction)?
Jalcide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2015, 01:25 PM   #64
Mink99
Human being with feelings
 
Mink99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Zürich
Posts: 1,001
Default

Still only the supplied models. But which controller cannot be set to mcu mode ?
Mink99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2015, 02:25 PM   #65
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink99 View Post
Still only the supplied models. But which controller cannot be set to mcu mode ?
Via REAPER's OSC Control Surface feature and some external tool to convert OSC from/to MIDI (such as OSCII-bot), any generic MIDI controller can be used.

Btw, you can't assume that all MIDI controllers support MCU mode - and even if they do, it may not provide what you want (I much prefer not to use it even with controllers that support it; for example because it doesn't support 14-bit CCs for high resolution).
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2015, 02:34 PM   #66
Mink99
Human being with feelings
 
Mink99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Zürich
Posts: 1,001
Default

For basic features mcu should be sufficient , otherwise you are right ...


I usually do not send cc through a control surface, but through a midi input and without feedback. My bcf is just for mixing. (Ok mostly cc7 )
Mink99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2015, 02:54 PM   #67
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,993
Default

MCU uses pitchbend for volume, means mcu volume does support 14bit. Any knob on a control surface should be an endless rotary anyway to be called useful (keyword value jumping), so there is no resolution issue with them at all.

Does parameter feedback even make sense for absolute knobs? Are there motorized absolute knobs on the market?
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2015, 03:28 PM   #68
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
MCU uses pitchbend for volume, means mcu volume does support 14bit. Any knob on a control surface should be an endless rotary anyway to be called useful (keyword value jumping), so there is no resolution issue with them at all.
It may use pitch bend for a very limted set of parameters, but that's simply not sufficient for me. I want hi-res for all parameters, mainly plug-in parameters.

And as long are values are transmitted in low (7-bit) resolution, the issue remains also for endless rotary encoders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
Does parameter feedback even make sense for absolute knobs? Are there motorized absolute knobs on the market?
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. You seem to conflate absolute control modes with 'absolute knobs" - endless encoders can be used with both absolute and relative control modes (in both 7 and 14-bit resolution). I typically much prefer to use absolute modes in controllers, scripts, etc.

Also, while afaik most motorized controllers use absolute control modes, it's not only about feedback for motorized controls, but for value displays, LED rings etc., and providing bidirectional syncing of values. That"s important for encoders, too.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2015, 03:59 PM   #69
Mink99
Human being with feelings
 
Mink99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Zürich
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post

Does parameter feedback even make sense for absolute knobs? Are there motorized absolute knobs on the market?
On bcf200 the faders ... Which are no knobs but controls
Mink99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2015, 06:49 PM   #70
Jalcide
Human being with feelings
 
Jalcide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 8
Default

Thanks, all.

Well, bummer.

It's a Kore 2 controller. It's the "remote" for a dedicated rackmounted, low latency build that I'm using to control a rack of effects.

Yes, I'm using absolute with endless encoders and buttons with LEDs set to toggle.

It's somewhat "headless" (only a small, rackmounted display) and some of the effects are toggle states where I very much need to see the current LED state of ON or OFF (hence the need for synced visual feedback).

No worries, I've got an older v2.x copy of Studio One that has been collecting dust. I shall put it to good use.

Last edited by Jalcide; 05-27-2015 at 06:57 PM.
Jalcide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2015, 12:59 AM   #71
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,993
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned View Post
It may use pitch bend for a very limted set of parameters, but that's simply not sufficient for me. I want hi-res for all parameters, mainly plug-in parameters.

And as long are values are transmitted in low (7-bit) resolution, the issue remains also for endless rotary encoders.

Yes, it makes a lot of sense. You seem to conflate absolute control modes with 'absolute knobs" - endless encoders can be used with both absolute and relative control modes (in both 7 and 14-bit resolution). I typically much prefer to use absolute modes in controllers, scripts, etc.

Also, while afaik most motorized controllers use absolute control modes, it's not only about feedback for motorized controls, but for value displays, LED rings etc., and providing bidirectional syncing of values. That"s important for encoders, too.
My momenclature may not be perfect there. By absolute knobs I meant those witch are not endless, with a fixed range, a lower and an upper end where you can't turn further. What is the word for those?

I guess I should have said using endless rotaries in relative mode the resolution is a non-issue. (Of course many of you know, just for anyone who doesn't: they transmit "go upward [n] steps" and "go downward [n] steps", where the step size is determined by the target, not the message.)

It never occured to me someone would prefer to use endless knobs with absolute values, does it not take away all benefits of endless rotaries and leave you with a crippled version of "knobs with ends" (crippled because their main advantage is, IMO, the tactile info about the range)?
I don't think MCU protocol allows for that anyway. What it does allow is a swapping of fader's with knob's target, so you can control any plugin parameter with the faders (in 14bit resolution).
Of course, when you're using them sending absolute values, I do understand a need for 14bit. I just never thought someone would do that . Point taken.


