Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-28-2012, 08:08 PM   #1
digiman
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4
Default HUI and EUCON Control NEEDED What will it take?

Greetings all Reaper users and I hope Reaper programmers too!

Reaper is in serious need of support for HUI and EUCON protocols. Reaper has grown so much in positive directions that I have almost completely dropped Protools in favor. HOWEVER, I say almost, because the lack of support for digital surface consoles for mixing and rapid workflow needed by professionals that cannot be forced to mouse mix has to be addressed!

I have read threads where such things are discussed on and off, a reply was finally received from Avid, etc.. but we as users need to keep beating this drum until it becomes reality.

I have shown reaper to many of my friends using Protools, Logic, etc.. and I have impressed them all, until....we discuss desk and control surface compatibility, They then think Reaper is a toy and not worth their time.

Please let's get this put to bed and give Reaper the chance to be used by pros and others in rapid pipeline production.
digiman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 09:24 PM   #2
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

How about you give me the most extensive hardware control surface using HUI/Eucon, some time, and a pile of cash? If you're assuming "professionals" currently don't stand a chance of using REAPER while they really need it, then I'd say, just make those "professionals" PAY UP. They're "professionals" after all, aren't they?
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 09:43 PM   #3
hopi
Human being with feelings
 
hopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Right Hear
Posts: 15,618
Default

reaper IS a toy not worth their time... may they enjoy thier life and times with their real DAW's.


so why does this pop up again and again.... ?

why do people who are happy with PT or Logic or whatever have to be convinced that reaper is great...?

what's it to you? why do you care?

are you a missionary?

do you have a new religion to sell me?
__________________
...should be fixed for the next build... http://tinyurl.com/cr7o7yl
https://soundcloud.com/hopikiva
hopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 01:16 AM   #4
EricM
Human being with feelings
 
EricM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
Posts: 3,801
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopi View Post
so why does this pop up again and again.... ?
When people invest a lot of money and their time
in developing an efficient workflow using particular
hardware, and than comes another software solution
that is supposedly much better / efficient, but it does
not support their hardware, it cannot be considered
as a viable option anymore.

Discarding it as a "toy" is immature of course, but it's
simply a way of saying that it does not support certain
workflows that engineers with 'professional hardware'
consider essential. I find that perspective understandable.

Personally, I would love to equip my studio with modern
digital motorized controller solutions, but since Reaper
does not support them I can either switch to another
DAW or wait for Cockos to implement them. Since my
workflow is efficient enough using mouse and keyboard,
I'm staying with Reaper for the most part of my recording
and editing process.

e
__________________
Shoelace 4 Theme | SoundCloud/erXon
EricM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 01:46 AM   #5
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 EricM View Post
When people invest a lot of money and their time in developing an efficient workflow using particular hardware, and than comes another software solution that is supposedly much better / efficient, but it does not support their hardware, it cannot be considered as a viable option anymore.
Sure. But in my book, having invested in a closed system using proprietary protocols for communication does not warrant any claim to be more professional than people who care more about interoperability, avoiding dependency on a single vendor and lock-in to inferior standards. It's actually rather the other way around.

(PS: Sorry for eating your line-breaks, EricM. )
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 02:16 AM   #6
EricM
Human being with feelings
 
EricM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
Posts: 3,801
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned View Post
(PS: Sorry for eating your line-breaks, EricM. )
No worries, it's just a habit of mine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned View Post
Sure. But in my book, having invested in a closed system using proprietary protocols for communication does not warrant any claim to be more professional than people who care more about interoperability, avoiding dependency on a single vendor and lock-in to inferior standards. It's actually rather the other way around.
That is completely true. However these systems usually comply
with the musical / technical standards and operations that make
recording, monitoring, and finalizing the product - well - standard.

I love having a software system like Reaper that supports pretty
much anything you throw at it, and gives you the ability to do
with it whatever and however you want. But not complying with
existing standards usually means you have to spend time making
things work that already should, and in some cases that simply
is not possible (from user end).

In order to change the industry (or in this case even get into it)
you have to provide compatibility with existing standards to
a certain usable degree. Otherwise it's just a product of great
expectations but limited usability.

e
__________________
Shoelace 4 Theme | SoundCloud/erXon

Last edited by EricM; 12-29-2012 at 02:21 AM.
EricM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 02:59 PM   #7
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned View Post
Sure. But in my book, having invested in a closed system using proprietary protocols for communication does not warrant any claim to be more professional than people who care more about interoperability, avoiding dependency on a single vendor and lock-in to inferior standards. It's actually rather the other way around.
Very well said. I still can't get over how any "pro" can handle not seeing the content of events as you move them, which kept me off of PT despite always having an up to date and fully loaded PT system at all times
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 07:48 AM   #8
digiman
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4
Default Reply to your EUCON / HUI Comments

Hello fellow Reaper users!

Thank you for all your comments. I knew the topic would create the reactions that I have received in this post. All are welcome! It helps to understand the full points of view from the community.

I do have some answers for you:


From Hopi:

what's it to you? why do you care? Well I have used PT since v5. To not get into details, let me just say Friends and I are tired of paying for software that does not warrant the price of admission for what you get.

I care because of this wonderful software that I found called Reaper! I want to use it in production and not have to go back to PT so do my friends!

