Controler Design. Do actual Crtlr really adress stage needs?

[Captain Johnson]

OK fair enough, I agree that the faders could be a little smaller and yeah maybe the matrix buttons could too but its still the best dedicated controller out there for me.

I find increasing the screen Zoom in live 8 and adjusting my set so I can see 8X10 clips to be great, not fiddly when scrolling up and down.

It's all personal preference I guess....

[3phase]

[Captain Johnson]

That seems a very practical controller too

[3phase]

it actually is.. and the wright thing for the bling fraction..

such a controler is what seperates a man from a boy

[Captain Johnson]

I would love to see someone dressed as a scientist rocking out the dirtiest techno on one of those!!

[3phase]

in case yu dont know.. its a reverberator... emt 251

[Captain Johnson]

Mmmm tasty!!

[Pitch Black]

always thought one of these mapped to filter cutoff would be great...



or perhaps mapped to tempo in Gabba...

[3phase]

I just tested the Launchpad under quasi stage condition.. dark, humid, chaotic, loud...
and again like in the APC i find the software implementation questionable for stage use... it actually has such a similar " we dont know how it is on stage and missing some details" feeling that i actually think that its ableton that is developing this part of the thing... quite in contrast to the good mechanical layout in booth units, ; APC and Launchpad, the software implementation seems to lack a certain amount of expertise so badly that it actually hurts a bit.
What is a pitty to give theese nice units theese bit castrated feel on the way..

Is that intentional to sell MFL or leave space for updates, so actually intended partial castration?
Or just the style of someone?

One bad thing on the mechanical side of the launchpad.. the power connector is on the side...
anybody has any logical explanation for that? for a unit where up to 6 can be cascaded?..straaaange

:-/ so i pray... please lord.. give the developers brain, vision, and stage experiance and safe us from half designed controlers ..

AMEN..

its a bit sad...

[sporkles]

I just tested the Launchpad under quasi stage condition.. dark, humid, chaotic, loud...
and again like in the APC i find the software implementation questionable for stage use... it actually has such a similar " we dont know how it is on stage and missing some details" feeling that i actually think that its ableton that is developing this part of the thing... quite in contrast to the good mechanical layout in booth units, ; APC and Launchpad, the software implementation seems to lack a certain amount of expertise so badly that it actually hurts a bit.
What is a pitty to give theese nice units theese bit castrated feel on the way..

Is that intentional to sell MFL or leave space for updates, so actually intended partial castration?
Or just the style of someone?

One bad thing on the mechanical side of the launchpad.. the power connector is on the side...
anybody has any logical explanation for that? for a unit where up to 6 can be cascaded?..straaaange

:-/ so i pray... please lord.. give the developers brain, vision, and stage experiance and safe us from half designed controlers ..

AMEN..

its a bit sad...

It's a bit vague.

I agree that the placement of the USB port is awkward, but I think the whole patent is
awkward - particularly in the other end of the cable: how many times have you plugged in a
USB cable and thought "maaaan, that shit is solid!"? The angled cable that comes with the LP
is clever, but the only reasonable place to place the output is on the rear end of the unit.

Other than that, though, I fail to see exactly what your problem with the LP is. It's just a
bunch of buttons - and backlit ones at that (depending on what you use them for).

The LP has two drawbacks, as far as I'm concerned: a) it updates too slowly when you flip
between pages, and b) it should be more customisable, with respect to LED colours and LED
behaviour. Other than that, it's awesome.

[3phase]

besides a handfull of little details that might have been good for the live user but might be seen as extras or really just details i am mainly reffering to the main mixer page...


i never have seen such a waste.. and i actually think that this is intended castration..


why oh why..the whole upper half of the matrix is wasted there to such a degree???

To reset aux and faders? For monkeys that eventually have them all full up at one point in the show?

Who is working that way? there are dedicated pages for the aux send and faders.. nobody needs 32 dedicated reset buttons..

you have ever seen one device in the world with that option? shall this be inovativ or what?

no... when its not intended castration to create sales arguments for the apc its just stupid.-
Very stupid



Try to imagine what would happen with this page when the upper half of the matrix just would stay the activ cliplaunch matrix...

just very straight forward thinking.. instead engaging all knobs just leave the ones you dont necessarily need alone...In theiere main function..


you would have a smaller cliplaunch matrix..just 4 rows... but this is only one less than on the apc..

but mutes and solos and track arms with them on one page..

How performant such a page would be?

think about it.. the only thng you cant do is scene launch on this page..but beside that you have full performance..

with 32 dedicated cliplaunch buttons...

stop buttons..mutes..solo.and arm..

you can create/record new clips on the fly in one page !!!

