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.
It's only rotary controls I envisaged being mapped like this, the whole point of arraying them around a touch-screen is to move faders and switches directly with the finger, and so some really intuitive "hands-on" mapping methodogy could be worked out and the resultant memorised. If it still feels "wrong", then possibly the GUI steps are not quite right, or some scaling needs to be applied to the rotary or similar.
There would be other ergonomic considerations, like software logistics for linking the rotaries to parameters and remembering how it's operated for that particular plug and particular instance, single-button recalling of the plugin GUI into the screen, returning it and suchlike that I haven't a clue how to start or if it would be possible.
Heh, once I thought of it I couldn't stop wondering
To get back to the HUI/EuCon stuff for a moment...
HUI (the product) was developed jointly by Mackie and Digidesign. Mackie did the hardware side of things and Digi developed the protocol. Mackie retained ownership of the protocol, however, and freely made it available to anyone who wanted it. The reasons that HUI control is available on so many h/w consoles/dedicated surfaces is a) it was readily available and b) it provided access for console/control surface manufacturers that wanted to sell their products to PT users. The HUI protocol, however, is long in the tooth and has a number of shortcomings. I, for one, would prefer something else for Reaper.
EuCon was developed by Euphonix. Prior to the company being sold to Avid, Euphonix was active in trying to get folks interested in becoming EuCon developers. I don't believe that the protocol was implemented by any other console/control surface company though. Again, for most, if EuCon couldn't be used to talk to PT systems, then what was the point? Following the Avid purchase, EuCon became available (upon Avid approval, of course <g>) to those NOT in the control surface business. This is a bummer, but the reasons are fairly obvious, and make some biz sense. The protocol is, however, available to a company like Cockos. At least, that's my understanding unless something has recently changed.
I would certainly cast my vote for a Reaper/EuCon relationship. More interesting though, would be for the developers to do this work themselves, and then make the protocol widely available. And yes, as I've recently learned, there are only a few gents coding Reaper and this would be a crap-load of work, but just sayin'. I don't know what the current market size of Reaper is, but I have a feeling it might be fairly healthy and expanding daily. I'd be willing to bet that current surface manufacturers would welcome the opportunity to jump on board, and I'd also bet that we'd see some interesting new products come to light. This would certainly benefit a bunch of folks (like me) who want hardware control over Reaper.
About a 100 years ago, I was the prod. mgr. for HUI, ProControl and Control|24 at Digidesign.
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.........
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
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
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
No of course OSC is not limited to tablets and buttons. Airon is just talking down OSC a bit because he's so desparate for EuCon support, I guess.
I like Driftwood's suggestion. We're not entirely dependant on the Cockos devs, though. If we'd get support for touch sensitivity for other parameters than track volume and pan (which seems quite easy to add), it seems we'd have everything we need for a OSC <--> EuCon bridge on REAPER's end, I guess. The rest seems only a matter of reverse engineering the EuCon protocol.
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington
[...] 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.
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!!!
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 ?
Not really up with these things, but didn't the Control Universal supposedly supercede HUI ages ago?
I was under the impression that the MCU protocols and facilities built and improved upon on the earlier HUI standard?
There is a lot of overlap, I'm not familiar with all the differences, but there are quite a few differences as well.
The MCU "speaks" HUI if you reboot and configure it that way.
I think it's more that HUI became somewhat of a standard for a while, and that is, after all, what this thread is all about, support for "standard-du-jour" which today is EuCon and OSC.
__________________
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
One reason I never considered the MCU's is because they don't have a meter bridge option afaik. The best case for a control surface is to have it (as closely as possible I suppose) emulate a real desk and without metering that can get pretty confusing on larger projects.
When I use HUI on my d8b I have metering on every channel. Is there a MCU capable control surface with actual meters on it?
One reason I never considered the MCU's is because they don't have a meter bridge option afaik. The best case for a control surface is to have it (as closely as possible I suppose) emulate a real desk and without metering that can get pretty confusing on larger projects.
When I use HUI on my d8b I have metering on every channel. Is there a MCU capable control surface with actual meters on it?
Just checked the specs, they are very similar with the HUI additionally allowing for left-right indication.
Each allows just 12 discrete levels for VU, is that what you have on the d8b ?
Yeah, the MCU firmware routes the messsages to the lower row of the LCD display, it sucks IMHO, so I disabled it and coded things like pan position ( <10L, <C>, 99R>, that sort of thing), fader db (-3.4db) etc. to occupy that space.
I agree, parallax is your enemy on large projects, proper meter bridges are almost essential.
