Console 1/Fader 1 is buggy af. I've had 2..... TWO!!! blue screens of death, while using this thing. Worst purchase of 2020? Softtube... Most overrated music software company ever? Softtube

The basic issue with controllers is that these apps are BUILT...ground up...to be used with keyboard/mouse on a computer. IME, the best controllers are one of two kinds:

1- the proprietary type designed for and only useable in a specific DAW. I still can't believe with the popularity of Studio One so few people bought the CS18a that they discontinued it. Avid and Yamaha's equivalents are exponentially more money.

2- the type that seeks to augment and enhance rather than replace. Steinberg's CC121. The original (but NOT NEW version Faderport. I have a USB Griffin knob that I can turn whatever virtual knob or fader I hover with the mouse. $40....much more useful than my $2k in MCUs...works in Mixbus32c and Cubase 10.5 equally well AND controls third party plug ins, albeit occasionally there's some odd scaling to the movement (unlike the DAWs themselves).

The panned back problem is that there's no such thing as a good or bad controller HARDWARE (beyond simply build quality)...it's all in how they're implemented BY the DAW....which varies DAW to DAW--Harrison goes out of their way to think through each controller they implement and how best to control Mixbus. Cubase made (IMO) a STELLAR MCU implementation forever ago, and it's still there--the same set of MCUs is useless to me in LogicX...or ProTools...or whatever makes you bank around the mixer...

The on piece of the puzzle that has always bothered me is the lack of transports on the market. Nobody wants to sell a set of good buttons for transports except JL Cooper. I really wish there was slick way to use the old Alesis BRC to control transports and record enables in a DAW.

Yeah, IMO the basic problem with most controllers is they range from giving very little, to absolutely no thought into how the end user sets up their keyboard, mouse, trackpad, griffin powermate, midi keyboards, seaboards, drum machines etc with the controller.

That's what was wrong with the CS18ai to me (along with not having better integration of 3rd party plugs), as well as D-command, Control24, C24, Nuage, S4, S6, etc.

Even with the slates, while they physically integrate OK, what I don't like there is you have a mouse and a touchscreen and you start doing something with the touch screen and then have to switch to the mouse because the resolution isn't fine enough. Same-ish problem in that it isn't one unified workflow...

Console One, to me, is great. While it is limited in scope, in some ways that's what I want- something that does one thing well, really well, and is able to do in a way that doesn't get in the way of other things that do something really well.

I actually think ergonomics is very important and makes a very big difference.. in addition to pure quality.

Well, I think some of the controllers really have certain workflows in mind and certain types of productions in mind. For film and broadcast at the higher level you're possibly not going to use keyboard/mouse/trackball as much during the mix/re-recording stage as you do during the preceding editing pre-dub stages. So really you get access to a lot of what you need using an s6 while mixing Marvel films on a dub stage. Same with a Nuage.

Granted, if you're working a one-man job where you're editing and mixing it all then that's a different matter.

But I don't really think it's fair to say that no thought has gone into this, I think a lot of thought went into it but it is what it is. Perhaps a better way of thinking about it is this:

- How do you think the layout should be different?

The actual issue is that most of these controllers are built to general marketing briefs and not to solve specific end-user workflows. You can tell. Make it have 8 fader, MCU, scribble strips, so many rotary encoders, transport, etc. But the people building it aren't editing audio all day. They don't navigate Cubase sessions with 500 MIDI tracks. If they did, the devices would work differently. Sure, the devices are functional. They implement a specification. But you can tell that no one on the design team actually uses them all day for mission critical stuff - because if they did, they would work a whole lot better. I've concluded that Ableton, Avid and Nuage really have the only well-integrated solutions.

It makes sense - the DAW is the tool, it is the UI, it is recorder, MIDI sequencer, edit interface, mixing console - its a studio in a box. How is one controller supposed to do all that? Only with deep thought and integration to a particular program. I think that's why there's so little middle ground - there is cheap consumer grade stuff that solves a simple, tractable, problem - like the knob that controls whatever your mouse is over. Useful, universal, simple. All the "map it yourself, unmotorized stuff" is of only so much interest - they don't remember state, and you need that to bank through tracks. There is a clearly a small, persistent interest that will put up with the limitations of Mackie Control protocols. But then there's a gap to Avid. And even in Avid there is the S1/S3 at up to $5k or so, then it jumps to $25k for a small S4. Professional workflow has a professional price, apparently. You buy an analog console, or you buy a DAW workflow accelerator. Same price. Post houses drive the pro market - time is $$ for them, and a relatively small number of "mix all day ITB" people. How many recording/musician/producer people would buy a $25k surface vs. a quality analog console and a few choice pieces of outboard that are relatively "future proof"? There is definitely a general bias on this forum....

