UC-33e Preset

[BuleriaChk]

Just so you know, I am a programmer myself.  10 years experience in computer physics at General Research and Santa Barbara Research (during Star Wars; Fortran, Vax/VMS etc) and 5 years at the Santa Barbara Police Dept. (Vax/VMS, Visual Basic) and C++ for a private firm for about a year.... 

I know, I know, it doesn't show....

But I guess that running these other programs as vst's inside Sonar will work just fine, come to think of it.

I've been looking at your programming language in AZ Control (how to set banks, etc.) Where does the language come from, did you develop it yourself?  I'll read more on your site to try to figure it out, but if you have a two line answer, that'll be fine.  I may try a controller on my own, just to see if I can do it, now that I know the basics of the UC33e...

[BuleriaChk]

Also, one thing I find really missing is a tempo control.  Actually, some of the rotors in send or gain in Mix could be sacrificed for this and other purposes.  The full channel strip bank could be temporary (holding down command without doing anything would make the 4th bank available (or just the auxiliary functions not present in the current version); releasing it would make it go away.  That would give access to everything.  (Tranzport has a  tempo control for Live but not for Sonar).

Or a command + rotor that would allow a rotor (e.g. the gain on track #8) that would shift its use to tempo when the command button was held down temporarily)... This could also be used for the channel bank  I mentioned above - the switch wouldn't be permanent, but temporary, and would allow all the other commands to be accessed.

Might even consider making the command button a toggle (off/on) switch rather than press/release, come to think of it.  Are there any down sides to that?

[azslow3]

Also, one thing I find really missing is a tempo control.

And you are not alone... Sonar has no tempo control. It allows tempo changes in "edit" mode only, not in real time. And even that functionality is hidden from Surfaces.
We have invented a dirty workaround for BCR2000, by keyboard commands opening insert tempo dialog and changing numbers there. So at least for practicing it is possible go to the first bar and than modify tempo by encoder. But no more then that.

Just so you know, I am a programmer myself.  10 years experience in computer physics at General Research and Santa Barbara Research (during Star Wars; Fortran, Vax/VMS etc) and 5 years at the Santa Barbara Police Dept. (Vax/VMS, Visual Basic) and C++ for a private firm for about a year.... 

I know, I know, it doesn't show....

But I guess that running these other programs as vst's inside Sonar will work just fine, come to think of it.

I've been looking at your programming language in AZ Control (how to set banks, etc.) Where does the language come from, did you develop it yourself?  I'll read more on your site to try to figure it out, but if you have a two line answer, that'll be fine.  I may try a controller on my own, just to see if I can do it, now that I know the basics of the UC33e...

So far users completely without programming experience have not managed do anything with AZ Controller. So taking your story into account (and so your age), the fact you are using Live with controllers and your systematical approach in proposals, I have already guessed that you have seen computers 

I was shortly working with Vax/VMS, a bit more with Alpha/VMS. And Fortran was the first language I have learned (on Russian analogs of old IBM and 180k floppy "micro" computers).

AZ Controller is a compilation coming from my experience. The idea how it should function comes from LabVIEW and my own physical experiments controlling projects. The script language concept has roots in Forth, Prolog and DAW concept of changing parameters on the fly with immediate effect. It had to be lightweight to be manageable by one man during (a part of) free time (including the interpreter and IDE), completely open for "experiments" (since I am not a studio engineer and so I had not ideas how it SHOULD work), originally simple for not programmers (but I have failed with that, Monitoring, functions and arrays are not something "self-explaining" for musicians, and without these concepts creating complex logic is a nightmare).

I have mentioned that to create own complex presets you need an "UFO engineering course". It includes (in sequence):
1) "ACT MIDI Explained" tutorial (to practically create half complex configuration and understanding how to use the IDE)
2) Reading the manual (to understand what is theoretically possible to do)
3) and long missing by recently added "Buttons and PADs with LEDs: mastering the feedback" (for most complex concepts in AZ Controller and several practical "tricks")

[BuleriaChk]

Well, you've done fantastic work.  I remember now the tempo control was another WTF reason I abandoned Cakewalk years ago (It has been a LONG time since I looked at it, and even then only went back because of the comping functionality).  Everything else is so much easier in Live. Maschine, and even Fruity Loops, which is really coming on strong.