__________________
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
Not sure how many LED steps there are on the d8b meters. The activity display of the metering is handy though, to track signals across the current bank of 8 without having to continually read the channel text to see what channel is what before moving a fader.
It's pretty easy to map 24 daw channels across the d8b with midi mapping with fader, pan, mute record enable and solo and all that, but without channel metering it's not very friendly in practice, so I use the HUI mode with banks of 8.
The interesting thing about HUI is that - depending on the driver - it kinda allows different functionality. In Cubase I always used the Yamaha DM2k HUI driver which had some better control over some things. In something like Cubase, the (for example) EQ bands show up right on the d8b display with the HUI driver. You can even load plugs but it's not very friendly, scrolling through a list of plugs.
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
[...] without channel metering it's not very friendly in practice [...]
I bet you could build a pretty fancy metering bridge yourself for a few hundred bucks. I'm not interested much in VU meters myself, but it was quite easy to get this going using the LED rings on a BCR-2000. Stuff like the VMeter could be used as well, plenty of LED steps.
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.
This is a PERFECT illustration of the need for tactile feedback, and the reason why tactile control surfaces are NECESSARY and must exist , at least for certain jobs (e.g. film).
For the rest of us, it's all about conveience and workflow, allowing our brain some space for the more creative endeavours of behind-the-console life.
__________________
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
And what about that slate raven mtx? Is it gonna support reaper?? Or is reaper gonna support raven? I'm not sure who's doing the compability job here..
To get back to the HUI/EuCon stuff for a moment...
HUI (the product) was developed jointly by Mackie and Digidesign. Mackie did the hardware side of things and Digi developed the protocol. Mackie retained ownership of the protocol, however, and freely made it available to anyone who wanted it. The reasons that HUI control is available on so many h/w consoles/dedicated surfaces is a) it was readily available and b) it provided access for console/control surface manufacturers that wanted to sell their products to PT users. The HUI protocol, however, is long in the tooth and has a number of shortcomings. I, for one, would prefer something else for Reaper.
EuCon was developed by Euphonix. Prior to the company being sold to Avid, Euphonix was active in trying to get folks interested in becoming EuCon developers. I don't believe that the protocol was implemented by any other console/control surface company though. Again, for most, if EuCon couldn't be used to talk to PT systems, then what was the point? Following the Avid purchase, EuCon became available (upon Avid approval, of course <g>) to those NOT in the control surface business. This is a bummer, but the reasons are fairly obvious, and make some biz sense. The protocol is, however, available to a company like Cockos. At least, that's my understanding unless something has recently changed.
I would certainly cast my vote for a Reaper/EuCon relationship. More interesting though, would be for the developers to do this work themselves, and then make the protocol widely available. And yes, as I've recently learned, there are only a few gents coding Reaper and this would be a crap-load of work, but just sayin'. I don't know what the current market size of Reaper is, but I have a feeling it might be fairly healthy and expanding daily. I'd be willing to bet that current surface manufacturers would welcome the opportunity to jump on board, and I'd also bet that we'd see some interesting new products come to light. This would certainly benefit a bunch of folks (like me) who want hardware control over Reaper.
About a 100 years ago, I was the prod. mgr. for HUI, ProControl and Control|24 at Digidesign.
Happy New Year to all!
Seems like the have the SDK, that was the last word around the campfire. Who knows how much work it is for these guys, and what they're chewing through. They keep anything they're doing to themselves pretty much.
Just to give the state of play on this, we do indeed have the eucon API, but we haven't done anything with it so far. I would not expect to see any movement on this for at least a couple of months.
Just to give the state of play on this, we do indeed have the eucon API, but we haven't done anything with it so far. I would not expect to see any movement on this for at least a couple of months
Please check your PM's.
__________________
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
Just to give the state of play on this, we do indeed have the eucon API, but we haven't done anything with it so far. I would not expect to see any movement on this for at least a couple of months.
Well, this is some interesting news. I'll certainly be anxious to see how this plays out.
Development is focused on two areas for a few more days, or weeks. Those areas are the midi editor and the new stretch markers.
But it's on the agenda, and it's in the issue tracker. Add your vote to the issue tracker request (see link below) or your comment to the discussion thread for it(link in issue request post).
Development is focused on two areas for a few more days, or weeks. Those areas are the midi editor and the new stretch markers.
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
__________________
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
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
Here is what I hope should be an interesting story.
Protools 11 still can't configure its keyboard input, or use any midi (never mind OSC) source to control functions of the application.
Also, the entire useful automation features(read: practical for real world production use, which I guess is mostly professional work) are only in Protools 11 HD, though even with Protools 10 and 9, it's behind a $2000 upgrade option. Now that price has increased to include a mandatory Avid HD hardware purchase, lucky Ebay deals notwithstanding.