Are you a missionary? No, I would suck at that.

Do you have a new religion to sell me? Yes, but you are already using it! Reaper is a great stable DAW!


EricM:

Your comments are what I have heard from others and thank you for posting your views about proprietary protocols. VST proprietary isn't it? I am not a programmer but I believe we do not have access to the codebase of Reaper and it is not licensed under GNU so it too is proprietary correct? Having EUCON and HUI will only strengthen the argument in Reapers favor for people to try it out to replace their current DAW. (People don't look for an alternative unless they are unhappy) That is how I found Reaper!


Geoff Waddington:

Hey Geoff Thank you for enlightening me to the point of view that the hardware surface manufactures seek out the DAW software suppliers to get their protocol implemented. I always thought it was the other way around! I will have to make a few stops at NAMM this year and talk shop about making this happen. As for organizing a group to secure capital for having you or others to program EUCON and HUI support into Reaper, that is a discussion that would have to be made off the board and we would need get the owners of Cockos into the mix.

Thank you all! I still want to hear your ideas and views on getting control surface capabilities into Reaper!
digiman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 08:15 AM   #9
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 digiman View Post
VST proprietary isn't it? I am not a programmer but I believe we do not have access to the codebase of Reaper and it is not licensed under GNU so it too is proprietary correct?
Property is not bad per se at all. And while software is a bit special (cf. the entire open source debate), proprietary communication protocols are especially problematic. There are good reasons for insisting on non-proprietary communication protocols even in proprietary software and hardware. No need to insist on GPL-like terms, though (while, ironically, GPL itself relies on strict property rights): if the owner allows everyone to use it and publishes well-documented technical details, that often suffices in practice.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ

Last edited by Banned; 12-29-2012 at 10:11 PM. Reason: changed GNU references to GPL
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 08:56 AM   #10
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
if the owner allows everyone to use it and publishes well-documented technical details, that often suffices in practice.
You've just described what happens when you go to the very bottom of Actions and run "[developer] Write C++ API functions header"

That is, de facto, the published Reaper API (application programming interface), the part of Reaper that is exposed for interaction with external programs.

As Banned has said:

Quote:
There are good reasons for insisting on non-proprietary communication protocols even in proprietary software and hardware
That's the key, we need to decouple (for programmers think Bridge Pattern, not Adapter, it is subtle) the controller from the DAW, we need a translation layer and that should be standard (OSC is a good example), otherwise your controller and DAW are inextricably linked.
__________________
To install you need the CSI Software and Support Files
For installation instructions and documentation see the Wiki
Donate -- via PayPal to waddingtongeoff@gmail.com

Last edited by Geoff Waddington; 12-29-2012 at 09:02 AM.
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 10:08 AM   #11
Guido
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by digiman View Post
Greetings all Reaper users and I hope Reaper programmers too!

Reaper is in serious need of support for HUI and EUCON protocols. Reaper has grown so much in positive directions that I have almost completely dropped Protools in favor. HOWEVER, I say almost, because the lack of support for digital surface consoles for mixing and rapid workflow needed by professionals that cannot be forced to mouse mix has to be addressed!

I have read threads where such things are discussed on and off, a reply was finally received from Avid, etc.. but we as users need to keep beating this drum until it becomes reality.

I have shown reaper to many of my friends using Protools, Logic, etc.. and I have impressed them all, until....we discuss desk and control surface compatibility, They then think Reaper is a toy and not worth their time.

Please let's get this put to bed and give Reaper the chance to be used by pros and others in rapid pipeline production.
Hi,

I agree..and u know i love/fear u banned^^.

I'll just speak for myself, but at a certain point some stuff should not be diy. I'll leave the philisophical side out{because i'll get killed^^} and speak as just a user. Some ppl arent techie ...the way it is now is there are a few "standards" out there. And if u like faders and such the fact is as of now , u need cs support that includes multiple controllers.

Like if i want to use an old HUI that i picked up on ebay..and a mcu..and a MCMIX..for eg. I should be able to do so in a professional environment..sry for cussin^^....The efforts by Geoff and klinke..and justin for the original csurfs...are great and i appreciate them very much..but if u dont work just like they do, ur sol.

As an ex.. I use klinkes csurf with my controller..more on that later..and would love to buy a used C4 for editing plugin parameters..sry no go^^.

IMHO the devs {and anyone else interested in this subject} should look at the way Logic handles this. If the devs developed a similar function in Reaper, It would be ahead of all the daws..including Logic...because they {the other daws} don't have Reaper users access to the api for customization for the geeks^^, and Plug and Play for the drummers^^ha!

Sry but i dont know what an abstraction layer is..but if it means one could combine multiple hw controllers easily..for me thats the ticket.


@digiman...i made a preset for a program called bomes midi translator pro that converts a HUI speaking "box" into a "klinke "speaking box {MCP}.. Let me know if u are interested..but as i said above it is not ideal because of the lack of multiple controller support.

Guido
Guido is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 11:09 AM   #12
semiquaver
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,923
Default

perhaps OSC will be the solution

someone needs to make an OSC fader box - a universal controller using a non proprietary protocol.

