SATTEQ - VERSION 1

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:42 am

Version 1.0 added.
VU colour changes with EQ-sat settings.
1000 thanks to pixelbites!

Martin

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:36 am

hi martin,

I favoured the red surface much more...

and, hey, the pixelbites credits are gone...

maybe you could offer different flavours... aehh.. I mean... colours. give away the device for free, but offer individual coloured faceplates

"Choose from RAL tones or HTML Colour Code:"

by the way, will this remain free, or is this just an appetizer?

-greetings, markus-

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:41 am

kylie wrote:I favoured the red surface much more... :(

You already have the red one, so now you have 2 different colours ;¬]

and, hey, the pixelbites credits are gone...

The credits aren't compulsary. Martin's always said we should include them, but to add the full size insert slot they had to go this time. Maybe the final device will have more pages that you've not seen yet & a discrete credit will be on one of those ;)

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:58 pm

Shroomz wrote: You already have the red one, so now you have 2 different colours ;¬]

nahh... it's not the same. the black panel is a bit too black, imho...

The credits aren't compulsary. Martin's always said we should include them, but to add the full size insert slot they had to go this time. Maybe the final device will have more pages that you've not seen yet & a discrete credit will be on one of those

yeah, give us a perfect rear panel with shiny XLR in/outs !!

and by the way... you put some effort in making the rackmount holes more 3dmensional (I like the look of them), so don't let them be covered by the unavoidable close button

-greetings, markus-

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:24 am

kylie wrote: and by the way... you put some effort in making the rackmount holes more 3dmensional (I like the look of them), so don't let them be covered by the unavoidable close button

only one screw s delivered with the package, you need to buy the other 3 on your own.

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:54 am

hifiboom wrote: only one screw s delivered with the package, you need to buy the other 3 on your own.

is that philips or pz? I cannot exactly determine...
as there is no empty rack device supplied by martin yet, this may be forgivable, but once he starts flooding the devices forum with rackmountable gear one might want to fix them into the rack. flip all devices to rear with the press of one button, and then connect them with cords and stuff...

at least one REASON to free the hole, huh?

-greetings, markus-

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:21 am

hifiboom wrote:only one screw s delivered with the package, you need to buy the other 3 on your own.

Yes & each additional screw requires a separate licence

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:34 am

kylie wrote:as there is no empty rack device supplied by martin yet, this may be forgivable, but once he starts flooding the devices forum with rackmountable gear one might want to fix them into the rack. flip all devices to rear with the press of one button, and then connect them with cords and stuff... :)

Interesting idea !!! Sharc & I were recently pondering the idea of bringing modular concepts out of the modular enviroment & directly into the routing window, but I fear that wouldn't be possible, so essentailly the rack would need to be a custom modular shell & all of the virtual rack gear would need to be advanced modular modules which snap into the rack. It might just be possible, but also a time consuming excersize. Preset handling might be one of the main problems needing overcome.

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:56 pm

Shroomz wrote: Interesting idea !!! Sharc & I were recently pondering the idea of bringing modular concepts out of the modular enviroment & directly into the routing window, but I fear that wouldn't be possible, so essentailly the rack would need to be a custom modular shell & all of the virtual rack gear would need to be advanced modular modules which snap into the rack.

the idea came to my mind the very moment I took a first look at the sateq beta. since it looks like real gear, it screams for being treated like that. that includes being mounted

.
the flip-backwards effect is conceptional stolen^W borrowed from reason, where I saw that first. within modular you won't need that, from what I saw, since the modules have only a front panel and all connections are made from there. but instead of overcramming the excellent looking front panel of sateq (speaking of the red series, as I like to call it

) the concept of having different option windows, including a wiring plate (with XLR, I insist on that, so please enforce it !

) would be something I liked much better. since martin has many ideas this could become a series of devices with a consistent look, frontside/knobs as well as all needed sub-panels/windows, and 19 inch lookalike faceplate (I could live with a custom sized form factor that differs from 19", of course).

