The holy grail

[tobypearce]

So many companies are trying to solve the issue of providing hands on feel via hardware of software. I reckon it's the holy grail - an absolutely seamless way to control software via hardware.

There is no agreed solution yet, but clearly it is something many companies are thinking about, e.g.
Native Instruments with their NKS,
Roland with their new boutique synths whose engines aren't really analogue at all, but still feel analogue because they are small hardware.
I even read something about Spectrasonics trying to solve this issue too.
Nektar midi controllers.

And in the meantime, because people still want the hardware feel, many companies are introducing hardware, analogue synths. Take the Korg monologue, for example. Hugely popular because it's hands on. But when you think about it, it's hugely limited in terms of sound capabilities when compared to even a standard software synth. And when you compare it to Europa, let along Omnisphere, well!

The holy grail is a really, really, good way to control synths like these with hardware in a really good way. Despite many efforts, there's nothing on the table that comes close to being seamless.

Whoever cracks this will be rich and the world will be a better place.

https://ask.audio/articles/midi-adopts- ... ers-coming

It's a bit early in the morning here but I think this is big news! It seems to pave the way for better integration between software and midi controllers, but built into MIDI itself.

It seems like it prepares for a world where what Native Instruments have done with their NKS and Komplete Kontrol becomes more of a standard and relies less of proprietery solutions.

Please let Props embrace this early! It makes total sense for Props to do this. Reason has always been a modular environment, and so many companies are trying to solve these kinds of issues.

Many think Reason - whilst excellent - is behind the curve of other DAWs in many respects. This is an opportunity to become ahead of the curve, because whichever DAW builds this stuff in first, and does it really well, is going to be very popular indeed.

[Marco Raaphorst]

Yes I agree! This was to be expected and it's finally here!

Can't wait to see it being implemented. I guess this means new soundcards and lots of new stuff to buy... but well we need to go for this to create more expressiveness.

I always felt that contact triggers would be a great way to offer expresivenes. Key triggers is like using a type writer. But with contact triggers, even touching the instrument will create a sound. Like it would on any acoustic.

[fieldframe]

I just posted this over in the "hardware version of Reason" thread, but I think it might be more appropriate here:

My (quite reasonable, I think!) dream would be for Propellerhead to work with their neighbors Teenage Engineering to integrate TE's Ortho Remote (https://www.teenageengineering.com/products/orthoremote) with Reason. So you'd have native, high-resolution, hover-to-control functionality in Reason, with hardware that already exists and costs less than $100!

What I'm calling hover-to-control in this case is a pattern that Kontrol Master and Audient have brought to market where you simply hover over a knob in your software and twist a multi-function knob in hardware to control what your mouse is pointing to. It's brilliant, because it gives you that hands-on feel of working with hardware, but with a full view of and instant access to everything onscreen that's so often missing when you're looking at a separate MIDI controller.

For Kontrol Master and Audient, though, it's basically a hack, in that it's emulating a mouse. So you have to toggle between vertical/horizontal controls, and it can be a little unreliable. If Propellerhead natively integrated the Ortho Remote (or a comparable radial controller), though, it could honestly be a game changer.

[selig]

What I'm calling hover-to-control in this case is a pattern that Kontrol Master and Audient have brought to market where you simply hover over a knob in your software and twist a multi-function knob in hardware to control what your mouse is pointing to. It's brilliant, because it gives you that hands-on feel of working with hardware, but with a full view of and instant access to everything onscreen that's so often missing when you're looking at a separate MIDI controller.

The problem is that there is little advantage to this hybrid approach IMO. First issue, which hand controls the mouse, and which hand controls the knob? IRL, one hand does both of those functions, so unless you are ambidextrous this approach will slow you down.

It also doesn’t account for many advantages of hardware, like a 1:1 ratio (or similar) of controls vs parameters, a physical layout you can navigate with your eyes closed, ability to choose the size and type of controller (rotary vs linear) specific to each function, ability to look at the hardware and know how it’s setup, etc.