I'll bet we could sell a few of these.

anyone with chops want to go into business with me?
semiquaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 01:40 PM   #13
hopi
Human being with feelings
 
hopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Right Hear
Posts: 15,618
Default

yeah OK didgiman... good answers, so I'll settle down... sorry but have too many similar threads and get bored with them...

so let's see... is this the problem:

there some 'pros' who have been suckerd into using PT for a long time...
and they also use various motorized control surfaces with it...

and they suddenly realized PT is not so lovely and they would like to switch to reaper... because it IS lovely.

But the control surfaces they have won't work with reaper.

good so far?

and yet there are other control surfaces that will work with reaper... true? ...and there are also ways and means to use OSC contols these days [not motorized, true, but easier to get a lot of fingers on at once]

Now I'm not saying it would not be swell for the DEV's to implement what you are asking for... of course it would.
[right after they deal with a few other feature requests!]

I know there are some huge studios out there with enourmous PT HD and related hardware set ups... may they live long and be happy.

At the same time, I personally transitioned a buddy which a smaller pro studio, that included a custom made 24 track Scorpion board and lotta outboard hardware over to reaper and much less hardware [vst and vsti] and he has been very happy with that.
His workflow by his own statement is much, much better.

So... there ya have my worthless opinion... [seriously]
__________________
...should be fixed for the next build... http://tinyurl.com/cr7o7yl
https://soundcloud.com/hopikiva
hopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 02:43 PM   #14
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
Default


The problem is most likely time. Three guys doing all the coding and design work, and us here being nice but not overly well organized.


And an interesting perspective from you Geoff. It may be that Avid is no longer interested in promoting sales of Artist units to users of hosts that do not already support EuCon, because they're restructuring,

or Reaper is a serious threat and they don't want to help the demise of Protools along,

or Cockos is under NDA not to talk about EuCon integration until it's ready,

or Cockos has yet to find any time to do anything about better controller integration.


What EuCon actually does is an old idea.

It's "here are control resources, do shit with them on a per-application basis". It never was "Controller X interacts with DAW X according to hard-coded never-changable rules".


Reaper does have a bit of "here are resources, now do shit with 'em", but it's the most primitive kind us resource use. It's the one-button->one-function method and that's it. Ever user has to build it themselves.

Better than nothing you say, but the stuff I build with an Avid Icon console includes customzed LCD-labeled soft keys, plugin maps across all channel control resources, sectioning of control resources for special modes, LIKE multiple types of plugin maps, group member displays, VCA drills, send spreads(using available special-section faders for all sends of a track), simple send flips(controlling one send on one/selected/all tracks with a fader) and a whole bunch more stuff.

Reaper is the bottom feeder on features guys, because OSC has no industrial strength controller support. That means motorized, touch-sensitive faders and knobs. It's just a wish, and for all the hoo-haa'ing about the price of Artist units and their build quality, when supported well, people get the jobs done faster.

They're better tools, and I hope Reapers devs will find the time eventually to interface with those tools, so all of us who can get good use out of them and can afford them, actually get that opportunity.


As for "who needs this"-people, until you do something faster, what do you know about doing it any faster than you are now? Have you ever seen beyond your current horizon the increase in productivity that you were going get with Reaper before you started using it well ?

I do now. YOU still don't when it comes to EuCon or perhaps automation, or something else you don't yet understand the use of. So you might need to trust people here you've trusted before.


__________________
Using Latch Preview (Video) - Faderport 16 setup for CSI 1.1 , CSI 3.10
Website
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 07:35 PM   #15
pattste
Human being with feelings
 
pattste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 797
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by digiman View Post
Reaper is in serious need of support for HUI and EUCON protocols. Reaper has grown so much in positive directions that I have almost completely dropped Protools in favor. HOWEVER, I say almost, because the lack of support for digital surface consoles for mixing and rapid workflow needed by professionals that cannot be forced to mouse mix has to be addressed!
I completely agree. In fact, when discussing Reaper with pro or full-time engineers, the lack of support for control surfaces is one of two issues that invariably comes up, the other being the lack of support for OMF/AAF import and export.

My perception of Reaper's development is that the priorities are heavily driven by what the development team needs or can use in a DAW. I see this as both a plus and a minus. On the plus side, they are likely to be users of the products and actually care that it works well. The downside is that the product direction isn't market driven and adding features to Reaper to make it attractive to users of competing products and increasing Reaper's marketshare doesn't seem to be a priority.

For instance, I recently suggested to Justin that he could pay the AATranslator team to develop an OMF/AAF plugin for Reaper and that this would help sell copies of Reaper, especially the $225 variety. His answer was that he wasn't considering it and AATranslator probably prefers to sell its own product anyway. I find an answer like that a bit perplexing, truth be told.
__________________
My Music
Reaper(x64) 4.72 - Studio One Pro (x64) 2.6.3
i7-3630QM 2.4GHz - 8Gb RAM - 256Gb SSD - RME Babyface - Eve Audio SC204 - Windows 8.1
pattste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 08:10 PM   #16
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Eucon is - afaik - the only other Ethernet based control protocol outside of Avid's own protocol. They bought Euphonix but the protocol was already in wide use.

Not sure what Eucon has to do with being "suckered into buying PT". ?? Any PT user with such a control surface can move to any other workstation that supports Eucon, which is the rest of the so called majors?