I suspect only the DAW maker can solve this problem. Ableton's Push is solid design and engineering. It accelerates that application very well. It is deeply integrated. The Avid stuff is this way from S1 to S6 - they aren't "mice". There's nothing generic about them. They accelerate very specific workflows in ONE application. I just don't think the third party "generic controllers" are going to solve this problem. They can't. It isn't a generic problem. It is always related to the specific virtual studio that a given DAW exposes. Yes, "everyone" needs to mix, and all DAW's have faders to represent on a surface, but that is too great a simplification. There's so much else involved that to really speed up mixing, it takes more integration than just faders to really make the mix faster.

I think this is why so many try a few of these controllers and just go back to using the mouse. Without the deep integration, the value is pretty minimal in a lot of contexts.... And every DAW works in so many different contexts, how do you make one controller, unless you make the DAW?

Streamdeck is not good enough?

It's a bit presumptuous of you to say that though, no? I mean, have you worked at any of these companies and actually seen the development of any of these products and verified that it's just "general marketing briefs" that are governing what the product ends up being?

An 8 channel fader controller based on the Mackie 'standard' protocol isn't meant for editing. So no, of course they're not editing all day and of course they aren't building the device for that purpose. And there are devices specifically built for that so there's no need to complain about it though, just buy the ones that accomplish that task.

As for navigating 500 MIDI tracks I'd say that needs to be done in the DAW one way or another since no setup is going to be a 500-channel hardware setup.

It's not that. There's a few things that happen;

- people try to explain what is rational for those who make the devices, and that relies on what is reasonable from a perspective of return on investment, market size etc...

- people who complain that there aren't controllers they want typically never, ever really mean that, instead they mean the ones that exist are too expensive. But then when they try to modify the existing controllers that aren't good enough they really end up with a feature set that's unrealistically expensive.

Neither of the above means that there's a "general bias" against better and/or cheaper or "professional-only" lineups, it just means that there are different opinions about what's realistically possible for companies to produce.

The Avid controllers also work in other apps and enhance workflows for a lot of people.

Generally though what's your solution? I don't see one. It's like the common complaint is just super-vague but supposedly there's a way to give everyone what they want it's just that companies either don't 'get it' or don't want to do it.

I just don't see it though.

------

On a general note I'd say that people probably have to spend a bit more time thinking about what they do and how they do it and then they can find ways to speed up their work by choosing the best hardware available. Some things are faster on hardware controllers and some is faster with a trackball and keyboard.

Had never heard of them. A few years ago I gave up looking a went for a Nucleus because it had good transports and faders.

I’m happy with my Qcon Pro G2 with extender unit together with Cubase 10.5 and Logic X
https://iconproaudio.com/product/qcon-pro-g2/

I don't think we disagree. You raise good points. I don't see a solution for "awesome, low cost controller that works with any arbitrary thing". I think this is how the market is, and I don't expect change. Who would sell an S4 level solution for $800? It isn't feasible.

I think your comments are spot on. I've ended up almost exclusively on mouse/keyboard, with hardware for CC input and a touchscreen for macro/keystroke controls. Every other year or so, I check out the scene again and pretty much see the same thing - Avid makes a pretty complete solution that covers much of the DAW and production workflow in a way that makes sense. But, moving faders is such a small part of my overall workflow that it doesn't save much by itself. So far moving DAW to PT hasn't happened, but it is the only place that has controllers useful enough to want them on my desk. Workflow is the critical part, and when it matters, companies know they can charge, and they need to - it's complex, nuanced behavior.

+1

I'll give you my S3/Dock when you pry it from my cold, dead hands! Best surface for the $ I've ever owned.

I use the alesis lrc to control all the cubase master/slave machines. It's pretty cool for transport purposes.

I have 2, between 3 different computers, all working great...that sucks though, because they are pretty awesome for me here.

Agreed fully. And in that is one of the issues in that most controllers have tried to create a workflow that works without the kbd/mouse being used along side...To me, integrating them is a better goal. IMO this is where console 1 is very good, if the daw supports track follow, it's an amazing amount of workflow in a small space, that shares deskspace nicely.

You won't ever please everyone, but out of the people that I know with control surfaces there are a lot of commonalities with the boxes people want ticked.

To the productive side of things, here are pics of how I have X-touc/Qmap, C1 setup. Which for me is the best setup I've owned (procontrol, control 24, Mix+transport, mix+dock) or used (c24, D-command, s3+dock) from a workflow perspective. A large part of this is that it's easy to move what I need to where I need it. This requires pretty significant DIY skills, but I think it's not impossible for a manufacturer to setup something like this more simply with adjustable height legs and felt feet or sell a drawer slide kit etc.