For this reason, and because the delivery requirements did not include Protools sessions, I'm not editing and mixing a show in Reaper. They only ask for specific mixdowns and stems.
What does this have to do with EuCon ?
EuCon and Protools (non-HD) would have achieved absolutely FUCK ALL for me. In fact the feature set of Protools(non-HD have to mention that) is so ridiculously crippled for my needs, that getting something usable going would cost me $5000 for the Avid hardware or $2400 for the CPTK upgrade option, if it's still there, and the Protools 9->10 upgrade. And even THEN without a control surface like the Artist Mix or Control, or an Icon D-Command, I don't get control surface/button/fuck-all access to the automation functions I need.
I spent an afternoon building a few track templates with midi device configs that work only when the track is selected. I wrote a clean automation pass and saved it away. All of a sudden I have functionality approaching that of a goddam Icon D-Control console, though that does have nice feedback LCDs and touch-sensitive knobs.
With the "Write to time selection" commands and the likes, I can at least write stuff faster than realtime for a mix, and use Touch mode for volume rides. It's decent. In Protools(non-HD) I've got fuck all. It's like a 70s console, and nobody has that kind of time any more.
The Preview mode of Protools and the request on modern automation recording(see link below) has its advantages, but vanilla Protools all those little advantages it has, like the time grid or easier access to envelopes or the quick setup of parameters for automation(Reaper's too basic and time wasting at that), it doesn't add up to real time savings.
Without EuCon control surfaces or an Icon, Protools is a usability nightmare for me. And even then the price tag is rather high to get something that's better, or even just on par.
So yeah, I hope Eucon makes it in to Reaper, because I'd rather use any control surface in Reaper. It's going places, and it doesn't take $5000 to get there.
My setup right now:
Novation Dicer (2 x 5 buttons x 6 layers), Novation SL61(using 4 endless knobs for sends, 8 absolute knobs for plugin parameter control, and the sliders for a denoiser, all without Automap), Mackie Universal Control with Alps fadercaps($1 each) for volume control. I get stuff going very quickly. I might get an Ipad with Lemur or something similar in the future to get some quicker control and navigation set up.
Vote for the automation request below and the EuCon request if you haven't already. And point out flaws in the requests if you find some.
In fact the feature set of Protools(non-HD have to mention that) is so ridiculously crippled for my needs...,
Yes. I would have had no real problem buying back into PT if the new engine's performance was what some are claiming, and it ran ok on my current system. But after investigating the relative feature divisions, no way.
It's ridiculous the way they partition things to HD only. Offline stems? Fuggitaboutit. HD only. They still don't seem to get it... why they're losing money. It's not because they don't have something to offer, it's because they're playing directly to a dwindling audience instead of the rapidly expanding audience. They still appear to be rather clueless about the larger market.
No way in hell would I buy a PT Native card which is technically inferior to my rather old MOTU PCIe-424 card, just to have a license to use software that's overpriced for what I actually need.
PT11 (HD) looks rather good. AVID's management OTOH is insane.
It is a shame since the Eucon integration is very good indeed, and they've improved it for v11 as well (EuCon software v3.0 apparently).
So now I'm depending on Cockos to get EuCon done and automation recording functioning better, maybe even do the modern automation request. If you don't have all the tools you need, you won't be able to do your best work in the least amount of time.
I simply do not have the $20000+ for a Icon D-Command(16 faders, since 8 is really not enough to make that thing sing all the way).
Or the $5000 for an HD Native card + Omni interface combo. It's excellent hardware, but I don't actually need it.
Nick - your picture-thingy looks like it might be a CS2000. How's that gonna work, or do you have another Avid/Euphonix controller?
Good eye! the analog room has a Euphonix CS2000 with 3000 tower/computer. The post has a Euphonix sys 5mc. the post room is excited for Reaper w/Eucon obviously.
The post has a Euphonix sys 5mc. the post room is excited for Reaper w/Eucon obviously
Does the post room:
have a PC based system -- preferably Win 7 64 bit ?
the interest to do some beta testing ?
the down time to do so ?
the fortitude, this thing has been known to BSOD occasionally
__________________
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
Good eye! the analog room has a Euphonix CS2000 with 3000 tower/computer. The post has a Euphonix sys 5mc. the post room is excited for Reaper w/Eucon obviously.
5mc with Reaper? If it all works well, that's gonna be mighty cool!
Location: Right between the resonance and the cutoff knob
Posts: 1,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by digiman
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
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
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
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'.
Linear Mode