So a PT user who got tired of it could move to Cubendo, Logic, Sonar, Samplitude, DP. Pyramix, etc and take their Eucon control surface with them.

How exactly is that being "locked into Avid's hardware"? Did the OP ask to support the Avid D-Command? I have no clue what some people here are talking about.

Here is the list of software that support Eucon... http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/e...n&DocType=1083
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 09:45 PM   #17
Driftwood
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Maine
Posts: 16
Default

I'm a new Reaper user...bought my license yesterday. It's very impressive in many ways, and I'm really stoked about using it. That said, the lack of control surface support is a bit of a bummer. If folks are content to mix with a mouse, that's cool, but for me, a hardware surface has always been an integral part of my creative process...especially at the mix stage. I use the control surface as an instrument...to feel, play and interact with the music as I mix. For me, this is most enjoyable when I've got my hands on faders, switches and knobs.

As a DAW developer, Cockos should be able to sign up with Avid as a Eucon 'partner' and integrate those hooks into Reaper, if they so chose. The one downside to this would be that only Avid control surfaces would have access...Avid won't license the Eucon stuff to other surface manufacturers, unless something has recently changed in that regard. Or, Cockos could develop their own protocol and make that available to a wider audience.

The lack of control surface support won't kick me off the Reaper bandwagon, but I'd be thrilled if this got done at some point. Oh, and a pre-fader metering option please <g>.
Driftwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 04:14 AM   #18
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
Default

The highly integrated Avid Icon control surface integration is an example of what is possible. It's one source of good workflow ideas, and it was developed by Euphonix people as far as I am aware of.

EuCon is the only game in town anywhere near that useful, so it's the only frontier to go for aside from OSC, for which we have no motorized fader-driven control surfaces. OSC is tablets and buttons and it's only part of a good setup for mixers.

Like I said, it's only three guys and we have to wait our turn. They punching up the MIDI editor at the moment for multi-item/track editing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pattste
For instance, I recently suggested to Justin that he could pay the AATranslator team to develop an OMF/AAF plugin for Reaper and that this would help sell copies of Reaper, especially the $225 variety. His answer was that he wasn't considering it and AATranslator probably prefers to sell its own product anyway. I find an answer like that a bit perplexing, truth be told.
That is balanced out by the good support of the AATranslator folks. OMF and AAF are absolutely horrible formats, incompatible between hosts all over the fucking place. An OMF/AAF converter is a specialist tool for specialist needs. It's certainly worth its price if it does what you need.

If it cannot handle a particular OMF or AAF file, there is one compatiblity workflow.

Import AAF files in to Protools and convert any MXF files in the session to WAV(use copy and not referencing), and then convert that Protools session to what you need with AATranslator. Its Protools session conversion(up to v9 of Protools AFAIK) works very well for me. That's my failsafe.

What Reaper could have is a good Import dialogue, which let's users import particular tracks, map stuff to a specific timecode offset, import tracks without content, or import session content to tracks in the session mapping on a track-by-track basis and so on. Protools has developed a very decent capability in that regard.

Please don't forget to VOTE for EuCon if you're interested in using it. The link is in my sig.
__________________
Using Latch Preview (Video) - Faderport 16 setup for CSI 1.1 , CSI 3.10
Website
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom

Last edited by airon; 12-30-2012 at 04:20 AM.
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 06:29 AM   #19
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,183
Default

The quintessential control surface:


I've been thinking about consoles ever since I first built (remember tubes and point to point wiring ?) and used one, almost 50 years ago.

I've been thinking about virtual consoles for about 15 years.

I first coded some control suface interface software about 6 years ago.

I have been thinking intently about this problem since then.

As some may know I've been using a custom coded MCU/Extender/C4 combo for a while now.

That means I'm now hip to most of the pros and cons of this particular implementation.

The new Slate thing is cool, but too integrated for my taste, if anything breaks, you screwed.

I propose the opposite, MODULAR !


THE SOFTWARE

Protocol:
EXTERNALLY CONFIGURABLE (User Defined)
2 likely candidates are OSC and EuConn
Support for a mixture of protocols on an item-by-item basis represents the "Cadillac" solution.

Mapping:
EXTERNALLY CONFIGURABLE (User Defined)
Capability to easily changes maps when going from, say, mixing to post.
This is a necessary part of the Bridge Pattern, it is the first tower of the bridge, e.g. the translation from actual button pushes, etc.("Surface Speak") to the agreed-upon protocol, say, EuConn.

Software for DAWS:
An example are the Reaper DLL's of the c_surf variety.
This is a necessary part of the Bridge Pattern, it is the other tower of the bridge, e.g. the translation from agreed upon protocol to "Reaper Speak".


MULTI-TOUCH SCREEN

I've come to the conclusion that even with a custom mapped C4 the control surface is NOT the way to go for FX.

The mapping, even though highly customizable, just does not translate.

It tends to sit idle while I mouse around.

Due to the incredible diversity of the GUI's (hardware front panels really), one has to give up the tactile and go for the visual on this one.


CONTROL SURFACE HARDWARE

There is no consensus on touch versus tactile, so make BOTH available

Modern Advances:
OLED Buttons up to 1.5" / 128 x 128 / 65k color / 180 degree view will soon be in price range.

There must be a frame rail (available in different configurations) to securely hold the components and supply infrastructure support.

