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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-28-2012, 08:08 PM   #1
digiman
Mortal
 
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
Mortal
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 3,542
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
Mortal
 
hopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Right Hear
Posts: 8,743
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?
__________________
You don't have to agree with me, but it will go a lot easier on you if you do http://tinyurl.com/cr7o7yl
hopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 01:16 AM   #4
EricM
Mortal
 
EricM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
Posts: 3,547
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 01:46 AM   #5
Banned
Mortal
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 3,542
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
Mortal
 
EricM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
Posts: 3,547
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 02:58 AM   #7
Banned
Mortal
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 3,542
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricM View Post
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.
Agreed as well. But you can take that that in several different ways: you can simply conform to the standard, but you can also try to use an adapter to an open, non-proprietary protocol. And of course the perspective is different for Cockos as producers of REAPER, for happy REAPER users, for happy EuCon / HUI control surface users wondering about other DAWs, and the producers of such controllers.

In this case, from my perspective, I'm more interested in - for example - an EuCon <--> OSC bridge, than in having native EuCon support. That would increase the chance of me buying a EuCon controller, anyway.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 03:39 AM   #8
Geoff Waddington
Mortal
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,154
Default

Have a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjJ8e4-p_y4

IMHO this represents excellent integration with a control surface, of course, I took the stock implementation supplied in the Reaper SDK and added to it my concept of workflow, so I'm somewhat biased

Seriously though, as Banned said, if you have the cash and can procure the Eucon SDK (software development kit), give me a holla', I'm ready to go.

Just to prevent sticker shock, the going rate for this type of programming is at least $75 / hour, we're looking at probably a minimum of 100 hours, most likely a LOT more, so $7500 at least, and going up from there.

Still interested ?

Thought not !!

This comes up time after time after time from the vocal few like you (and me) and the result is always the same, there just aren't enough of us to support the development costs.

I've professionally developed control surface support for a number of DAWs for the manufacturer of a control surface that I'm positive 99% of you are familiar with and contrary to what some may think it actually goes like this:

Controller manufacturer wants to sell units.

They contact as many DAW manufacturers as they can and those who will play ball (collaborate) get support.

It is NOT the DAW manufacturer that typically pays the freight, it's the controller manufacturer.
__________________
Groove is the subtle control of chaos-- EuCon plugin can be found here http://stash.reaper.fm/tag/Extension-Plug-ins
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 07:48 AM   #9
digiman
Mortal
 
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   #10
Banned
Mortal
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 3,542
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   #11
Geoff Waddington
Mortal
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,154
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.
__________________
Groove is the subtle control of chaos-- EuCon plugin can be found here http://stash.reaper.fm/tag/Extension-Plug-ins

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   #12
Guido
Mortal
 
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   #13
semiquaver
Mortal
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,471
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   #14
hopi
Mortal
 
hopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Right Hear
Posts: 8,743
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]
__________________
You don't have to agree with me, but it will go a lot easier on you if you do http://tinyurl.com/cr7o7yl
hopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 02:43 PM   #15
airon
Mortal
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 7,769
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.


airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 07:35 PM   #16
pattste
Mortal
 
pattste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 665
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 - i7-3630QM 2.4GHz - 8Gb RAM - 256Gb SSD - RME Babyface - Eve Audio SC204 - Windows 8.1 - Reaper 4.61 (x64) Commercial License.
pattste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 08:10 PM   #17
Lawrence
Mortal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,504
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
__________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 08:37 PM   #18
daexpert
Mortal
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 504
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 12-29-2012, 09:45 PM   #19
Driftwood
Mortal
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Maine
Posts: 15
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   #20
airon
Mortal
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 7,769
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.

Last edited by airon; 12-30-2012 at 04:20 AM.
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 06:29 AM   #21
Geoff Waddington
Mortal
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,154
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
__________________
Groove is the subtle control of chaos-- EuCon plugin can be found here http://stash.reaper.fm/tag/Extension-Plug-ins

Last edited by Geoff Waddington; 12-30-2012 at 10:58 AM.
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 06:53 AM   #22
planetnine
Mortal
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 4,427
Default

I've got to agree with you on the touchscreen for plugs direction, Geoff.

I've been dreaming about a slant-mount screen surrounded by low profile rotary controllers, a few top, bottom, left, right. You drag the plug onto that screen and prod or drag-connect the parameters to any rotaries you want -theyre connected by translucent coloured ribbons to their controls -you just pull up the plug and control-away after that, touch-screen or rotary...

Quote:
Anyone out there got win a lottery recently, if so, let's go
I'll let you know


>
__________________
Nathan, Lincoln, UK.

dB marks on MCP faders FR: http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?issueid=3059
planetnine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 08:16 AM   #23
ivansc
Mortal
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere between one and two
Posts: 6,986
Default

Just to clarify here, Reaper actually does handle control surfaces pretty well, just not eucon at present.