This could be done ergonomically with an S3 (or S1's), but here is where an S3+dock falls well short of Qmap+C1 for me. First, no custom mapping for plugins, and only 16 parameters can be controlled/viewed at once of the 32 knobs and 16 faders available. Also no way to setup something like the Console 1 (or D-command) workflow where you have trim/gate/eq/dyn/sat controls that are dedicated and follow the selected track. In contrast with the Qmap/C1 setup not only do I have one or the other, but BOTH. Qmap enables custom mapping of all faders and knobs on the x-touch for plugins, and C1 has the dedicated knob per function setup.

I should say that I am actually really happy with the setup here, but unfortunately it's only really the control-link system in Studio One that enables this. But this type of setup, that could work across daws and have a little more hardware integration from one part to the next, is something that certainly wouldn't make everyone happy, but I think it would make A LOT of people happy...Obviously it would be best if MIDI 2.0 could include everything required to transmit plugin metering, track selection, parameter names, track color coding, transport state etc, etc ,etc. But even now a lot could be done with MC/HUI and a container plugin that enables custom mapping (over multiple plugins at once)...

Anyway I could go on about this, but I think the vagueness you describe is mostly people knowing that their controllers could be more useful, but quite being able to describe how.

After spending some months with S1, I'm also likely moving to a C1/Qmap setup. I already use a 1st gen MCU and purchased a C1 ages ago but didn't have room for it on my old desk. Have a new desk now and just starting to use the C1.

Have been following the Qmap project but was not yet sure if I was going to stick with S1. Not in love with S1 but I am pushing towards having one DAW for all types of work and my impression after months of use is that it's a jack of all trades, master of none.

Will likely purchase Qmap for my old MCU and be done with it!

Agree that the Avid/Eucon integration is really fantastic, but I cannot justify their pricing and the lack of C1 integration puts me off further. Qmap + C1 seems to be the best alternative as long as you can live wish S1. Otherwise it's a total crapshoot out there.

I've found that Console 1 can be very picky when it comes to which port it's in, especially when you have other usb midi devices connected - you have to really play around with which device goes in which port depending on your motherboard.
The first sign of any problems is that the on-screen-display gets corrupted/won't load and can even randomly put itself into Apollo mode which really screws things up and you have to manually edit the C1 config file to get it working again.

It really doesn't like USB 3 ports either.

Once it's stable though, it tends to remain stable, ime.


There's loads of interesting comments here and @ RyanC has been burdened with the task of extolling QMapV2 (thanks buddy!) so I'll add some input:

It's more that users are forced to use the mouse because not enough daw parameters are included in the standard MC mappings.
But you're right in that companies just assume that everyone is still happy (after what, 3 decades?) to go along with that paradigm of 'mainly mouse with some controller' which dictates how much functionality they choose to put on the controller.

The thing is the CS18a wasn't 'cheap' in terms of a daw controller.
And it still lacked all the extended functionality that people have been asking for.
It is of course much easier to focus all ones attention on one DAW, but the main reason that QMapV2 can't just be ported over to Logic for example (and I've had lots of people asking about Logic support!) is because Apple don't make the necessary files available.

Completely agree with this apart from one thing which is the way LCDs are implemented.
You really need separate LCDs for each strip on a controller to be able to see things quickly without bending your brain.. So you may have a good 'quality' LCD but if they're not separated then they are actually worse than a lower quality LCD that IS separated.
Perfect example here is the Qcon Pro X, which has a super nice display that you can tilt for the perfect viewing angle, but the X-Touch LCDs are still better because they're separated.


Cubase definitely has the best standard implementation.

QMap allows you to sync the software mixer to the controller, so you navigate from the controller - this is only practical because so much functionality has been added to the hardware.
Normally you're using the mouse so much in the softmixer generally and for selecting channels that you feel the need for 2-way sync.
QMap reverses this so you don't need to click into the softmixer.

And with QMapV2, if you only have the main unit and no extenders in your setup, you do actually get full 2-way sync (so click any channel in the softmixer and the controller will bank over to it).
The other major thing that eliminates having to click/bank forever is having the selected channel on the 9th fader when you want it.

Yeah it's a huge factor.
I designed my implementation so you could do the vast majority of controller moves with one hand, even when the move involves holding a modifier then moving another control.

In the standard implementation, you get 8 knobs for plugin control and 8 buttons, but the buttons are the F1-F8 keys.
What good are they over there?!
That's completely illogical.
All encoders on these devices have built-in buttons so why the hell didn't they use those instead of the F-Keys????

QMap puts the plugin controls all on each strip, so you get an encoder, a button and a fader per strip.
You also have a second layer using shift which gives you 50 controls (inc. the master fader and jogwheel), then 8 pages, so 400 controls in all per plugin.


And Studio One with QMap V2

It's difficult to come to any different conclusion in general though, for sure.