The notion is that although expensive, the components are high quality AND can be easily replaced in the field.

Those with less funds can start slow.





COMMUNICATION

Each modular unit has a CAT5 connection and is either PoE or has a separate power connector.


These terminate at the master unit on the frame rail which then itself connects to the DAW via CAT5.

Ideally the system is auto configurable to whatever extent that is possible.
E.g. You have 2 fader packs -- which one is first ?, just press anything on the first one at power up and it is defined as the first, configuration could then auto save and persist until changed.





COMPONENTS

Transport - yup
Jog/Scrub -- ditto

Fader Packs
Available in 4-8-16 sizes
Available as multi-touch or real faders -- your preference.

Meter Packs
Available in Fader Pack sized blocks -- 4-8-16

Channel Strip
Various Configurations
OLED buttons for tactile feedback or touch screen version -- your preference
Rotary encoders with OLED rings and button-top OLED screen inserts (bit of a pipe dream right now, but who knows ?)

Operation Matrix
OLED buttons are "ducks to water" on this one as they can be programmed to be self lableling



Anyone out there win a lottery recently ?, if so, let's go
__________________
To install you need the CSI Software and Support Files
For installation instructions and documentation see the Wiki
Donate -- via PayPal to waddingtongeoff@gmail.com

Last edited by Geoff Waddington; 12-30-2012 at 10:58 AM.
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2013, 12:58 AM   #20
Runaway
Human being with feelings
 
Runaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pattste View Post
For instance, I recently suggested to Justin that he could pay the AATranslator team to develop an OMF/AAF plugin for Reaper and that this would help sell copies of Reaper, especially the $225 variety. His answer was that he wasn't considering it and AATranslator probably prefers to sell its own product anyway. I find an answer like that a bit perplexing, truth be told.
Without wanting to hijack this interesting thread....

First, I appreciate your interest and suggestion.
However, this sort of thing is far more complex than it appears to those on the 'outside' (and I mean that in the nicest possible way).

OMF/AAF while nice to have is really not something that every Reaper user 'needs' so someone like Justin (IMO) doesn't need to be investing in this (either with $$$ or code). He knows that if a Reaperite needs this functionality then it is available (for a price) - user wins (apart from the extra expenditure), Justin wins (well he doesn't lose) and we win (we get the sale) - problem solved.

Now you know and I know that the ideal situation for the Reaper user is to have this functionality built in - read free (one of my 2 favourite four letter words starting with the letter 'f').
But we all know there is no such thing as 'free' - someone has to pay.
We can't give it away as this impacts our sales so that means that we have to charge Justin something and that has to be cheap enough to make it balance the fact that he doesn't 'really' need it and there is no way he can foretell how many extra 'sales' he would really get for this expenditure.

Don't get me wrong it's a great idea but the devil is always in the detail.

As a matter of fact we have a number of 'discussions' taking place around this very topic with several other daw producers.

The 'holy grail' is to have a plugin which reads/writes PT (either OMF, AAF and/or PTF) and every daw producer wants it and wants it for as little as possible.

We have actually looked at and have a number of very simple test plugins that one of our guys (Ron) has knocked up (yes even a Reaper one) to assist us in progressing those discussions.

Bottom line is that in 2013 our plan is to focus a portion of our limited resources on developing a series of import/export plugins for a daw or number of daws.

Which one(s) depends on effort vs return on investment (and a few other things).

Would we prefer that daw (or one of those daws) to be Reaper? Sure (we have a soft spot for Reaper) but this sort of thing has to work for all involved parties.

At the end of the day as long as a conversion solution exists then that is the main thing.

This post will self destruct in five seconds.........
__________________
AATranslator
Runaway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2013, 01:24 AM   #21
hopi
Human being with feelings
 
hopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Right Hear
Posts: 15,618
Default

one one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand...
__________________
...should be fixed for the next build... http://tinyurl.com/cr7o7yl
https://soundcloud.com/hopikiva
hopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2013, 04:53 AM   #22
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by planetnine
I know what you mean about separate CC rotary controllers, but this is why I put them around the touchscreen, you rotate the knob, but look at the plugin GUI, not another display; they're in such close proximity and the translucent ribbon graphics lead your eyes to what you're controlling.
I've considered your well thought out solution, but eventually came to the conclusion that confusion overload would not happen on, say, an La2a, but a LXP Native Reverb, yikes !! -- a lot of translucent ribbons to "brain-map".

This leads directly to the question of how many rotaries.

You need to have 8 on a side - 32 total to have a hope of controlling certain reverbs, complex compressors, and complex EQ's.

On the other hand, for the La2a, 32 is nothing but clutter.

Again it ends in a substandard tradeoff IMHO.

When you add the increased hardware / software cost to this method, it seemed to me there is a better tradeoff.

Just buy an extra video card and mulit-touch screen and make that the new home for plug ins.

Like many I use 2 screens side-by-side.

I would mount the new 3rd screen near the console to simulate a gear rack, perhaps on a swing-way arm, much as you suggest.

Now I would have all the money / time I did not spend on the rotary encoder carrier hardware (which would also, by the way, restrict you to a certain screen size).

Also more money / time would be made available by removing the software development cost for this component.

The hardware rotary solution also limits field replacability, compared to the generic, reasonably available multi-touch solution.