I didn't mean to ask whether feedback is needed for relative control (or absolute control with endless rotaries). That's obvious - otherwise they can't have an indication of which value they are at and what amount of change a turn actually has.
The question was about "knobs with ends" (because of my false premise that if you are using absolute mode then you are using "knobs with ends"). That's why I asked about "motorized knobs".
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2015, 05:15 AM   #72
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
My momenclature may not be perfect there. By absolute knobs I meant those witch are not endless, with a fixed range, a lower and an upper end where you can't turn further. What is the word for those?
I'm not sure - I typically call them rotary pots (short for potentiometers) or rotary knobs (as opposed to rotary encoders).
Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
I guess I should have said using endless rotaries in relative mode the resolution is a non-issue. (Of course many of you know, just for anyone who doesn't: they transmit "go upward [n] steps" and "go downward [n] steps", where the step size is determined by the target, not the message.)
Actually, for relative modes resolution still is relevant; and the message *does* define a step size, it's simply relative rather than absolute. At 14-bit resolution you can use a much more fine-grained acceleration scheme - it doesn't make sense to send a message that says "increase value by 192 steps" if that value only has 128 steps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
It never occured to me someone would prefer to use endless knobs with absolute values, does it not take away all benefits of endless rotaries and leave you with a crippled version of "knobs with ends" (crippled because their main advantage is, IMO, the tactile info about the range)?
Even if endless encoders may not have a 1:1 relation between tactile movement and value, using absolute values certainly doesn't take away all benefits - imho the main benefit of endless encoders is that they have a flexible range, which isn't affected at all.

And in fact, I think it's quite the opposite: the 1:1 relation between tactile movement and value is broken because the controllers are 'endless', not because of using absolute modes. While relative modes may presuppose that this relationship is broken, their use is certainly not required.

My view on the relation between the need for feedback and the choice between absolute and relative modes starts from a completely different perspective: imho relative modes are a workaround for a lack of feedback, to avoid parameter value 'jumping'. I would rather ask: if you would have proper feedback, then why would you even consider using relative modes? (My answer: for achieving an even higher resolution than 14-bit. )
Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
I don't think MCU protocol allows for that anyway. What it does allow is a swapping of fader's with knob's target, so you can control any plugin parameter with the faders (in 14bit resolution).
The fact that it uses pitch bend limits it to 16 channels (per port), thus 16 parameters, which is not even nearly sufficient for me.

Moreover, the parameters being controlled using pitch bend are indeed typically mapped to 'faders' (i.e. vertical sliders) on hardware devices, with a fixed maximum resolution. But, these typically don't support a better *physical* resolution than about 10-bit (and may suffer from jitter, occasionally sending values without the user moving them) - which, again, isn't even nearly sufficient for me.

So, while MCU may work just fine for some, it doesn't even come close to what I want/need.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2015, 09:52 AM   #73
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,993
Default

I don't want to get into this too deep, as the thread is about the need for feedback which I totally support, but I don't get this point you make:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned View Post
Actually, for relative modes resolution still is relevant; and the message *does* define a step size, it's simply relative rather than absolute. At 14-bit resolution you can use a much more fine-grained acceleration scheme - it doesn't make sense to send a message that says "increase value by 192 steps" if that value only has 128 steps.
Of course that wouldn't make sense, so why would you? The minimum amount of steps you can increase by turning a notch is of course 1. The size of that single step is defined by the receiver, not the message. There can be as many possible values as the receiver likes to provide which translates to any resolution the plugin offers. It's not not in any way defined by the message.
You have a point in that you could have finer grain in terms of accelleration, though. But I can hardly believe that human hands can benefit from that. I for one couldn't turn a rotary that fast as to get to an accelleration of 63 with 7bit accelleration resolution, and never found myself thinking "I wish I could have an accelleration between 6 and 7"
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2015, 10:26 AM   #74
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
The minimum amount of steps you can increase by turning a notch is of course 1. The size of that single step is defined by the receiver, not the message.
The *absolute* step size is defined by the receiver, but the message still defines the *relative* step size (i.e. messages can use a variable step size, so it is the message that defines by how many steps a value should be adjusted).
Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
You have a point in that you could have finer grain in terms of accelleration, though. But I can hardly believe that human hands can benefit from that. I for one couldn't turn a rotary that fast as to get to an accelleration of 63 with 7bit accelleration resolution, and never found myself thinking "I wish I could have an accelleration between 6 and 7"
That depends entirely on how acceleration is implemented. Note that acceleration levels are distinct from step size - it is possible to use any number of acceleration levels with any step size, so even a slow knob turn may result in a step size of e.g. 63.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2015, 10:47 AM   #75
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,993
Default

I never encountered a control surface that didn't allow me to use a step size of 1 with its endless encoders (using relative control) whenever I wanted. That would be a seriously dumb implementation for sure.
But the main point of course was that I never missed an accelleration of, say, 4.35. Which means to say I don't miss 14bit accelleration really much.
(Actually this discussion spawned the idea in me to restrict (iow quantize) accelleration even more, to 3 or maybe 4 levels, I think I might like that. Step size = 1 of course will be one of the available levels, something around 1, 7, 14, 20 should fit most parameters well. I can't believe some implementation doesn't make single steps available, what might be the thinking behind that?)

