Is there *any* fader controller...........

[areptiledysfunction]

..............that is *fully* compatible with the Scope 4.5 mixer.......as in you plug it in, you load a profile and it works? I'm not nearly as lazy as I may sound. I'm just too busy to program a 48 channel mixer template on a Radikal 2.2 (which, I think will only allow 32 channels anyway) or a Motormix or whateve,r so that every function on every channel is mapped to a button/pot/fader. I see Creamware mentioned in some ads, but none of them are specific as to which Creamware product or software version. I'm wanting something that integrates with the Scope mixer like the Houston controller or the Mackie controller integrates with Cubase or Nuendo.

does any such thing exist?

[garyb]

nope. midi only.
this has been discussed a few times and until the 88.2 debacle it was thought to be the main weakness. originally there were plans to implement mackie control, or rumors to that effect. noah put a hold on all of that. it's always a possibility, but never promised unless it actually gets done....

really, there can't be that many things that need to be automated, although hardware faders are glamourous.

[sonolive]

..............that is *fully* compatible with the Scope 4.5 mixer.......as in you plug it in, you load a profile and it works? I'm not nearly as lazy as I may sound. I'm just too busy to program a 48 channel mixer template on a Radikal 2.2 (which, I think will only allow 32 channels anyway) or a Motormix or whateve,r so that every function on every channel is mapped to a button/pot/fader. I see Creamware mentioned in some ads, but none of them are specific as to which Creamware product or software version. I'm wanting something that integrates with the Scope mixer like the Houston controller or the Mackie controller integrates with Cubase or Nuendo.

does any such thing exist?

hi dj,
unfortunately, you won't find any ...
and even if you have time to program one ( radical, motor mix ...) you will never have enough cc to controll a whole 2448 mixer (for example) .
there are too much parameters !!! and CW way of "midification" is just "one cc for one fuction" ...

we, at DAS have developped some mixer much more "harware like" . i mean that for example, you can controll our last mixer DAS MODULAR MIXER (fader, select, pan, mutes ...) with only a behringer BFC2000 that has only 8 faders, 8 encoders and 24 buttons ...

what could be exactly your needs ... why would you like to control 48 faders ? for live apps ? for mixing ? what about others controls (pan,mute, aux send ...) no need to control them ?

DAS MODULAR MIXER (in fact SCOPE FOR LIVE MODULAR MIXER) is very specific ... with lots of live oriented functions, but we could imagine a simpler one ....

If few people could be interesting by such a device, ( controlling 48 channels : faders, pans, aux, mute ... ) with a simple midi controller, we could eventually think of developping such a thing ...
but developpment is long and hard, and of course it would be difficult to make it free !!!

let us know !!!

cheers,
olive

[kylie]

DAS MODULAR MIXER (in fact SCOPE FOR LIVE MODULAR MIXER) is very specific ... with lots of live oriented functions, but we could imagine a simpler one ....

If few people could be interesting by such a device, ( controlling 48 channels : faders, pans, aux, mute ... ) with a simple midi controller, we could eventually think of developping such a thing ...
but developpment is long and hard, and of course it would be difficult to make it free !!!

hi olive,

didn't you already kind of announce a "commercial" version of the s4l modular mixer, with the mentioned "more than 8 mono ins" ?

maybe it is not SO hard and long to strip it down (or stretch it ). and nobody demanded it to be for free. I could imagine that your "one price for all plugins" strategy would suit my wallet for a tool like that perfectly.

and yes, I'd still like it to have mute groups

-greetings, markus-

[Shroomz~>]

I've always thought that a modular mixer would be one with a truly modular architecture, whereby it can be split up into individual components or modules & have some removed or swapped out. It would have several types of channel strip which can be swapped out & replaced by different sounding strips or strips with different functionality & uses. It could have different types of buss stages, different types of VU meter modules. You know, digital strips on some channels & vintage on others, all user configurable, a modular mixer.

I must be missing some key factor here regarding the definition of 'modular'.

[kylie]

I must be missing some key factor here regarding the definition of 'modular'.

knowing not much about the insights (maybe you do... I don't) the definition of what is meant with "modular" is only guesswork, I guess.

in fact, I don't even care if the name reflects the concept of being modular assembled by the user, OR being easily assembled by the creator, using modules, towards the customers needs. since this is primarily custom built, I could imagine that.