Maybe its because the audio clips are not elastic, so they didn't want the user changing tempo on the fly.  That actually makes sense if one considers Sonar to be a premiere audio editing tool (particularly for guitarists, vocalists, and other studio musicians with acoustic instruments that make real use of Melodyne...)

I may not like my recorded guitar playing but my vocals REALLY suck.. But in Flamenco it doesn't matter too much; everyone just thinks you're "old school" 

[BuleriaChk]

There already is a preset for Launch Control XL (I found it on your site?), but I don't know how extensive it is.

How difficult would it be to port the configuration for the UC33e (once it is final, provided it is possible to add the missing controls in ProChannel) to that controller (in case something happens to my UC33e)?.  I'd help with that in testing, of course). It looks like there are enough buttons, knobs, and sliders to do the job (in fact more buttons, for Pro Channel modes).

(There are not many used UC33e's in good condition on the market....

And of course, it would give all users a very useable and available control surface for Sonar at only $149.  After looking at the configurations of all available controllers to date that I know of, IMO that looks like the best all-around flexible choice for Sonar. And in conjunction with Faderport or other wireless controllers for transport, I think it would work great.... (especially with my Tranzport).

(And it also works great with Live - and I get tempo control with my Tranzport...!!)

[azslow3]

How difficult would it be to port the configuration for the UC33e (once it is final, provided it is possible to add the missing controls in ProChannel) to that controller (in case something happens to my UC33e)?.  I'd help with that in testing, of course). It looks like there are enough buttons, knobs, and sliders to do the job (in fact more buttons, for Pro Channel modes).

It is not a problem to apply a configuration for one device to another, as long they are more or less compatible in controls (like UC33 and Launch Control XL).

It happens I am a bit busy these days (I have received new notebook I have to setup, my younger daughter got a cold, in addition to what I have mentioned before), but I will continue the preset modification soon.

Note as I have mentioned before, the "best" small devices for Sonar+AZ Controller combination are with encoders instead of knobs (f.e. BCR2000)

[BuleriaChk]

Sounds like you're busy; I'll wait till we get the final configuration for the UC33e finished before I order the Launchpad XL.  Maybe I can do most of the work myself, if I can figure out how your logic works.  Also, by then it might be NAMM, and we'll see what other controllers manufacturers have in mind.  But as soon as the UC33e is finished, so I'll  have a good conceptual model, I'll spring for a Launch XL (remember, I'm not all that familiar with Sonar, or indeed with how others would want to use it - I just think an interface with channel and pro-channel functions would be gorgeous.   

The BCR 2000 would probably be best, but to me the LC XL has a more logical setup (and a flatter footprint) in my mind, and is less expensive and more portable (from an aesthetic sense, I think the BCR2000 is butt-ugly as well, but that's just me....  There are also bank buttons, etc. on the LC, and enough buttons to always have transport functions available in every bank - or even most pro-channel functions in a channel select mode (as contrasted with mixer mode).

(One could also implement a channel select mode on the UC33e which (e.g.) could give access to more sends with the faders and all the buttons and rotors for pro-channel mode (or other Sonar or vst controls) for each selected strip. That might get too complex for the average user (like me), though, but would be exciting for the obsessed tweaker (like me  

If a channel select mode were available, one could always use MIDI learn on a case-by case basis for the extra (vst) controls.... without implementing it permanently in AZ Control.

And the XL integrates with Live seamlessly... no need to have two controllers - I also have a Push 2, but for me that is mainly an musical instrument rather than a mixing surface (although it will do everything well).

And once the XL is done, other surfaces would probably be easier for users - especially if the logic is well thought out, 

[azslow3]

If a channel select mode were available, one could always use MIDI learn on a case-by case basis for the extra (vst) controls.... without implementing it permanently in AZ Control.

Channel select was assigned to "+/-", which unfortunately not assignable... Can be moved to "0"+"FF/REW".