I did have some which didn't have accelleration at all, though. These were always using 1 as step size which is often too fine to be useful, so I used MIDI processing to add a "coarse control" modifier. I lived with my "1bit" accelleration resolution pretty well and at times even prefer it to accellerating knobs.

Last edited by gofer; 05-28-2015 at 11:06 AM.
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2015, 12:32 PM   #76
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
I never encountered a control surface that didn't allow me to use a step size of 1 with its endless encoders (using relative control) whenever I wanted. That would be a seriously dumb implementation for sure.
I'm not talking about controllers that have a minimum step size bigger than 1 (and I'm not aware of any either), I'm talking about multiple acceleration levels using different step sizes.

Even so, note that it may still make sense to use a minimum step size larger than 1 - it all depends on the targeted parameter. For example, one may want to use a step size of 64 to control a binary switch, or a step size of 8 for a parameter with an enumerated list of 16 options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
But the main point of course was that I never missed an accelleration of, say, 4.35. Which means I wouldn't need 14bit accelleration.
I think you misunderstand, as 14-bit resolution does not provide that.

The difference between 7-bit and 14-bit relative modes, is that you can use acceleration levels with much higher differences between levels. E.g. acceleration level 1 > step size = 1 (fine tune), acceleration level 2 > step size = 8 (semi-fine tune), acceleration level 3 > step size = 128 (coarse tune), acceleration level 4 > step size = 1024 (very coarse tune).

So the question would rather be whether you need acceleration levels that differ by a ratio of more than 1:127 (up to 1:16383), since that's the maximum ratio 7-bit relative mode can provide. While this depends on to some extent on ergonomics and personal preferences, imho the answer is a resounding yes if the targeted parameter has a sufficiently high resolution. Otherwise, adjusting a parameter value by a large amounts would simply take too much knob turning.

If you want to control a target parameter at a high resolution, imho you pretty much need an acceleration scheme in order to support both fine and coarse tuning options using a single encoder (i.e. without using modifier keys or such), with a ratio between low(est) and high(est) levels that is sufficiently large to work at both low and high resolution. 7-bit relative mode works, but is obviously more limited than 14-bit relative mode; in my example above, acceleration level 3 would be still be (almost) possible (using step size = 127), but level 4 (with a step size much higher than 127) would be impossible.

PS: oh, I now see you edited your reply a bit - I hope my reply is still more or less appropriate. I would certainly agree that having 3 or 4 acceleration levels is typically sufficient.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2015, 01:53 PM   #77
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,993
Default

Absolutely (pun not intended) appropriate, because I (think I) now understand what you're trying to tell me .

What you're seeking with 14bit for relative knobs is the possibility of a more coarse control of very fine resolved parameters than possible with 128 steps of accelleration (which is step size 64 each direction). Is that about right?

I certainly see the point in that. I never had such a problem up to now, but I can imagine that it can be one. Thanks for bearing with me here.


(Not to extend the discussion, but re binary switches and parameters with 16 values: sending those "in/decrement by 1 step" does work for me. Turn one notch and the parameter changes by one. Probably that's depending on how the receiving side is coded)
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2015, 03:35 PM   #78
Travesty
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 181
Default

As soon as you start trying to use a parametric eq with 7bit cc, you run into the issue. It's impossible to work with any level of precision, particularly in the higher frequencies.
Travesty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2015, 03:37 PM   #79
Travesty
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 181
Default

There is a feature request in for this right? Funnily enough, I've just sat down to sort out the osc translation for a bcr2000, and I'd prefer if I didn't have to. It should be able to use the standard learn system (which is brilliant) to get 14bit cc and feedback support.
Travesty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2015, 10:08 AM   #80
Wilson
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 9
Default Midi Feedback

I use the Maschine MK2 Controller and this thing is perfect for controlling the DAWs. In Studio One & Cubase its possible to send Midi Feedback to the Maschine Controller so I can easy read the Levels of the parameters and when I changing some knobs in the DAW the Maschine Controller show me that in the display. But I like to use Reaper now! so please ...Midi Feedback!!!
Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.