HUI? I don't know, as I have never used one, but the Mackie control command set is as well supported in Reaper as in other DAWs and as far as I know nobody has any problems with the Akai series or the Novation stuff. (Apart from Automap being a pretty sucky application in the first place up to version 3, when I gave up) The Behringers work just fine, as do the Korg series.

I know because I either still have and use or HAVE had and used every one of these over the years.

So regarding Eucon support the OP is correct.

But HUI??? In this day and age?

Last edited by ivansc; 01-01-2013 at 08:00 AM.
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 09:00 AM   #24
Kainer
Mortal
 
Kainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cologne/Bangkok
Posts: 1,257
Default

I know only one guy ever used OSC (making music in his living room).

But I know at least 10 people using EUCON every day (at home and in the studio).
__________________
Free Plugins, Free Samples, Free Promotion.... and if you need: mixing, music videos and artist/band webpages.
http://www.soundfactorywomb.com
Kainer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 10:34 AM   #25
semiquaver
Mortal
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,471
Default

OSC is not yet mature but will probably end up replacing MIDI and EuConn both in time.

There are a some OSC users in schools and universities doing experimental stuff.

and there are a lot of hobbyists using it for dj-ing and goofing around.

true that for pro audio and video work it is not currently useful

but that should change I hope
semiquaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 11:34 AM   #26
Lawrence
Mortal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivansc View Post
But HUI??? In this day and age?
Everyone is still doing HUI for compatibility. All the Yammy consoles are also HUI I think, even the new "Nuage" thing has an HUI layer.

HUI is probably one of the most widely used protocols ever so most control surfaces provide an HUI layer since not every software will have Eucon or MCU support. HUI can also support channel metering, not sure if MCU or OSC does or not.

But if you want your control surface to be compatible with just about anything, provide an HUI layer.
__________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 12:30 PM   #27
semiquaver
Mortal
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,471
Default

@planetNine - i love that idea - exactly right.

... possible? Wadd?
semiquaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 12:52 PM   #28
Geoff Waddington
Mortal
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by planetnine
I've been dreaming about a slant-mount screen surrounded by low profile rotary controllers, a few top, bottom, left, right. You drag the plug onto that screen and prod or drag-connect the parameters to any rotaries you want -theyre connected by translucent coloured ribbons to their controls -you just pull up the plug and control-away after that, touch-screen or rotary...
Quote:
Originally Posted by semiquaver
@planetNine - i love that idea - exactly right.

... possible? Wadd?
Might be possible, but, based on my experience with the C4, I think rotaries would not translate, just like they don't translate on the C4.

You would need some special hardware and software to pull that off, adding cost.

Due to the incredible diversity of plug in GUI's, I'd rather just get a multi-touch screen and an extra video card for fairly cheap for the plug ins and spend my money on the other items mentioned in my previous post.
__________________
Groove is the subtle control of chaos-- EuCon plugin can be found here http://stash.reaper.fm/tag/Extension-Plug-ins
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 01:38 PM   #29
semiquaver
Mortal
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,471
Default

I do think that a physical OSC controller might find a market - thinking universities and "controllerism" types - what do you think it would cost to prototype/produce such a thing?
semiquaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 11:47 PM   #30
robo
Mortal
 
robo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On A Mountain Top
Posts: 340
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by semiquaver View Post
I do think that a physical OSC controller might find a market - thinking universities and "controllerism" types - what do you think it would cost to prototype/produce such a thing?
Get an Arduino and find out. The new ones can even run a generic HID MIDI firmware. There are OSC libs too.

Figure out your interface needs ala moving faders, dumb faders, capacitive strips, resistive strips, encoders vs. pots, number of programmable buttons, transport, LCD strips, a box to hold it all... Add that up and it's cheaper to get a Behringer BCF2000.

However if you are into tinkering then give yourself $500 and go for it! There's a lot more microcontrolers than Arduino, and there's a lot more Arduinos than Arduino!

Try sparkfun or adafruit.

You know a lot of things can be DIY'd to save more money like capacitors, resistors with resistive paint... FSRs can be made with some paper, foil, tape and a pencil or even conductive fabric.

There's no reason you have to buy Penny & Giles motor faders.
robo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 05:57 AM   #31
airon
Mortal
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 7,769
Default

That would be at least the second time a group here would try that. And MIDI controllers are off the table, remember that.


For folks who need EuCon: Vote.