It's really difficult to get this through to people because the name has been tainted by all the reasons mentioned in this thread, but I will say it again:

The Mackie Control protocol is NOT the problem!
I agree that you need someone motivated enough to really put some thought into it, but the MC protocol is not the bottleneck, rather it's the apparent lack of will for developers to actually do anything more with it than the most basic standard config.

The MC protocol is incredibly powerful because it's so incredibly simple.
It's what you do with it that counts.
It's not inherently limited in any way, other than the 32 channel limit.
QMapV2 is an MC protocol mod, and I defy anyone to call QMap limited in its scope!
It's the most powerful daw controller implementation out there, because the MC protocol has actually been pushed for once to see what it can do.
And the answer is - a lot.

Again, I agree with the main points, but you're getting the 'enemy' wrong

The enemy is the apathy of companies as relates to making a highly functional controller, not the protocol they have to work with.

The MC protocol consists of basically 3 parts:

1. The device firmware, which essentially sets the midi addresses as defined by MC and takes care of the extender aliases (extenders share a surface map, although they don't have to).

2. The Surface maps, which are simple xml files that determine which physical buttons perform which function.

3. The supporting scripts (that could be written in any form really determined by the DAW backend) that define the functions that the surface controls operate.

The key to making a powerful controller lies in those surface maps and scripts.
Once you're working on those, the world is your oyster.
You can target anything that exists as a parameter in the daw.

I went through a few controllers hoping that the next one would give me what the previous ones didn't.
When I realised that wasn't going to happen I rolled up my sleeves and got to work.

As mentioned above, give me the scripts for any DAW and I'll make you a QMap version of it - it comes down to the attitude of the DAW dev.
PreSonus have a great attitude to this and don't hide everything away - customisation is pretty much encouraged and you can see this in the importance that Studio One places on using macros.


But why should you be forced to buy a separate device for each purpose when you CAN implement it all in an MC device?
It's like with plugin control - you spend a few hundred on a daw controller then have to spend more just to get a decent level of plugin control (that's effectively useless if faders aren't motorised and encoders aren't endless, which applies to most of them).

I've started this process in QMap by separating out mix and tracking modes, and I will also add an Edit Mode now that all the other stuff is complete.
The tricky thing about editing is that you do need to use the mouse for stuff such as creating ranges and selecting multiple events etc.
I've already added a Trackpad Mode to QMap so that you can use the nav section as a mouse, and you've been able to select multiple events and adjust event gainn etc since the first version of QMap.
There are a ton of user macro 'slots' that can be filled with whatever commands you like for editing and triggered with modifier + encoder buttons.
In V2 I've added the ability to adjust event fade ins and outs from the controller using the jogwheel plus trimming.

For editing most people will still prefer to use the mouse I think, but it's nice to have the option.

People don't seem to understand the power of using scenes in DAWs.
It's insanity to scroll back and forth through hundreds of tracks - it's even annoying enough with tens of tracks.
Both Studio One (Scenes) and Cubase (via the PLE) offer all the tools you need to manage your channels.

You just set up what channels you want in certain views and save them, then you can recall them with a press of a button or cycle through them from the controller.

You can mix and match any type of channel.
You need to think of this in terms of the regular channel views you get on ann MC device (Inputs, Audio, Buses, FX, VSTi etc).

If you want to see your FX channels you don't scroll all the way to the end of the mixer, you just press the 'FX' button and you'll see your FX channels on the controller, and only the FX channels.

Scenes are exactly the same, except you get to choose what channels you want displayed when you select the scene (and can choose mix settings per scene as well, so you could have the same channels in two different scenes with different insert choices for example.
The controller follows these scenes, so you choose a scene from the controller and both the DAW and controller slave to it.

Using Scenes/PLE is the single most powerful thing you can do to increase your productivity, as you control what you're seeing on-screen/on the controller at any given time.
You can do the obvious practical things like having all your drums in a scene, bass in another, drums with bass in a 3rd, vox in a 4th, but then you can also create scenes based on what you're doing at any specific time, so you could create a scene that shows vox channels and also any channels that may create masking issues and work on them together in one view, instead of having to bounce all over the place all the time.

These features have been there for ages but so few people take advantage of them - it's as if they WANT to work less productively!
I think also that people don't bother reading manuals anymore, so if thhey haven't seen it on Youtube or in a forum, they don't even know these features exist.


I don't agree. It's not the price tag, it's the implementation.
QMap does more than controllers that cost thousands, and it's only £59.99, which includes a very nice overlay, and a custom version of Bomes!

Editing xml and java doesn't cost lots of money.
It takes time, sure, which costs money, but it took me a year to get QMap to this point and I hadn't even seen a javascript file before that - I'm not a programmer, I'm not even a professional audio engineeer - I'm just motivated, and it's that motivation that's lacking in the bigger companies it seems.