Don't get me wrong, I am a really old analoque dude, I TOTALLY GET the console / tape machine FEEL THING, and I LOVE IT !!

I even envisioned a little side business of selling rack mount controllers that were "face plates" for the more obvious (yeah I know, copyright, etc.) suspects (1176, etc.), that's how nuts I am for analogue

However, in this case, to me at least, the incredible diversity in those face plate GUI emulations forces one to the "virutual" end of the continuum.

I prefer to take those resources (time / money) and focus elsewhere.

Just my opinion obviously, and I still really like your thinking on this.
__________________
To install you need the CSI Software and Support Files
For installation instructions and documentation see the Wiki
Donate -- via PayPal to waddingtongeoff@gmail.com
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2013, 06:20 AM   #23
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airon
EuCon is the only game in town anywhere near that useful, so it's the only frontier to go for aside from OSC, for which we have no motorized fader-driven control surfaces. OSC is tablets and buttons and it's only part of a good setup for mixers.
Just been doing some research on OSC, does not seem to be limited to tablets and buttons.

In fact using TouchOSC on an iPad, someone has implemented touch-screen fader control in Logic using OSCULATOR and Logic's environment feature.

That said, there are currently no physical surfaces I know of that directly implement OSC.

And I still agree Reaper should have EuCon support.
__________________
To install you need the CSI Software and Support Files
For installation instructions and documentation see the Wiki
Donate -- via PayPal to waddingtongeoff@gmail.com
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2013, 07:11 AM   #24
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 Geoff Waddington View Post
[...] I even envisioned a little side business of selling rack mount controllers that were "face plates" for the more obvious (yeah I know, copyright, etc.) suspects (1176, etc.), that's how nuts I am for analogue [...]
Oh that's mostly nonsense (see e.g. here). I'll be glad to give you some better legal advice on such intellectual property issues. Even for free - that's how nuts I am for analogue.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2013, 07:30 AM   #25
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington View Post
I've considered your well thought out solution, but eventually came to the conclusion that confusion overload would not happen on, say, an La2a, but a LXP Native Reverb, yikes !! -- a lot of translucent ribbons to "brain-map".

This leads directly to the question of how many rotaries.

You need to have 8 on a side - 32 total to have a hope of controlling certain reverbs, complex compressors, and complex EQ's.

On the other hand, for the La2a, 32 is nothing but clutter.

Again it ends in a substandard tradeoff IMHO.
That's about the status quo right now.

System 5 consoles(with or without DSP) have eight touch-sensitive knobs with a 4-character LCD display each, each being a pressable knob(it's a button too), two square backlit buttons and LED rings with a value highlight. Their distinctive characteristic is the backlighting of the knobs themselves, which changes colour according to their functionality. I don't know whether or not they can do plugin mapping.

The Icon is very different. Lots of backlit buttons, two touch sensitive knobs per channel on the D-Command, eight on the D-Control which also has more buttons per channel and starts at 16 channels, not eight.

On the Icons you can specify a special fader zone that is at least four channels in size if you ctivate it. You can use that zone to show stuff like groups, but more importantly plugin maps. You can share those across systems, as operators can bring in their own settings without disrupting anyone elses setup.


If you ever see people mixing films in documentaries of making-ofs, they rarely look at the console when tuning panning or fader controls during playback. They look at the screen. That one of the reasons the Lexicon 960 and 480 are so popular on stages. They have physical remotes. Cedar sells the DNS 3000 (live denoiser with next-to-no latency) for around $5000, but it can also function as a remote for the $3000 RTAS plugin in a Protools session, and people use that all the time.


The problem will be to make that interactivity somewhere near as good(or better) with touch controls. Touch screen operation can simplify a lot of things, because it can centralize a lot of instant feedback that took multiple physical devices before.


If we're going to see how touch-screens pan out, it'll be the Slate Digital Raven that will show us just how well it'll work in peoples workflows.

I am not sure you guys can pull something like that off though. We're not talking bottom feeder class devices, but devices that push the envelope.



Quote:
The hardware rotary solution also limits field replacability, compared to the generic, reasonably available multi-touch solution.

Don't get me wrong, I am a really old analoque dude, I TOTALLY GET the console / tape machine FEEL THING, and I LOVE IT !!

I even envisioned a little side business of selling rack mount controllers that were "face plates" for the more obvious (yeah I know, copyright, etc.) suspects (1176, etc.), that's how nuts I am for analogue

However, in this case, to me at least, the incredible diversity in those face plate GUI emulations forces one to the "virutual" end of the continuum.

I prefer to take those resources (time / money) and focus elsewhere.

Just my opinion obviously, and I still really like your thinking on this.
You'd have to be part of the Slate, Euphonix or Harrison group to disucss and test things like this. Or Presonus, or Behringer(with their Midas folks).

How much of their work has been studied, so one can build on it when possible ?


The Euphonix 8-channel 8-knob backlit module costs around 15-18k. Not gonna happen here.

The Mackie iPad live mixer is an interesting concept, but requires quite a bit of serious engineering. Not really reasable here, but aha!!!

