Ideas for your ideal Live controller

wacko · Post by **wacko** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:13 am

How about some box with horizontal ,vertical sliders and knobs. The Horizontal ones would be nice for changing the loop lenght! (maybe one day

or has a crossfader.

ryansupak · Post by **ryansupak** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 7:06 pm

hi, this subject has been of great interest to me for some time.

1) less could be more

i always thought the ideal means of controlling software would be a means that did little to detract from the software analogy. (to beat a dead horse: why try to make software mimic hardware?)

to that end, i always thought that two simultaneous mice with two simultaneous and distinct cursors would be ideal for most "tweaking" tasks. the mouse interface is already quite familiar to computer users, and there is not an additional degree of aliasing involved. (this is as opposed to the average hardware knob box, where you assign knob 7 to control track 4 volume, and knob 13 to control cutoff frequency.) in contrast, the cursor activates whatever button or fader that it hovers over, and there is never an additional degree of separation.

2) more, well-thought out, could be more

a while back i scribbled out a concept of a live controller-- basically a few distinctly-assignable arrays of pad grids:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ableton_l ... roller.jpg

the main thing that i have always felt lacking in soft-synth controllers is the ability to have one bank of knobs set to one preset, while being able to assign another bank of knobs on the same controller to another preset simultaneously. (playing guitar would be hard if you had to try to make chords on only one string, and djing with only one turntable would be difficult as well.)

just a few thoughts,
rs

ps - if anybody knows of where to get mpc-style pads for use in custom controllers, please let me know! :D

[email protected]

Tobie · Post by **Tobie** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 7:25 pm

Currently... I'd go for two hardware midi controllers:

Evolution's UC33... used as a mixer, and some kind of controller to trigger the samples, which would map the software's design.

Other great improvements in live, which would require further midi controllers would be:

- velocity sensitive triggering of samples.

- possibility to map pitch of a specific sample to a midi keyboard (instead of having just a knob) just like in a sampler.

Thanks for the grat jobs guys, I'm really looking forward to see what harware you come up with...

yon · Post by **yon** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 7:47 pm

ryansupak wrote: the main thing that i have always felt lacking in soft-synth controllers is the ability to have one bank of knobs set to one preset, while being able to assign another bank of knobs on the same controller to another preset simultaneously. (playing guitar would be hard if you had to try to make chords on only one string, and djing with only one turntable would be difficult as well.)

you can do this sort of thing with an external midi processing app such as Max or Pd which reroutes and manages e.g. banks of virtual controllers. i have done so in the past (with a CM MotorMix), reconfiguring half the sliders on the fly and leaving the other half static. one can doubtless succeed with such a scheme given enough practice, but the changes are distracting and difficult to manage on the fly, while you are attempting to control the sound.

this is really the opposite of the behavior i want from an instrument, because the control is contextual, and thereby disembodied, and removed from motor intuition.

yon

ryansupak · Post by **ryansupak** » Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:15 am

hi yon,

my trouble with using max/pd/keykit/midiox as a "meta-assigner" of controls is that it adds yet another degree of aliasing, another degree of separation, between the controller and its function.

and, i don't see any way to escape from some degree of contextuality except to have a touch monitor that can be touched simultaneously on unlimited points. in other words, i think to eliminate contextuality: the display and the means of manipulation would have to be one and the same, like a violin or a piano or something.

given currently readily-available technology, i think a "multi-buss" setup is the best and happiest medium because it allows "meta-switching" of controller assignments without adding a degree of aliasing. (or at least it adds only "half a degree" of aliasing.)

hopefully this makes sense,
rs

Bert · Post by **Bert** » Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:26 pm

hi all,

concerning the modular controller that has been talked about in this thread: what features would such a system need to offer? would it work like a big analog modular synth? how would the mechanical construction be?

thanks,
bert

PERCUSSA-Instruments for Sound Exploration

dirtystudios · Post by **dirtystudios** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 4:34 am

i've thought long and hard (not that it will show in this post) about the ideal live controller ever since i purchased live (who hasn't, honeslty). the idea that i've come up with is a bit on the wizbang side, and i don't expect to see it anytime within the next five years if at all.

i think being a modular system is quite important, seeing as everyone has different needs. some users just tweak plugs for a feedback soundscape, some just need to fire clips, ect. so the ability to change out what you need from person to person, or show to show would appeal to many more people than just some dedicated box of fiddly goodness.

the problem then lies in the fact that hardware isn't all that easily configurable. true you could have a big widget that has a ton of jacks for little widgets, but i'd argue that in an average live set, there are more parameters that need to be edited than would be convenient if each one was represented by it's own widget. it would get to be unweildy, at least that's how it seems to me. you can only move so many faders at once, or twiddle so many knobs (some being a bit more dexteriously skilled than others no dount), so there shouldn't need to be twenty-nine faders, forty-seven knobs, ninety-two pads and six touchpads. i don't wanna carry that around, and i certainly don't want to be required to remember what each one does. you could label it of course, but what happens if you want to do a different set. cutouts with labels to place over the widget you say, not if it's modular.