But I also don’t think touch control screens are the answer either, at least until they can produce tactile responses.

The “holy grail” IMO is adaptable hardware, hardware that adjusts automatically (or manually) to the situation at hand. And I’m not sure the technology is 100% ready for that paradigm yet…



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Loque]

I am really looking forward of and how PH implements the new midi stuff.

To analog in general, i think it is just too limited and most ppl don't hear the difference. Sometimes I think there might be better ways for software synths to create sounds, something new, not so limited...

[fieldframe]

What I'm calling hover-to-control in this case is a pattern that Kontrol Master and Audient have brought to market where you simply hover over a knob in your software and twist a multi-function knob in hardware to control what your mouse is pointing to. It's brilliant, because it gives you that hands-on feel of working with hardware, but with a full view of and instant access to everything onscreen that's so often missing when you're looking at a separate MIDI controller.

The problem is that there is little advantage to this hybrid approach IMO. First issue, which hand controls the mouse, and which hand controls the knob? IRL, one hand does both of those functions, so unless you are ambidextrous this approach will slow you down.

It also doesn’t account for many advantages of hardware, like a 1:1 ratio (or similar) of controls vs parameters, a physical layout you can navigate with your eyes closed, ability to choose the size and type of controller (rotary vs linear) specific to each function, ability to look at the hardware and know how it’s setup, etc.

But I also don’t think touch control screens are the answer either, at least until they can produce tactile responses.

The “holy grail” IMO is adaptable hardware, hardware that adjusts automatically (or manually) to the situation at hand. And I’m not sure the technology is 100% ready for that paradigm yet…



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Of course, single-purpose hardware still has the advantages you mention. But that's not really the comparison I'm making - I'm comparing the hover-to-control concept to MIDI controllers that require mapping to use. MIDI controllers really require two mappings: One in software (e.g. through Remote) and one in your mind, recalling which control in hardware maps to which control in software. Controllers with their own screens can help make that mental mapping easier, but it's still a far cry from 1:1 representation of the interface.

Hover-to-control, on the other hand, is mapping-free (both software and mentally). Yes, controlling The Legend this way would be less natural than a Minimoog Model D sitting on your desk - but it would be a lot more natural than either clicking and dragging, or using a regular MIDI controller (which knob is osc 3 fine tune again?)!

[Faastwalker]

The holy grail is a really, really, good way to control synths like these with hardware in a really good way. Despite many efforts, there's nothing on the table that comes close to being seamless.

I agree. MIDI controllers have been around for as long as software instruments. I remember when the KeyFax PhatBoy appeared & it seemed like the holy grail had already been found back in 1998 - hardware control over software instruments to provide hands on control that didn't rely on clicking & dragging with a computer mouse. 20 years later & we don't seem to have moved on a great deal from the PhatBoy with it's bank of 16 knobs.

Most MIDI controllers have banks of 8 knobs / sliders / buttons (or they are designed with Ableton Live in mind). Not really the idea solution for controlling all but the most basic of software instruments. Not without jumping through 'banks' of controls to cover a reasonable amount of parameters. This raises another issue - lets say you have the physical controls to cover every parameter on a typical subtractive synth (for example). Now you have too many controls to know how everything is mapped without some sort of labeling / feed back. There is NOTHING like this available. Nektar had a crack at it but here we're stuck with the 8 groups of knobs, sliders. The Push 2 has a fantastic row of knobs with a very nice display. But again, it's only about 8 knobs & it's expensive, which I guess the display contributes a fair amount towards.

Lemur on iPad is fantastic for making custom controllers. But of course it only goes half way as we still don't have physical control. But I guess the holy grail would be a huge bank of knobs (or sliders), highly customisable in terms of mapping & with visual feedback to show which control is controlling which parameter & current value. There is really nothing like this out there even after 20 years of HUGE music tech advancements & a gaping void in physical control over software left largely unexplored.