The Behringer X32 has an OSC implementation. I didn't fucking know that either.
http://www.behringer.com/EN/products/X32.aspx
http://www.behringer.com/assets/X32_...e_Protocol.pdf

Just remains to be studied how useful that can be in Reaper. What the console can do on its own, AND with Reaper(he's using it) is shown in a nice way here:



My current approach would be to use an iPad or Android tablet with an OSC controller application, in conjunction an Artist Mix EuCon controller.

For that to happen, I'd have to have the necessary work to justify the expense as always, EuCon support in Reaper, the means of designing my own OSC controll pages based on something prebuilt by the generous OSC users here and an automation/vca/control surface track-display method implementation that makes Reaper competitive for my kind of work which it isn't as of 01.01.2013.

What kind of money would it take you to build something to add to significantly or rival that ?
__________________
Using Latch Preview (Video) - Faderport 16 setup for CSI 1.1 , CSI 3.10
Website
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom

Last edited by airon; 01-01-2013 at 08:01 AM.
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 08:37 PM   #26
daexpert
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 562
Default

Yeah, it'd be cool to use a nice big avid console with reaper, but for now, it just ain't happening.
daexpert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 11:23 AM   #27
rictheobscene
Human being with feelings
 
rictheobscene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right between the resonance and the cutoff knob
Posts: 1,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by digiman View Post
Reaper is in serious need of support for HUI and EUCON protocols. Reaper has grown so much in positive directions that I have almost completely dropped Protools in favor. HOWEVER, I say almost, because the lack of support for digital surface consoles for mixing and rapid workflow needed by professionals that cannot be forced to mouse mix has to be addressed!
OK mate, you get a hold of the protocol SDK's and you and all of your pro buddies work through your massive pro channels to insure that we get the support we need from them. Because I am going to be honest with you, the manufacturers are a bunch of cock suckers when it comes to this. They want to protect their precious market share and do it by creating proprietary shit and only sharing it with people they deem as 'professional' enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digiman View Post
I have read threads where such things are discussed on and off, a reply was finally received from Avid, etc.. but we as users need to keep beating this drum until it becomes reality.
You're beating the right drum in front of the wrong audience. Do you really think Justin and co. wouldn't have had this done already if Avid / Mackie were open about this. You need to be beating down their door and telling them to give the Reaper guys or one of the many awesome independent developers who make add-ons for Reaper the support they need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digiman View Post
I have shown reaper to many of my friends using Protools, Logic, etc.. and I have impressed them all, until....we discuss desk and control surface compatibility, They then think Reaper is a toy and not worth their time.
I don't give a fuck what they think. If they are so closed-minded and snobbish that they write off an entire application as a toy over something so silly, then it's their loss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digiman View Post
Please let's get this put to bed and give Reaper the chance to be used by pros and others in rapid pipeline production.
There is nothing stopping the pros from using it except their own lack of creativity. It's their choice whether they want to use Reaper or another package; more power to them either way. But, don't be laying that shit at Reaper's door; it's on them. If someone really, really wants to use Reaper, they are going to make it work.

I know all the pros like to get together and stroke each other's ego, have a circle jerk, etc. Hey, whatever works for you. But, when you use the word 'rapid pipeline production' in relation to any form of art, in my mind that puts you in the same category as Perez Hilton.

Do you think that DaVinci whined to someone that his paintbrush didn't have rapid pipeline production capabilities or that it didn't mesh with his workflow when he was painting the Mona Lisa? Music is art, and when you treat it like you're making mass produced widgets, then you destroy the quality. Then again, I suppose that is what makes someone a 'pro'.
__________________
R(†)O
http://www.therazorwireballet.com
TAL32.
rictheobscene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 11:37 AM   #28
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rictheobscene
Do you really think Justin and co. wouldn't have had this done already if Avid / Mackie were open about this. You need to be beating down their door and telling them to give the Reaper guys or one of the many awesome independent developers who make add-ons for Reaper the support they need
No need to be beating down any doors, as I stated a few posts up from here:

Quote:
The EuCon project is actually already underway
__________________
To install you need the CSI Software and Support Files
For installation instructions and documentation see the Wiki
Donate -- via PayPal to waddingtongeoff@gmail.com
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 02:52 PM   #29
Nick Morris
Human being with feelings
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rictheobscene View Post
OK mate, you get a hold of the protocol SDK's and you and all of your pro buddies work through your massive pro channels to insure that we get the support we need from them. Because I am going to be honest with you, the manufacturers are a bunch of cock suckers when it comes to this. They want to protect their precious market share and do it by creating proprietary shit and only sharing it with people they deem as 'professional' enough.



You're beating the right drum in front of the wrong audience. Do you really think Justin and co. wouldn't have had this done already if Avid / Mackie were open about this. You need to be beating down their door and telling them to give the Reaper guys or one of the many awesome independent developers who make add-ons for Reaper the support they need.



I don't give a fuck what they think. If they are so closed-minded and snobbish that they write off an entire application as a toy over something so silly, then it's their loss.



There is nothing stopping the pros from using it except their own lack of creativity. It's their choice whether they want to use Reaper or another package; more power to them either way. But, don't be laying that shit at Reaper's door; it's on them. If someone really, really wants to use Reaper, they are going to make it work.

I know all the pros like to get together and stroke each other's ego, have a circle jerk, etc. Hey, whatever works for you. But, when you use the word 'rapid pipeline production' in relation to any form of art, in my mind that puts you in the same category as Perez Hilton.

