RE: the perfect [sic] controller

[Warren Sirota <wsirota@wsdesigns.com>]

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
> 
> 
>