I'm looking forward to see a version that might be useful for me (and affordable). if not, I can still use what's already there.

-greetings, markus-

[Shroomz~>]

Well, Iet me put it this way Kylie... What I personally would invisage as a 'modular' mixer for Scope would be one of two things:-

1. A mixer which loads into the CW modular synth shell (mod2 or 3)

2. A mixer which in itself .. IS a modular shell & is designed in such a way as to be able to load modular mixing components such as channel strips, buss stages & custom metering solutions, each of which would meet the desirable <1dsp goal. Modules would snap into the mixer shell much in the same way as modules snap neatly into the modular synth shell.

No.2 would be a truely modular mixer by definition (at least to my mind anyway) although it would be a dsp-eater

edit:- didn't intend to hijack your thread DJ !!

[sonolive]

Hey guys,
i think you don't grt the point ...

this thread was about faders (hardware) to control mixer (soft) ... and i wanted to explain DJ that with standard mixer it's very difficult to achieve a total control of mixers like 2448 one, so i explained him that we, at DAS were working since long time on this problems, having "invented" a very usefull development way by controlling complex mixer, with few hardware midi controllers and few cc ...

in fact, we don't want to build mixer "just to build mixer" !!! they must have some functions that others do not propose ...
The 2448 mixer from cw is very very complete one .... but on another way is not usefull for all apps !!!

that's why we built Scope 4 live one ... because he needed 6 stereo auxes, easy to view pages during his show, good sound and usefull routing ...

And DAS MODULAR MIXER respects this chart : i think at this point, you should have a look at the signal flow diagram and you will soon remark the very powerfull routing possibilities for each signals ... as it was for live, i tried to remember what i missed when myself worked live with current digital or analog mixer (from 01V to PM5DRH or PM1D, from small soundcraft to very huge MIDAS XL or PM4000 ...) and points like "inserts" "routing" and so on were my first ideas ...

more, i wanted it to be hardware controlled via a "normal" midi controller like BFC 2000 that is not expensive at all and really work fine ...

kylie is always talking of its mute group, for sure it's interesting and easy to use, but 2448 mixer got it, plus a fader groups function tooo, i myself have build a mixer with mute and fader groups ... we could also add several amazing functions such as DCA (the VCA for digital) that is already in option on jimmy's mixer. i can also tell that i am adding a new function for jimmy that is very close to mute group ! it will be a private talkback functions ... and will act on "to mix" button instead of ON/OFF (mute) button ...

sorry i can not finish this thred now ... have to work .... coming soon ...

cheers
olive

[kylie]

2. A mixer which in itself .. IS a modular shell & is designed in such a way as to be able to load modular mixing components such as channel strips, buss stages & custom metering solutions, each of which would meet the desirable <1dsp goal. Modules would snap into the mixer shell much in the same way as modules snap neatly into the modular synth shell.

I don't deny that the idea you were so kind to come up with is tempting (we discussed the matter on mccyrano's sateq already, thus you know that I like the concept of racking up devices outside modular ).
but that's the problem with imagination. we (and maybe others) have a different idea on what's behind a modular mixer .
in my opinion it would be also somewhat modular, if you get the whole monolithic thing, being able to disable or "snap out" sections (or modules) you don't need, getting them off the surface and off dsp. this would probably incorporate automatic routing reassignment (you surely don't want to patch yourself after ripping several busses or channels off the mixer ), and not too easily to implement...

we'll see. or not. or what?

ahem, well, this was about faders, huh?
I don't have a solution for that.

-greetings, markus-

[kylie]

in fact, we don't want to build mixer "just to build mixer" !!! they must have some functions that others do not propose ...

hi olive,

since you are a company that sells devices I don't expect you to do it "just for fun" (although you may actually have fun, though, to see such a project grow and get powerful and all.. )

more, i wanted it to be hardware controlled via a "normal" midi controller like BFC 2000 that is not expensive at all and really work fine ...

that's the second thing I like, looking at your mixer.

kylie is always talking of its mute group, for sure it's interesting and easy to use, but 2448 mixer got it, plus a fader groups function tooo, i myself have build a mixer with mute and fader groups ...

yes. and why do I talk about this? because I think that it's a useful if not essential feature I always miss when sitting in front of a (real) mixer not capable of that (that is: always). it's not mine, so I have to accept it. but it would be very nice. see?

you built yourself 1) a mixer as a new device, or 2) using stm2448? if 2), I should re-investigate it.

i can also tell that i am adding a new function for jimmy that is very close to mute group ! it will be a private talkback functions ... and will act on "to mix" button instead of ON/OFF (mute) button ...