The hardware itself doesn't need to be expensive, that's the point.
The value comes from the script implementation which in turn is dictated by the amount of care/love/diligence that's put into it.
Someone actually caring about it enough- that's free.

The time spend developing it costs money sure but we're not reinventing the wheel here.
I developed QMap while surviving on £250 per month after rent.
The only other costs were the controllers needed to develop on which cost me £400 second hand for a main unit and extender.

As stated above, it took a year and if I had known how to do it before I started instead of learning as I went along, I could have done it in a third of the time.

The 'costs' are all market-driven, they're not inherent in making a controller.

Remember that Behringer/PreSonus etc are selling their units to retailers for as little as half the price you're paying.


Hopefully now you can see it
The solution for Studio One is there in QMap.

And it does cover pretty much everything that people want, for well under £100.
If I can do it in a year with no money and no prior knowledge of programming, then what's the excuse of major companies with serious expertise and budgets?
There is no excuse.


Hey man!

I believe that was you that ordered yesterday right?

Overlay was shipped today

Thank your for the detailed response and explanation. What you say makes sense to me.

What is possible for Nuendo v10.2? Is functionality the same as for Cubase? They are often indistinguishable in most ways, but I don't know the backend like I'm sure you do.

I'm sure you could implement everything on a Presonus Faderport single fader unit too, but why would you? If you look at devices that previously have been built mainly for editing they look very different, and it'd be silly to assume they were for no reason.



So all I was saying was that if you're looking at an 8-channel device like the Mackie (-clones) then that's clearly not one designed for editing. It doesn't make sense to hold that against the designers because the purpose was different. That's my point.

No offense, but I can see why you would think QMap is the solution to most of our problems...

I wrote "typically". Usually in threads like these as soon as people start talking about the device they want to see on the market it ends up being more for less. Almost always. And it doesn't have to do with the software implementation.

Part of the value, definitely not all of it. There's a huge difference between a $500 controller, one that costs $1,200, and one that costs $5,000, and one that costs $10k+. The build quality is just different.

Yes yes yes... QMap. Inexpensive. Great. Doesn't make faders one bit better though. And so what I was pointing out was that for developers things other than implementation are costly, and for a small market.

@ niversen - I've been developing for Studio One only, so I don't have great knowledge of Cubase's backend, and in fact I don't even have access to the backend for Studio One, so hooking onto various parameters is simply a matter of trial and error.

A LOT of trial and error

I was on Cubase for years before S1 - they're very closely related so I expect the supporting files are similar, it's those I need to get things going, not access to the daw backend per se.
Thing is, as you say, Cubase's standard implementation is awesome, so the only thing that would really need doing to it that a normal user can't customise themselves are things like the expanded plugin control and function modes.

Cubase has an advantage in that it has a built-in channel strip which can be accessed from the controller - S1 doesn't have this, which is why QMap and Console 1 together are such a popular combo for S1, especially as full integration with C1 is supported (and has been for a long time - Studio One is at the centre of Softube's main rig, which helps!).

I would like to bring QMap to Bitwig, Ableton etc and even Cubase, just depends on how responsive they are to making the base scripts available.

Reason already has a great MC mod for it (MJ Enhanced - https://www.jaexx.com/blog/reason-cu...te-map-layout/).
Avid and Apple tbh, I can't stand them, so I really don't feel bad about not bothering with Logic/Protools, even if it were possible.
Logic and Protools users get a raw deal on 3rd party controllers (only HUI in Protools and no customisation possible in Logic as they don't allow users to see those files).
That's crappy for the user but everyone that buys Apple or Avid products know exactly the kind of ecosystem they're buying into so it's their call.

Looks like a jogwheel, some encoders and a load of buttons to me...
You have your computer KB for the rest.
We're not talking Da Vinci resolve here, DAWs are different, but either way, it's not the primary focus of QMap, just saying it could be done effectively.

I didn't say that, I said it was the answer to Studio One users' problems.
Which it is.
Have you read the QMap user guide/Command Reference?
Get back to me when you have!
Some people dismiss it out of hand when they see the phrase 'Mackie Control device', but that's because they don't understand what MC is and what it can actually do in the right hands.

Yes, it does.

I've proved it here, you seem to be missing that.
The only difference between an X-Touch that can do hardly anything and an X-Touch that can do pretty much everything in S1 using QMap, IS the software implementation.

Yes sure - but you can get a beautifully built SSL Nucleus that can't do half of what QMap can.
I'll take the £350 controller with all the functionality over a £3,500 one that has half that functionality, and so would most other people.