Thats so many advatages in just leaving that upper 36 buttons allone that i really wonder why they had to become

aux send reset buttons 8-/

thats the most stupid controler design i ever came along.. in an otherwise brilliant product..

that really don´t fits..


if i would be king i would order some lashing wright now...

Do actual controlers really adress stage needs?

In this case .. NOOOOOO

So the the stupid controler design price goes to the Launchpad..

which might be a bit unfair,.. but the placement of the usb port and the design of the main mixer page really bring it down in the ranking.. and because the cliplaunch matrix is not introduced by the launchpad..

we sadly have to call the launchpad the most stupid controler on the market wright now.


Its however still usefull... but sorry..such things really hurt somehow..#

[3phase]

to give one positiv example again..




its pretty good for stage use.. and solid in the operation.. no real flaws exept that you only can lock parameters on variation changes with tricks..


as cheaper midi controler only maybe this thing comes close..



but after the experiance with the lunchpad its probably not as capabel as it looks...

anybody knows this device?



one little "flaw booth units share.. to do it all in 8 blocks... my experiance has shown that for many controling tasks especially on sequencers 8 knobs/buttons are usualy just enough as event modifiers.. one extra knob for setting atributes or changing patters or whatever would have been often needed to make it really workable without page change..

which is on stage allways a slight stopper to change between pages to have full seq control..

on many seqenzers i patched the one extra knob would have been mega beneficial...

so 9 knob/fader designs i would prefer allways.. but there are none...
Am i theh only person that has experianced the use of that ?

That uneven amount of controlers might be beneficial?

On the APC i really liked the 9th fader..the one extra you can use for a special purpose..for the fx in the breaks..the break fader

It seems that there are not so many people that are into interactiv realtime sequencer patching..
Realtim input +stepediting came out of fashion after the famous roland tb /tr series..

Actually i dont think it really came out of fashion.. Actually the machines are still highly regarded because all clones never was able to match..
Mainly because the developers havent understood the concept behind the roland sequencers and therefore had to fail in the try to copy them...

They just havent realized that roland never intended to make them step sequencers..
They wanted them to be realtime input sequencers..but because of the limitations of the hardware they came with the compromise of tab input /realtime gate sequencing + step edit/note input to get the intended pattern wright by fixing it in the edit.

so guys that try to mimic and expand on them, by seeing them only as step sequencers, allways leave out the most important feature. The feature that made the working with the roland sequencers so quick and on the point..
Realtime input.

something you never achive with a pure step sequencer that is rather a try/error style of working than beeing able to be played life on stage...

The refinement grade of development of theese early Roland concepts was so high that they got a maximum of functionality out of very limitetd soft/hardware resources, More than most users even realize even after working a long time with the machines.

Quite oposite to todays designs that appear rather rudimetary and primitiv designed, and usually just achive the half or less of what the processors would be capabel off, or the user would expect..

But maybe the new generation of developers just dont know better..they consider the old sequencers primitiv because they just dont understand the smartness behind them.. only see the limitations .. but not the possible workflow enhancement by such a few little extras.

and...
programming the propper tab input is by far moe difficult that just a plain simple step sequencer...

So laziness together with the missunderstood hirachy of features leaded to a situation where no single modern step sequencer..hardware or software , mfl or reaktor actually matches the originals...

ok...there are some for the G2 ... maybe i transfer them to reaktor when i find the time..

The brilliance in the nordmodular design actually shows up when you need to patch such complex things with the minimal set of logic modules there.. and the fact that its more easy and much quicker to suceed in the task than with reaktor..and probably max..

Theese clavia synths actually show this high degree of smart development we was used in the past.. that has more to it than the user is able to see at first sight..
Not like lunch&Apc designs where the user stumbels upon limitations and misconception within the first 5 minutes..

so even when its a bit older concept..

the smart developer price still goes to clavia..


Any other products worth to mention in the positive sense?

[dum]

the machinedrum has a pretty sweet interface - another swedish piece of kit.
BUT..the encoders could be much much better. I'm pretty sure you can change them though.

I still have pleasant dreams about this clavia unit:



ah, such elegant beauty. and an absolute pleasure to use.

[Pitch Black]

pity it doesn't exist... yet



but for now:

[anybody human]

Saw a guy play Electro with 2 Technosaurus desktop synths, an arp., XBass 909, a mixer and a Memory Man.
It was killer.
I like the APC build. There's smaller stuff out there though. Monome plus 2nd little controller?