I know how I would do that with a real mixer, while wasting a mic in (and having not so much of them, so I do without). this being implemented is nice, for sure, but all I want to have is the simple mute group feature as, for example, seen on the soundcraft live8. buttons. like hardware. easy to operate. that is what you promise for your mixer. so why not thinking about this feature to be implemented?

btw, are there real plans for releasing this device to the public, at all? and if, will it be available for a price the public can afford? you might remember that you (or eric?) already offered me to make my own custom version of it, but as I said: I won't be able to afford it, since I don't earn money with what I do.
so maybe the (fader-controlled, to get back to the topic ) DAS mixer will remain a dream like the console mentioned above. if so, I will survive it (I think ).

but you are always welcome to bring some fresh air to the scope platform, whether I own it or not

-greetings, markus-

[Shroomz~>]

I don't deny that the idea you were so kind to come up with is tempting

sssshhh, don't say anything to anybody. Hopefully nobody will notice that I let my best idea slip off the tongue....

[Neil]

nope. midi only.
this has been discussed a few times and until the 88.2 debacle it was thought to be the main weakness. originally there were plans to implement mackie control, or rumors to that effect. .

Yeah, it's like this stuff is just a few cents short of a dollar (or a Euro, as the case may be) in terms of functionality. I'd be willing to bet that if CW could get a few things like this implemented, they'd have greater success with the product being more widely-accepted.

noah put a hold on all of that. it's always a possibility, but never promised unless it actually gets done.....

This sounds familiar to ANOTHER platform DJ & I have used... vaporware developments & the oft-used word "soon" come to mind.

really, there can't be that many things that need to be automated, although hardware faders are glamourous.

Gary, let's face it... in this day & age, automation of damn near everything is expected, and adaptability/compatibility with controllers that have fairly widespread use should be able to be implemented before the next generation of each of those types of controllers comes out.

Neil

[areptiledysfunction]

nope. midi only.
this has been discussed a few times and until the 88.2 debacle it was thought to be the main weakness. originally there were plans to implement mackie control, or rumors to that effect. .

Yeah, it's like this stuff is just a few cents short of a dollar (or a Euro, as the case may be) in terms of functionality. I'd be willing to bet that if CW could get a few things like this implemented, they'd have greater success with the product being more widely-accepted.

noah put a hold on all of that. it's always a possibility, but never promised unless it actually gets done.....

This sounds familiar to ANOTHER platform DJ & I have used... vaporware developments & the oft-used word "soon" come to mind.

really, there can't be that many things that need to be automated, although hardware faders are glamourous.

Gary, let's face it... in this day & age, automation of damn near everything is expected, and adaptability/compatibility with controllers that have fairly widespread use should be able to be implemented before the next generation of each of those types of controllers comes out.

Neil

I'm surprised that Scope is not Eucon compatible since I hear that these DSP's are somehow associated with Euphonics hardware........though maybe this is not right..of course, that would entail buying a Euphonics controller and I'm not inclined to even want such a crappy POS in my studio. Might run clients off.

[bcslaam]

I've been hopijng for one as well but I've waited long enough.

I am going to get a BIG f..kn touchscreen and lay it down!!

Should work even better. I dont automate much. Just process and sum. Leave auto to my DAW.

[Neil]

I've been hopijng for one as well but I've waited long enough.

I am going to get a BIG f..kn touchscreen and lay it down!!

Should work even better. I dont automate much. Just process and sum. Leave auto to my DAW.

Yeah, but if you're automating levels in your DAW, doesn't that mean that you're sending a lower bitstream to the Pulsar mixer?