Don't be so glib!
And you're talking as if it's more important to have a P&G fader that controls just channel volume than it is to have a mid-range fader that can control whatever you want when you need it to.

That's an argument for the sake of an argument, there is no logic there.

Let me give a really clear example using the X-Touch jogwheel, which many (including myself) think is pretty poor quality.

Would I want a much nicer jogwheel that feels like a Griffin Powermate? Hell Yes!
But would I trade the crap X-Touch one for it if the Grffin could only scroll the timeline? Hell No!

My software implementation for the jogwheel gives S1 users control of:

Event (Clip) gain
Shift loop forwards/back
midi velocity
Trim event start end with built-in auto fade
Adjust event Fade In/Out
Marker Navigation
plus you can assign it as a plugin control.

So you see it's not just about 'having a nice fader/jogwheel' etc, it IS more about what the controls can do.

Now if I were to make hardware would I want to give it the nicest of everything? Yes of course, but that's not practical because then you end back up at the 25K market again.
The problem is that there's no middle ground.

I could bring a nice 16 channel hardware controller to market with all the functionality of QMap for around a grand, less for 8 channels.
The market is huge for semi-pro/hobbyists etc that don't have budgets in the high thousands.

It would be nice to offer people an alternative to Behringer!
Plenty would be happy to pay more for a product from an individual enterprise with higher quality, although in genera the build quality is actually very good on the X-Touch, it's just that they used cheap components like the jogwheel.
The buttons always feel great though and there's nothing wrong with the encoders.
They make the faders in-house and could definitely have come up with something better, but when an X-Touch costs £350 or so in the UK, at that price you accept those trade-offs.
If you spend more you'd get something nicer, but it's the software that makes the thing breathe, not the hardware!

It's not about QMap. And "no", if you want an actual edit controller I don't really think it can be done on something like the X-Touch.

You either get the ergonomics done right for editing or not. A controller that compromises doesn't get all the way there. So if you're looking at a controller that does compromise then really what that's telling me is that it wasn't intended as a device to primarily edit on. And because of that it's a bit irrelevant to complain that the device isn't good for editing. Hope my point is clearer now.

Btw, DaVinci Resolve includes Fairlight which is a DAW - hence it being included in the pictures.

I'm not dismissing QMap at all.

No you didn't prove that. Either I didn't express myself well or you're not paying attention.

I'm saying that in most threads where people complain that the controller they want to see doesn't exist it typically boils down to:

1. No, those controllers actually do exist, but they're too expensive.
2. They want more hardware, i.e. instead of one knob per channel on an X-touch they want an array laid out to correspond to a multi-band parametric EQ, like this:



You can program QMap until the end of the universe, but that doesn't give an X-touch those knobs in that arrangement.

That's what users typically talk about in threads. It's almost never limited to software functionality as far as I can tell.

You're creating a false dichotomy where there isn't one. Probably because you didn't bother to understand the context in which I commented to that other person.

Curious: Which device provides more functionality - an Avid s6 full setup or a Behringer X-touch with QMap?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IOpLpbfHhY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZY7deEqiEI

Please note that assigning parameters other than volume to the fader is no big deal...

Obviously the S6 is way superior hardware, lots more knobs, RGB knobs, RGB buttons on the bottom and the integration with the touch screen.

Can you custom map plugins on S6? Plugin to faders is so much more useful when you can always use the same fader for threshold, release time- etc or at least map them out in a way that makes sense for most used plugs.

But it's obviously a great controller, I do think it's fair to say that price isn't the only reason S6/S4 are mostly used in post more-so than music no? Super cool, but much harder for people to setup a desk with analog gear, midi stuff etc and integrate something like that.

All those controllers you posted here look great for specific tasks, but too big for integration with peoples other stuff- especially with music. Space wise, a mouse and keyboard win for many people here, even of those who can afford an S6/S4.

If we factor price, space and workflow- Point taken that it's impossible to please everyone- C1+Qmap would be great on a surface with streamdeck style buttons, OLED screens that show track colors, better faders and meters, GR meters, and software that supports it across daws (and still small somehow). This would probably get pretty pricey and then have less potential buyers.

I am curious if you've had the chance to spend some time with console 1 on a daw that has full support for it?

I get that, I think I made it clear that an X-Touch wouldn't be as good as a dedicated edit controler, but could be effective.
If it wasn't then MC devices wouldn't be supported in Lightroom and Pemiere Pro, for example.

I was making a point there specifically about how much of the control implementation is decided in software; the way you put your original premise, you were making a correlation between functionality and cost of components, which isn't accurate.

Yes, but that's why the Console 1 is so powerful/useful in Studio One.
Was it this thread or the other controller one, I was talking about the fact that C1 is so popular in S1 because S1 doesn't have a built-in channel strip like Cubase that can be accessed from the controller.
Console 1 is an extra cost yes, but with full integration it's so fluid, almost immediately after first using it you kind of forget that you're using it.
A Console 1 does the job so well there, and QMap fills in most of the gaps.