-greetings, markus-

Post by **irrelevance** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:56 am

Introduces some gorgeously warm and buzzy sounding overtones

I prefer the Black look

I wonder how this can be improved apon as it's very usable now... Mabye some kind of auto pitch detection or harmonic chord grouping?

Thanks

sharc · Post by **sharc** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:36 am

It's funny, I don't recall anyone suggesting the need for a rack with Vinco or PsyQ which also featured rack ears. Maybe we're all just more creative these days

XLR, mmm...yes, possibly with phantom power

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:44 am

kylie wrote:since martin has many ideas this could become a series of devices with a consistent look, frontside/knobs as well as all needed sub-panels/windows, and 19 inch lookalike faceplate (I could live with a custom sized form factor that differs from 19", of course).

This already is a custom form-factor (it unfortunately just had to be). It's dimensions are 800x100 which is between 1 & 2u rack format in terms of 'scale'. An actual 1u rack is approx' 483 X 43.5mm. At 800px, a 1u rack panel to scale would be 800 X 72px, a 2u would be 800 X 144px & so on.

We wanted to keep as many of the devices as possible (including MOVEQ+) to 800px width so they can be stacked (kinda like a rack) & sit comfortably on-screen next to the STM2448 'Master' page at 1280x1024 monitor resolution as shown in the picture below.

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:37 am

OMG shroomz, do my eyes betray me? the 2U unit looks even damn better than the 1U, though consuming more space, but you can't have everything..

I want a red one, too !! though this blacky looks better than the first one in almost everything, including readable knob and value description, great knobs itself, and the gorgeous meter.
maybe you should reserve a space where the label sits on all units with that form factor. but I'm also fine with the look as it is now.

-greetings, markus-

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:04 am

Hi Kylie, the 2u concept in the background wasn't finished, but I'm not entirely sure how much more of his time Martin will dedicate to this device, so it might not be realised at all. I really don't know atm. The versions we already have sound great, which is probably the most important thing for most people.

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:37 am

Shroomz wrote: ...but I'm not entirely sure how much more of his time Martin will dedicate to this device, so it might not be realised at all.

mh. I have no idea what it would take to apply just the gui you were so kind to show to the underlying device which is technically finished already (as I understand you). if there was a choice, I'd prefer the 2u. maybe it wouldn't make any difference to the way it sounds, and I don't want to change something that's already (kinda) perfect, but if it's just a few clicks to change the gui, I'd be happy

since readability improved clearly, it's an allover improvement, imho. (and the meter is simply great

)

-greetings, markus-

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:58 am

no problem... I like putting together different designs. Infact my time is shorter than before....

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:10 pm

MCCYRANO wrote:no problem... I like putting together different designs. Infact my time is shorter than before....

you are faster with releasing than I can test them (the way I liked to) anyway, so time does not matter that much...
I can imagine a little christmas present coming in shape of a 2u sateq (red or black

) along the way...
don't put too much pressure on that. ahem.. btw, is this release or will it be free? the (original?) sattekuh had the suffix "free". so that made me just think...

-greetings, markus-

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:16 pm

the 2U unit looks very nice....

better than te original design, but I aggree that the sound won`t change....

FG445 · Post by **FG445** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:06 pm

Hi together,

i tried the device on XTC. It works great...
Except one thing

-- the automation does not work.
I could have it automated over MIDI, but since that is not possible for effects over XTC i can not automate it at all with XTC.
Is it difficult to add the Automation for XTC to this device.
I don´t know much about the programming stuff, but is it hard to add the parameters for the Automation???

all the best

Daniel

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:46 am

kylie wrote:ahem.. btw, is this release or will it be free?

I don't speak for Martin here, but I'm quite sure that SATEQ will remain free (even with gui updates to improve the 'look'). It's not about money after all..... it's about quality Scope devices