VST control (other then performance) is done with "Dynamic mapping" in ACT, can be yet another "bank" (Startup preset had it). But again, some navigation is required then.

I do not believe in universal fixed "seamless integration". Something which you never use is wasting hardware controls and something you need all the time is not there. Especially for n00bs like me, which always need something unusual compare to "pro studio" users.

[BuleriaChk]

I agree about the VST (I think); what I meant was that if one doesn't have a favorite vst, one can assign controls "on the fly" via midi learn, but it will mean abandoning the use of some controls in the root surface interface.

But I think the XL would be a better choice once the logical flow of the important functions of Sonar are logically organized, since the XL does have enough buttons and flexibility to permit easy configuration (e.g., the channel select mode); there are already buttons configured and labeled for switching banks in addition to the 16 normally used for mute/solo and record arming.

The UC33e was quite advanced for its day; and I doubt they had Sonar specifically in mind, but that's why I purchased it...

Anyway, I will order a Launchpad XL right now, if you'd be willing to help me put it into a really operable form for Sonar - more as a public service than anything else.  (And I'll send you my UC33e..

 I noticed that there was a problem with noisy LED's which had to be switched off when recording, but other than that, it seems ideal for sonar except for the lack of dedicated transport button (the bottom 4 could be assigned permanently, with a shift function to enable recording for those four tracks. 

OTH, I don't need transport/scrolling since the Tranzport covers ithem and has the added advantage of being wireless and most users could purchase an external unit (even a numerical pad would work for those functions, or a faderport, etc...

If someone at NAMM comes out with the equivalent of an XL with transport/scroll, great, (I would probably buy it, silly me.)  But for me, I thinks the XL would be an inexpesnsive and powerful controller for Sonar if set up properly for basic functions + the prochannel.

[azslow3]

Anyway, I will order a Launchpad XL right now, if you'd be willing to help me put it into a really operable form for Sonar - more as a public service than anything else.  (And I'll send you my UC33e..

Probably not before next week... I have tried to work on my Notebook today, but instead I had to spend the whole day to tune it.... wonderful Linux world. In addition I have understood that I will have to hack the touchpad driver myself. People are "fighting" with similar several years, but no progress so far.

But please do not send me UC33... if I understand your location right, that is going to be transatlantic route. 

[BuleriaChk]

Any time is fine with me, if you're willing to help with the LP XL.  I'll order one and see what you did with the existing preset, and see if I can understand it.  The main thing is getting the controls set up right logically so the configuration can be easily ported over ... and I'll be learning about the XL in the meantime.

And I can send your wife the flowers with the money I get from selling the UC33e when we're finished.  Is that OK with you?

PS - If one wanted simultaneous control of everything all at once, one could just purchase three (or more) controllers for Sonar ...
1. Mix Mode
2. Channel Select Mode
3. Pro Channel Mode



Not only that, I envision a separate controller for each vst, until everyone signs on to NKS... Or Ableton 

No order. I'll wait for NAMM and then decide.

[azslow3]

Not only that, I envision a separate controller for each vst, until everyone signs on to NKS... Or Ableton 

The way NKS, AutoMap, AKAI Advance and ACT dynamic mapping is working is THE SAME. Well, NKS can "highlight" some notes... since you have have programmed, you know it is just 1-2 function calls difference 

WTF? Update: I just discovered you can't modify the knobs in Launch Control XL  So I cancelled the order again.  Maybe MidiMix or back to nanoStudio....

Man.... that is a GOOD think for control surfaces! That means the user can not "break" well known mapping (which you can easily do with UC33). Why "Mackie Control" or "ProTools HUI" are so famous? Because these controllers are NOT CONFIGURABLE! So called "Mackie protocol" is just FIXED HARDWARE MAPPING between buttons (notes), knobs (CC) and faders (PitchBend) (for HUI a bit more "unnatural" assignments).

