Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
I used to think pedals were essential, but I've become a believer in up/down buttons to change continuous values - they're lighter than pedals, don't have the "synchronization" issues, and work well, in my experience, for volume changes. I've been thinking for a while I'd like something like the Behringer, with the footpedals gone (with one input for an external pedal in those cases when you just can't do without), but with up/down sensing on the switches (i.e., a separate MIDI event for the switch up, not just the switch down). This would allow sw to detect "long presses" of a button, a la EDP, and also to increase or decrease volume as long as a switch was held down. (without this function in the Behringer, I've had to implement a separate footswitch to initiate a Fade function - otherwise I could just hold a switch down). In my fantasy world, at least a couple of the switches (available to be used for up/down) would be pressure sensitive (and probably convey this via Aftertouch messages), so that you could fade faster by leaning into it more. A 4-6 char display over each button that could be set via a MIDI message would be awesome! If we had to settle for a single display, give me a large one with enough space to label each switch, please. THE DISPLAY MUST BE PROGRAMMABLE VIA MIDI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (like I can make "demands" of a theoretical product that I probably can't afford... But I think this is really important). As far as the sw structure of the footpedal, I don't think it needs much, apart from MIDI knowledge - as a programmer my bias is towards interpreting everything at the computer. I think 12 buttons, as Per suggests, is right: the receiving sw can interpret two buttons as bank up/down if it wishes, and relabel all the buttons on the fly. That way, although you do have to supply logic for a MIDI interpreter in the footunit, you don't have to create a preset editing system, which is bound to be a time-consuming and thankless process. HOWEVER, then you're limiting the use of the unit to musicians with smart instruments and making it fairly unsuitable for the average gtr player controlling a rig. Which is probably just the right thing to do. Best wishes, Warren Sirota > -----Original Message----- > From: Per Boysen [mailto:per@boysen.se] > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:38 PM > To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com > Subject: Re: the perfect [sic] controller > > > >> Now, as Brian wrote, if the midi gurus on this list (I don't > >> belong to them) > >> could try to develop and agree on a specification ... > > On Dec 17, 2005, at 11:17, a k butler wrote: > > > Is that project still viable when we all say it has to be > > programmable by the user? > > > I don't necessarily say so. If not making it programmable can keep > costs down I would go with that. But that's only because I know that > most of my looping tools are software based and will let me assign > needed function to whatever controller data sent out by the physical > controller. Speaking about design, I think twelve buttons and one > pedal is optimal. Since portability is important, buttons have to be > crammed into a small area but yet not blocking the way for other > buttons. One idea might be to look at the piano with a first row of > lower (white) buttons and a second row of higher (black") buttons. > For example, the design mistake with the Behringer FCB1010 is that > both rows of buttons are designed of the same height. > > Greetings from Sweden > > Per Boysen > www.looproom.com (international) > www.boysen.se (Swedish) > ---> iTunes Music Store (digital) > www.cdbaby.com/perboysen > > >