That's a strange statement, considering we're talking about DAW controllers, which can only function as a result of being connected to that software functionality. The software dictates what the controller can do, not the other way round.

No I just think you're being a bit fliippant. You have a lot of opinions on how daw controllers can be integrated without ever having tried to do it.
When you do try to do it, you realise just how much untapped potential has been sitting in these MC devices for all that time - it's painful!

You think that's comparing apples to apples?

An S6 is about $140,000 and is designed by the people that make the software in a company with a huge budget. And it can't be used in Studio One.

I said I'd solved most S1 users' problems remember, not Protools users.
I've made it clear that 3rd party MC hardware is not going to match something like an S6 when it comes to quality of components etc.
Putting a $140,000 bespoke controller against anything is going to make it look bad
It's sexy, right

A bit less sexy though when you think about actual day-to-day work and you can't custom map any plugins.

A Console 1, X-Touch and extender with QMap delivered costs £950 new, and gets you closer to an S6 in terms of functionality than anything else, even if it was available for every daw.

The point I've been trying to make is that the hardware for those products can be made to any price point depending on how many bells and whistles you want.
The important bit, the but that makes it what it is, is the scripting behind the Console 1 and X-Touch.
Avid could have made a controller a tenth of the price with exactly the same functionality, they just decided to go after the high end only.

Console 1 rocks.

I'm completely mystified by these people that get one and then disable the very thing that makes it so great just to use it as a dumb midi controller.
Bizarro.

I've got a cool idea for OLEDs on a hardware surface that hasn't been done yet..

MC devices would be supported in Premiere etc because they provide motorized touch sensitive faders, not for the editing. If you think even one professional video editor uses one of those controllers for editing either video or audio you're mistaken. I've been in numerous edit suites over the past couple of decades and I've never ever seen anyone use such a device for editing.

Again: I was just saying that it isn't fair to criticize controllers like the X-touch based on the assumption that it's not good for editing and that it's not good for editing because the designers clearly aren't editors. The devices were pretty clearly not meant to be editing devices. The focus if there is one lies elsewhere.

Not sure why you'd choose to argue with that.

It IS accurate though. If you want a controller to be exactly like the MCU but have 12 faders then that's not a software issue, it's a hardware issue. And that hardware costs money. And those are the sorts of comments that users make. Therefore it often is a matter of getting more for less.

Yeah, you need software to make the hardware talk to the DAW. You think I don't understand that?

But do you understand that there's a difference between being able to bank between 64 channels on an 8 physical fader controller and actually having 64 physical faders that you can touch? If it didn't matter that controls were physical on control surfaces then all we'd need was QMap without anything else.

I mean, you do get the difference, right?

I never said there wasn't a lot of untapped potential. Where do you get all this from? This all comes off as if you can't see beyond your own product and that becomes the center of everybody else's comments, even though that isn't even remotely the case.

The thread isn't about S1.
The poster I responded to wasn't talking about S1.

But it seems to prove my point. People say that controllers today are in a sad state and bring up things they want in controllers. People like me point out that controllers like that already exist. Then the reply is just like yours: Too expensive.

Exactly what I've been saying. Why are you arguing this?

So you didn't look at the videos then?

Sure. They could have given it away too. Or paid people to use it.

The question is how people really know just how other companies "should" price their products in this market, without even working in those companies. I mean, it's fairly interesting to hear this repeatedly.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like a top-notch extensively functional great controller for peanuts as well, it's just that I think that businesses like this probably make their choices for good reasons. Perhaps you should ask yourself not why Avid doesn't provide an s6 for a fraction of the price but why Behringer et al aren't providing multiples more functionality for the same low price on their units?

From my perspective, you're still missing the point- which is that the main issue people have isn't the hardware that's available per se, but Daws being willing to optimize control options for that (or any) hardware so users can get the most out of it.

Case in point-

https://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=404908

https://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=377172

Going on 5 years here this is clearly a problem even at the S6 level.

What I read in these threads/posts is less "I want a ferrari on a ford budget" and more "why can't my ford go backwards or turn left". And unfortunately, it looks like the Ferrari in this case still has limited left turning capabilities too. Sure it can do other amazing things, just don't expect one of the most basic functions all users want.

I'm still not saying users don't have problems with software integration.

I stand by what I meant which was that typically when users start talking about what current devices are missing and what they want in a better, newer device it ends up being a non-consensus which typically involves changes (and differences) in hardware.




From this thread alone:

"I'm talking about something that implements motor faders, control buttons, pots and buttons and a tablet sized screen to something that can be used as a daw controller out of the box"

"What about the Slate Raven?"