Let me quickly compare U33/MidiMix/Lauch control XL/nanoKontrol Studio:

U33:
- no feedback on buttons,
- no strip buttons
+ dedicated transport control

MidiMix:
- no transport buttons
- only 2-3 extra buttons
+ 2x8 LED buttons ( one raw switchable, 2 layers)

LauchControl XL:
- no transport buttons
+ 4 extra buttons
+ 2x8 LED buttons (on raw switchable, 3 layers)

NanoKontrol studio:
- only one raw of knobs
+ transport
+ 5 extra buttons (in addition to transport)
+ jogger!
+ 4 rows of LED buttons
(+) potentially wireless

But can you remember 24 knobs meaning for each plug-in? Normally not. Also you have to "catch" the value after any bank switch.
So XTouch mini, just with 8 knobs but ENCODERS with rings is in fact better choice as a compact DAW controller. Thanks to encoder, is not not a problem to switch banks even "within" one plug-in - no catch required. Also one third of the price of other... So I will choose it as a plug-in controller with NanoKontor studio as a DAW controller, if the choice is limited by these devices.

[BuleriaChk]

Thanks (and for your patience).  I'll continue to think about it and try to map out the way I think a controller should work in my own words, using your guides as a reference.  I'll look into the x-touch mini as well,  The NJ studio has always been attractive to me, but I already have a great jog wheel + transport in the Tranzport.  But other users might benefit from the NK studio, so I'll give it another look.

Maybe the x-Touch mini + the UC33e for now.... for Sonar.  For my workhorses (Live and Maschine) I already have great control surfaces.  An interesting idea, if all the controls for prochannel are accessible on the UC33e.... (can the LED on the UC33e be used to indicate control status?)

I guess if I were going to spend the time and effort, I would go with the x-Touch compact, since I don't need the scroll wheel, and it looks like it has all the assignable controls one would ever need for a complete template for Sonar.  Are there any downsides?  If that were really done right, I think that's what most Sonar users would want anyway.

Klaus apparently made a preset for the x-Touch Compact; do you have it on your site or are you in touch with Klaus?

Finally, maybe a separate controller for the ProChannel along with a couple (or more) of Sonar's inhouse presets (e.g. a standard reverb) would be the way to go.


(I just realized I have TONS of old controllers around that will do MIDI (e.g., a VS-20, a Samson Graphite, apc mini and apc key, TriggerFinger Pro, etc, etc), including an old Contour ShuttlePro I bought for Sonar a long time ago... I thought they went out of business, but apparently they're back again
I'll do an inventory and see - the UC33e was the first thing I thought of, but there is a lot of older stuff that could be put to use.   

[azslow3]

Maybe the x-Touch mini + the UC33e for now.... for Sonar.  For my workhorses (Live and Maschine) I already have great control surfaces.  An interesting idea, if all the controls for prochannel are accessible on the UC33e.... (can the LED on the UC33e be used to indicate control status?)

I do not think something can be sent to UC33 display.

I guess if I were going to spend the time and effort, I would go with the x-Touch compact, since I don't need the scroll wheel, and it looks like it has all the assignable controls one would ever need for a complete template for Sonar.  Are there any downsides?  If that were really done right, I think that's what most Sonar users would want anyway.

Klaus apparently made a preset for the x-Touch Compact; do you have it on your site or are you in touch with Klaus?

I do not remember Compact presets. I have plans to make Compact preset, but it is going to be special accessible preset, not for general use.

Finally, maybe a separate controller for the ProChannel along with a couple (or more) of Sonar's inhouse presets (e.g. a standard reverb) would be the way to go.

That is now Kontrol 1 has success, one channel strip with dedicated controller for it. The same idea with the Lauchcontrol (not XL) preset, ProChannel pure.

My guess an average requirements from hardware control surfaces can be compared with corresponding hardware devices the software emulate. So mixing surfaces look like digital mixers, FX controllers like front panels of rack FX modules, loop starters like step sequencers, etc.

[BuleriaChk]

Do you mean nanoKontrol 1? I have one of those, I just never used it for Sonar...
Maybe a nanoKontrol 2 could be configured to just work with the ProChannel on a per-channel basis.
(I really liked the first version, because it had a master fader; the 2 version does not)...