so my ideal live (and just about any other program for that matter) controller proposal, is a touchscreen interface. not just live displaying on a touchscreen, live's interface is superduper but this could be used for anything and would provide much more flexibilty. more of a completley configurable screen upon which one could render faders, x/y controllers, buttons and whatever else one wanted that could be mapped out to the program. perhaps using two graphics tablet pens (with a few buttons on them for extra options), one for each hand. any given fader or otherwise might have a box below it where one could easily change the routing of that controller. want to switch that x/y controller to the grain delay (i know you do), just select it from the menu below the box. need to move a whole lotta faders at once? just highlight them using one of the buttons on the pen perhaps, and use the other pen to move them around. this way people could have every controller they needed, when they needed it, where they needed it and everything could be easily labeled. the software could be open sourced, or based on max/msp and use a object oriented structure so that people could write new modules in to suit their needs. it would seriously kick ass if it was teamed up with max/msp. think of it, completely user designed software hooked up to a controller that was designed specificaly for it and the user. you could have several different sizes to suit individual needs, maybe some imac colors or something, and boom...you've made a squillion dollors.

ladies and gentleman, i would pay a premium for such a device (but only if it came in blueberry)

k

dirtystudios · Post by **dirtystudios** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 4:36 am

that said of course, i really like the idea of those old arcade buttons on that mbazzy controller.

k

nosuch · Post by **nosuch** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 9:38 am

dirtystudios' idea with the touchscreen is cool, but personally I can't imagine to hit the stage with two controller pens in my hands.
For me, dedicated (hardware) controllers for each parameter suit better, may they be faders, knobs, joysticks or touchpads. Personally I like it better to have a set of controllers at hand than choosing from dropdowns all the time. Don't blame me for this - I used to be a guitar player. That might explain a lot...
I don't know if modularity is the best solution as these systems are very expensive. maybe there should be two versions, a pocket with basic features, kind of live remixing console (probably the one I would buy) and a big one for the expert user (including a touch screen?).
I said it, it would merely mirror the session view plus some rows of controllers for plugins (maybe with little displays that show the actual target)
I don't know how many copies of live have been sold so far, but I think for marketing reasons it would be better if such a device could serve as a controller for other applikations like DAWs (the slot buttons could serve as insert on/off here) or softsynths.

Mbazzy · Post by **Mbazzy** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 10:13 am

FYI, Sonicstate features a demovideo of the Novation Remote 25 :
http://www.sonicstate.com/mirror/messe03_remote25.ram ... a damned fine 'classical' controller I'd say ....

The Hulk · Post by **The Hulk** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:29 pm

I loved the idea of a touch screen control solution. However, I would take it a step further, where you can use mutli-points with just your fingers instead of a mouse so it would be more intuitive. Of course we're talking about a revolution in display/computer design and it wouldn't be fair to ask Ableton to come up with this solution. But if this happens in the next few years, that would certainly eliminate the use of unneccassary hardware and make software more tactile and interactive than ever.

Now, about a hardware controller, my thoughts. I understand that everyone's use of Live varies greatly, but i do think that there can be a compromise on a controller that everyone can use. I think the key is a simple, smaller, very portable controller with a about 16 of faders, an equal number of knobs (mimicing the pan) and at least 8 buttons to correspond to each fader. This to me is the most intuitive way of mapping the Live interface to hardware, that way no one can really complain too much. But I too don't want to be lugging a massive controller, so I would say get as much onto a small box as possible. Maybe the solution is eight faders for the porta-musician and 16+ for those that don't mind a larger piece. My advice: keep the controller simple like the Live interface!

Also, make it easy for a second, traditional keyboard midi controller to link to the mixing module for those that want to use Reason or other softsynths when more Rewire compatiablity becomes available.

spyder · Post by **spyder** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 6:20 pm

i agree with the hulk in keeping it simple/portable.

_16 knobs
_16 faders (perhaps a cross-fader as well)
_16 buttons
_easy to integrate a keyboard controller for playing soft synths.

also, i think a trackball mouse built into the lower right corner of the controller box would be a super-duper mouse solution.

spyder · Post by **spyder** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 6:25 pm

a small xy parameter joystick, like on the redsound boards, might also be cool to put on a live controller.

THE HULK · Post by **THE HULK** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 8:56 pm

Wait a minute...why can't Ableton make a custom touch sensative display controller so that you're basically looking and touching the ableton interface? It would have to be some sort of MIDI usb external config because I believe Midi is the only control language that allows multi-points (but what do i know). This would be space efficient too because it would be flat. I could really dig it!

m-laboratories.net · Post by **m-laboratories.net** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 10:00 pm

Yeah, I think the suitcase controllers are overkill too, BUT they are still an improvement.

When controls are static, placed in three dimensional space, and allow direct control of parameters, motor memory for using those devices is better. Motor memory is perhaps the MOST important feature of classical "virtuosity" on a particular instrument.

Use the mouse as an example... imagine how many times you have gone to the file menu in your life. But you can't do it with your eyes closed! The device has HINDERED your natural learning curve for motor memor.

Physical, 3-d devices which translate to discrete controls onscreen (as opposed to an X-Y position) will allow people to move their attention from that mouse cursor onscreen. Cursors just aren't inspiring.

The touchscreen solution is a great, I have to admit. I think two=handed interaction is essential, though - and I'm not sure how far along the technical development of touch screens is. You wouldn't have to be limited to using the "Pen..."

Imagine a touch screen that could alter the parameters of a knob depending on how much pressure you applied to the knob graphic on the screen.

Ideas for your ideal Live controller

modular controller?

touchscreen is cool, but...

controllers