"Slate should integrate moving faders and few knobs and buttons" / "If he could do it for a reasonable amount"

"you can accomplish all that just as efficiently with a single fader"

"The only thing I’m missing on that system is 16 faders "

"allow for modern, modular, scalable and customizable tactile control setup
"

"small Nucleus that is priced for independent artists "

1. Users want different hardware configurations.
2. Some desired configurations exist but are too expensive.


Now add every other thread on the topic we get every 10 months or so..

I didn't argue with it

I'd be as surprised as you to see an x-touch in a pro editing suite!
I said that it could be 'effective' if that's what you had.

And it does in fact speed up a lot of actions for me in Lightroom compared to mouse only, so it is 'effective', not 'the best option' and I made that clear!.

That's completely irrelevant.
The fader/strip count is related to cost. They don't give extenders away for free, not even for the X-Touch

I think it's pretty obvious to most people that a 16 fader unit is going to cost more than an 8 fader unit, whatever the price scale is.

The point here is that functionality doesn't change with channel count, you just have more strips that you can use the base functionality on.

That's not what we're talking about

The MC protocol is limited to 32 channels as we have all acknowledged.
Do you know how small the market is for a 64 channel daw controller?
Of all the people in the world right now making some kind of living from music production/mixing, how many of those do you think have space or budget for an S6?
That's not what people are asking for, and it's not the market that we're discussing.
The market we're discussing aren't asking for 64 channel controllers as an answer to their problem.
They want more functionality for the strips they already have.
And that is implemented in software, not hardware.
You seem unable to process this point.

You said in this thread that the MC protocol was 'limiting' and that to get the functionality they want people had to expect to pay lots for something like an S6.
This whole discussion (for me anyway!) is about getting you and people reading to understand that there is no correlation between functionality and hardware cost.
I'm as bored of typing 'QMap' as you are of reading it, trust me
I know it comes across as self-promoting.
I mean, it is to an extent of course, I want people to know what is achievable and to dispel myths about the MC protocol which are littered all over this website by people that have never even looked at one of the supporting files.

The fact is that QMap is the best example of the argument here - which is that expanding the functionality of a controller isn't about filling it with expensive parts and putting 64 channels on it.

There are obvious limits to that argument though - I have a version for the Qcon Pro/G2 that I haven't released because the button count on those units is so low that I can only get about half the functions on there.

Another good example is the PreSonus Faderport 8/16 with their one encoder.
You hear people say that it doesn't matter but it does obviously.
If you've got 16 channels laid out in front of you then you have no individual pan controls, or send pan controls in send mode, you can't assign them as plugin controls etc etc

Those are clear cases where a higher unit cost including those missing controls would have made more sense.

Granted
The points I have to make I can only make with S1 as that's where the current example of low-cost high-function is that proves my point.

Because your premise is wrong.
You seem to think that you can only have that kind of functionality in a controller that expensive!!
Can't you see that your logic keeps bringing you back here, and that it's flawed?

People are not saying they want a 64 channel $140,000 controller that only works with ProTools

They want a highly functional controller that is affordable. That is what people are asking for.
I'm saying yes it can be done (and has been done now in S1) and you're saying their demand has already been met because the S6 exists.

So they're just too 'dumb' to realise that 140K is affordable or what?

If you go into any of these many controller discussions and tell everyone they should stop complaining about controller implementation because they can buy an S6, I'd like to see the responses you get..

You don't need to work for an audio company to understand market economics.
They price based on a variety of factors.
Let's be clear, I'm not saying that an S6 shouldn't cost what it costs.
That's not the argument here.
But the market price doesn't just reflect unit cost.
It's a function of market size for that product/expected unit sales, production speed etc, not just cost of components.

Therefore, a controller that is aimed at a bigger share of the market that can be produced quicker will sell more units and that lowers the price more than the difference in component cost.

But again, the point here is that the market we're talking about are asking for more functionality, not more controls.
You don't need more controls on an MC setup, you need those controls to do more things, and once more, this is a software thing, it's got nothing to do with the hardware.

Businesses make their choices based usually on making as much profit as possible - they're a business. That's what they do.
And Avid? You're going to use them as an example of fair pricing to their customers?
That's a first..

Behringer are not in the business of providing the individual scripts for each daw that supports their devices. That's not expected.
It's 3rd party.
The S6 is not.

That's like Avid contracting a company to make the hardware (which they probably did to some extent) then asking them why they haven't done the Protools implementation as well.
It's the daw devs job to implement that protocol to the fullest extent possible to benefit their user - but that's not happening in most cases.
And you don't need to pay 140K to get it, as you believe you do.

Modders like me can come along and finish the job 'for peanuts' because it's all programming at that point.