Continue to remind Cockos in threads nicely. Nicely is the key. Nobody truly wants to help the whiny kid if it becomes too annoying.
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 06:55 AM   #32
planetnine
Mortal
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 4,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington View Post
Might be possible, but, based on my experience with the C4, I think rotaries would not translate, just like they don't translate on the C4.

You would need some special hardware and software to pull that off, adding cost....

When you say "would not translate", are you saying they are too coarse?

I was thinking of this layout so that LED collars wouldn't be needed and everything would be clear as to it's control function.

You obviously have experience here, what did you feel wasn't working Geoff?


>
__________________
Nathan, Lincoln, UK.

dB marks on MCP faders FR: http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?issueid=3059
planetnine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 07:30 AM   #33
Geoff Waddington
Mortal
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airon
For folks who need EuCon: Vote.
Agree wholeheartedly !!

Airon, just had a look at a later EuCon document and it looks like they are forcing it towards a more Euphonix hardware only philosophy, subtle, but definitely there, wondering if Avid's influence is at play?

Apparently it's now verbotten (admittedly internet hearsay) to use the SDK for surface development, it's only intended use now is to support integrating EuCon controllers (effectively Avid only per point above) into DAWS.

That all said this still is a very viable option for those who have Avid / Euphonix hardware and I believe it would help Reaper's "serious professional image" to include support for EuCon controllers.
__________________
Groove is the subtle control of chaos-- EuCon plugin can be found here http://stash.reaper.fm/tag/Extension-Plug-ins
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 07:53 AM   #34
Lawrence
Mortal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,504
Default

Wasn't that always the case with Eucon or did Euphonix allow other manufacturers to build competing control surfaces with their protocol as the basis?

No offense to anyone but people seem to see Avid conspiracies under every rock. The fact of the matter is that they are largely a hardware company who now owns Euphonix. It wouldn't make much sense (imo, mmv) for them to allow competitors to build hardware control surfaces using Eucon that would directly compete with their own products. Unless those other products also meant more sales of their software, like their video software.

It's their intellectual property now, and they paid a pretty penny for it. From a business perspective, the idea that they should just allow anyone (Yamaha?) to build a Eucon capable control surface is (imo) maybe a little nuts... unless they charged a really, really hefty licensing fee.
__________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato

Last edited by Lawrence; 12-31-2012 at 08:07 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 08:01 AM   #35
Geoff Waddington
Mortal
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by planetnine
When you say "would not translate", are you saying they are too coarse?

I was thinking of this layout so that LED collars wouldn't be needed and everything would be clear as to it's control function.

You obviously have experience here, what did you feel wasn't working Geoff?
Take a look at this video around 3:30, there are some shots of UAD-2 Manley Massive Passive / C4 integration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjJ8e4-p_y4

This is about the best map I got in that the "4 and 4" left-right layout mapped very well to the 8 rotaries on the C4 and the push-top switches mapped beautifully for the Cut/Off/Boost and Shelf/Bell functions.

Still it was lacking from a intuitive feel perspective.

I've come to the conclusion that the C4 visuals are just too plain and missing the visual clues -- e.g. the 8 rounded vertical rectangles on the hardware / GUI panel that serve to group the functionality.

It just FEELS substandard.

I the started thinking about the Multi-Touch Screen Faders vs tactile Faders debate and have arrived at the following:

When we humans decide to perform an operation at a location (Solo Channel 12) we use hand-eye coordination to get to the target and push the button.

That's only half of the equation -- the thing that tells us we ACCOMPLISHED this is the tactile feedback from the nerves in our fingers to our brain.

That, I believe is the reason it is so easy to "over click" using the mouse, especially if there is latency between the tactile mouse click and the screen response -- our brain gets confused.

So it would seem the answer is simple, always provide tactile feedback.

Indeed that is what I naively thought when I coded up the FX mappings for the C4.

Over a year or so of use, here's what I learned was really happening, and, as a side effect, points out why there is still a debate over virtual versus tactile faders.

It's not black or white, it's a trade-off continuum !

In the case of the VST FX plugins, the superior visual clues of the GUI's trump the necessarily simplistic visual clues of the generic looking C4 interface, even though the latter has tactile feedback.

On the other hand the new OLED switches mentioned in an earlier post provide a very exciting way forward, with 1.5" 128x128 pixels 64k colors the switch can indicate a lot of information with background color, changing text for changing function, etc.

For instance this would be great for channel strips where tactile is almost imperative.

Say you are going from tracking to mixing, you don't need the "REC" button, so it changes from a red background to another color with different text to notate it's new function, you still retain visual and tactile in this case.