[garyb]

yes, but there is lots of headroom.
if it's classical music, you won't need to do all that automating. midi is very quick to implement(a couple of mouse clicks) so you could easily automate what you need in scope in that case.

there was never a hardware controller promised. mackie control was only discussed publicly, not promised(though i think it was more seriously considered privately), so yes, it's like paris in that the developement could be better funded, but there's not really a vaporware issue per se. i've always said that the difference between scope and protools hd is that pt costs a lot and for the extra money you get some 24hr tech support(at least at first here in la. they take care of the real studios. you know, the guys with an extra $40-80,000 to spare in a for profit venture), and a dedicated hardware controller. i think scope is actually much cooler than pthd. scope does much more, it allows more routing and in an intelligent and natural way and scope sounds darn near as good, if not better for some things. that's something to be said for a product that only costs $1000-2000(as opposed to 40,000). the reason that it's not a bigger-time product is consumerism. for the dollar, it's a bang for you buck and then some, but that's my opinion.

for guys like DJ, i can really understand wanting something slicker looking than a mouse, although a mouse is very efficient if the knob will be statically set. for the rest of us(and for DJ too...), there's no reason not to automate sends and mutes in the sequencer. it's the logical place to do it and it doesn't hurt sound quality in the least. also, there is plenty of hardware support for those apps. that leaves a single template to be made for faders and, if you wish, pans. auxes that won't be automated can be handled very quickly with a mouse, but some may find a mouse beneath them. that person will really hate the scope mixers because 6x24 aux=144 ccs needed and there are only about 120 usable ccs.

as to bitdepth, since you will end up in 16bit anyway, there should be plenty of bitdepth for good sound as long as you are using 24bit. only the channel requiring some special automation need be handled in this way, with a 20 track mix, it won't make any real difference. as you've already seen, setting up 24 or 48 faders to be controlled by midi is no big deal, it might take 10 minutes, so using midi to automate scope faders is very doable if the bitdepth issue is an issue for a particular piece of work.

scope and vst effects can both be used when one uses this kind of thinking about one's workstation. it's ok to use scope for it's strengths and the sequencer for it's strengths.

88.2k and mackie control inplimentation are all this platform needs to go beyond bargain to nearly perfect its true. i agree Neil, it's a few cents short thinking about what it is, but not when thinking about what it costs. these things can still happen, definitely, but even if they don't i'm not upset. i can't afford pthd and scope has allowed me to actually do good work still, and even make a little money....unlike my old cranky scully 2" 24track and soundcraft 1600 desk....

[wolf]

DJ, consoles from eucon are starting at 50.000,-, Steinberg/Yamaha wants 1.000 Eur for the integration in their apps. Eucon users aren't that much out there (it is a great console, though).

While we're at it, just a short plunch from me ..

I'll release a mixer, I'm working on since two years, somewhen next year with following features (just some):
- 16 mono or stereo channels (switchable)
- integrated modular shell with separate midi channel for each channel strip
- true stereo pan with -2.5 dB or -6 dB panning mode
- 6 inserts (5 plus modular shell) with freely (!) selectable order, parallel or serial
- stereo aux sends
- integrated control room (4 outs)
- rms and peak level meter(s)
- correlation meter
- whole device savable and renamable
- less cable clutter in routing window (at least for me )
- all important stuff like inserts visable at a glance
- dynamic dsp allocation (i.e. if a channel isn't connected), but also manual

As I underrated the desire for more than 128 controler assignments, I'll add support for up to 2048 controller assignments. In fact the modular shell part of the mixer is already able to receive that much controlers.
For shure I don't have all controler surfaces available out there at hand, so you'll still need to make a preset for your own controler (or save the config. with the device).
Mute groups are not implemented, yet, but can be added, too.

Here's a slightly out-dated pic:



btw, beside time it's not a big problem to create a device for a mackie control support (not HUI and just the faders and buttons). I just don't need it, as I use the former namend logic control with Logic (which controls scope in the end).

cheers
Wolfgang

[astroman]

now that looks f**king smart...

any pre-orders taken, signature editions available, etc ?

respect, Tom

[katano]

great news, i'm looking forward to it!

[areptiledysfunction]

[
Gary, let's face it... in this day & age, automation of damn near everything is expected, and adaptability/compatibility with controllers that have fairly widespread use should be able to be implemented before the next generation of each of those types of controllers comes out.

Neil

Hell man.even urinals are automated these days. Scared the **** outta' me the first time I used one and it started barking.