Do you think that DaVinci whined to someone that his paintbrush didn't have rapid pipeline production capabilities or that it didn't mesh with his workflow when he was painting the Mona Lisa? Music is art, and when you treat it like you're making mass produced widgets, then you destroy the quality. Then again, I suppose that is what makes someone a 'pro'.
Its clear that you don't have the same needs as others in regards to control surfaces. As its been stated by others, Reapers lack of support DOES turn people off. There may very well be clever workarounds for this shortcoming, but I can tell you from experience( I have tried to get our post room to use Reaper) that people value a solid workflow integration very highly and stepping backwards for anything less than total and complete intuitive integration is not welcome. We have this solution in pro tools and their control surfaces. I for one like using Reaper much more and try to use it whenever possible. Eucon would help bridge this large gap by giving more people the option of using Reaper instead of having to use pro tools merely for control surface workflow integration.

Much of the work that is done on the control surfaces that use Eucon is not necessarily music. Not everything has to be art.
Nick Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 03:05 PM   #30
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
Default

I do wonder how EuCon actually works. From what I've been able to tell it may be :

Application <-> EuCon Server <-> Hardware

Application sends status updates and receives controller data and keyboard shortcuts from the server.

The server updates all the hardware displays, moves the faders and interprets the controller information for the current target application. The units are probably mostly completely dumb, with the server doing all the work, at least on the Mix unit. All the "Control" unit configuration seems to happen on the server application, AFAIK.

I am exceptionally curious whether or not people can create custom layouts for parameteres, of a track for example. I really love the custom plugin maps for the Avid Icon D-Command/Control units. Don't know whether that's possible with EuCon. There, you can choose a plugin and have the parameters appear on the 'custom fader' area of your console that you've designated. That custom area is used for VCAs, splits, spills and quite a bit more. The Artist Mix unit only has 8 faders, but that would be something fierce if I could dedicate four or eight fader strips of a two-unit setup to such a custom job.

For example, I might want to keep a custom group that has no interdependant links going on, but only exists so I can access and display this group in my custom area, such as the bus faders of my signal groups, or the drums and so on. Or VCAs(one day) are shown and I say "show me the members of that VCA fader". All that is called a group spill.

With proper feedback (like a well designed OSC surface actually), EuCon might be the most wicked thing for mixing folks, and editors to boot.

Xmas is early this year.
__________________
Using Latch Preview (Video) - Faderport 16 setup for CSI 1.1 , CSI 3.10
Website
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom

Last edited by airon; 04-27-2013 at 03:12 PM.
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 03:26 PM   #31
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airon
I do wonder how EuCon actually works
You may have run into this in your travels, it is a very good source.

http://www.avid.com/static//resource...aper_oct06.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by airon
I am exceptionally curious whether or not people can create custom layouts for parameteres, of a track for example. I really love the custom plugin maps for the Avid Icon D-Command/Control units. Don't know whether that's possible with EuCon. There, you can choose a plugin and have the parameters appear on the 'custom fader' area of your console that you've designated
Custom plugin maps are supported.
__________________
To install you need the CSI Software and Support Files
For installation instructions and documentation see the Wiki
Donate -- via PayPal to waddingtongeoff@gmail.com
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 03:31 PM   #32
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Morris
currently mac
Cool, would you be interested in some testing when the Mac version is ready for beta ?

Didn't imagine a System 5 testbed would be in the cards
__________________
To install you need the CSI Software and Support Files
For installation instructions and documentation see the Wiki
Donate -- via PayPal to waddingtongeoff@gmail.com
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 05:48 PM   #33
Driftwood
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Maine
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airon View Post
I do wonder how EuCon actually works. From what I've been able to tell it may be :

Application <-> EuCon Server <-> Hardware

Application sends status updates and receives controller data and keyboard shortcuts from the server.

The server updates all the hardware displays, moves the faders and interprets the controller information for the current target application. The units are probably mostly completely dumb, with the server doing all the work, at least on the Mix unit. All the "Control" unit configuration seems to happen on the server application, AFAIK.

I am exceptionally curious whether or not people can create custom layouts for parameteres, of a track for example. I really love the custom plugin maps for the Avid Icon D-Command/Control units. Don't know whether that's possible with EuCon. There, you can choose a plugin and have the parameters appear on the 'custom fader' area of your console that you've designated. That custom area is used for VCAs, splits, spills and quite a bit more. The Artist Mix unit only has 8 faders, but that would be something fierce if I could dedicate four or eight fader strips of a two-unit setup to such a custom job.

For example, I might want to keep a custom group that has no interdependant links going on, but only exists so I can access and display this group in my custom area, such as the bus faders of my signal groups, or the drums and so on. Or VCAs(one day) are shown and I say "show me the members of that VCA fader". All that is called a group spill.

With proper feedback (like a well designed OSC surface actually), EuCon might be the most wicked thing for mixing folks, and editors to boot.

Xmas is early this year.
I'd bet that we'll see these features (custom fader groups, PI mapping, etc.) rolled into EuCon. Avid is likely to release new surfaces in the not too distant future, and it seems pretty clear that EuCon is the way forward. Now, if we could get VCA faders in Reaper...
Driftwood 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 06:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.