So, I'm not against your concept at all, I agree with it, I'm just sayin' that in the world of fancy VST GUI's we're better off buying a simple touch screen / video card solution and spending our money on other toys like the OLED switches mentioned above.
__________________
Groove is the subtle control of chaos-- EuCon plugin can be found here http://stash.reaper.fm/tag/Extension-Plug-ins
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 08:10 AM   #36
Geoff Waddington
Mortal
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
Wasn't that always the case with Eucon or did Euphonix allow other manufacturers to build competing control surfaces with their protocol as the basis?
From the website:

http://community.avid.com/blogs/buzz...-nab-2012.aspx

"EUCON is Avid’s open, high-speed Ethernet control protocol that allows Avid Artist Series control surfaces and other consoles and controllers to connect to a variety of third party creative audio and video software solutions"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
No offense to anyone but people seem to see Avid conspiracies under every rock.
Ever done business with them, I have, 'nuf said
__________________
Groove is the subtle control of chaos-- EuCon plugin can be found here http://stash.reaper.fm/tag/Extension-Plug-ins
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 08:26 AM   #37
Lawrence
Mortal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,504
Default

Thanks for the link. That still didn't quite answer my question...

Did any other console manufacturer ever get permission from Euphonix, before Avid bought them, to build a Eucon pro audio control surface? I have never personally seen one.

If that's not the case (and I have no clue, just asking), that Euphonix never previously allowed that, what's changed?

I have no doubt that Avid might allow a hardware company to build something that supports their high end video products if there was no great conflict with their own hardware. I'd be surprised to see them give the SDK to Yamaha or Cakewalk and let them build a high speed audio control surface with it, something that will directly compete with Avid's own control surfaces... without charging a hefty licensing fee for access to the intellectual property.

That would be kinda dumb no? To let Mackie build a competitor to the Artist series controllers using Eucon?
__________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato

Last edited by Lawrence; 12-31-2012 at 08:50 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 08:50 AM   #38
Geoff Waddington
Mortal
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
Thanks for the link. That still didn't quite answer my question...

Did any other console manufacturer ever get permission from Euphonix, before Avid bought them, to build a Eucon pro audio control surface? I have never personally seen one.

If that's not the case, that Euphonix never previously allowed that, what's changed?

I have no doubt that Avid might allow a hardware company to build something that supports their high end video products. I'd be surprised to see them give the SDK to Yamaha or Cakewalk and let them build a high speed audio control surface with it, something that will directly compete with Avid's own products... without charging a hefty licensing fee for access to the intellectual property.

That would be kinda dumb no? To let Mackie build a competitor to the Artist series controllers using Eucon?
Cool, I take your point, and, no I'm not aware of one either, but I'm not sure anyone asked before Avid bought them.

There is also the "ubiquitous" card though in their favor if it is open.
Look at the open Steinberg VST spec, I would argue that has helped their business more than hurt.

However, from the Reaper devs perspective it is less attractive to put resources into a more closed (e.g. EuCon) protocol vs a more open (e.g. OSC) protocol.

Now from the perspective of, say, airon, who would like to use Avid Eucon series with Reaper it is entirely reasonable to request Eucon support.
__________________
Groove is the subtle control of chaos-- EuCon plugin can be found here http://stash.reaper.fm/tag/Extension-Plug-ins
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 09:02 AM   #39
Lawrence
Mortal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington View Post
Look at the open Steinberg VST spec, I would argue that has helped their business more than hurt.
Apples and Oranges really. Nothing VST I know of sells for $20-$150k like Eucon controllers.

Avid isn't in the shareware or open source or goodwill business. Not only should they not just give away intellectual property they paid good money for to their competitors, they'd be crazy to do so.

The Artist series controllers currently hold a unique place in the market. They'd be insane to just give away the tech and let the Mackie's and Behringer's of the world undercut their sales prices by 30% with cheap knock offs. A CEO who did that would probably get fired pretty quickly.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Thanks Geoff. Happy New Year my friend.
__________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 01:17 PM   #40
Geoff Waddington
Mortal
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
Apples and Oranges really. Nothing VST I know of sells for $20-$150k like Eucon controllers.

Avid isn't in the shareware or open source or goodwill business. Not only should they not just give away intellectual property they paid good money for to their competitors, they'd be crazy to do so.

The Artist series controllers currently hold a unique place in the market. They'd be insane to just give away the tech and let the Mackie's and Behringer's of the world undercut their sales prices by 30% with cheap knock offs. A CEO who did that would probably get fired pretty quickly.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Thanks Geoff. Happy New Year my friend.
Fair points all !!

Thanks to you Lawrence for all the productive discussions we have had, and continue to have, and all the best in the New Year to you as well my friend.
__________________
Groove is the subtle control of chaos-- EuCon plugin can be found here http://stash.reaper.fm/tag/Extension-Plug-ins
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
control surface, eucon, hui

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 09:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.