Can MOTU 3 trick pony added sorely NEEDED 4th trick?

[James Steele]

I think fader based hardware controllers are "optional" to the degree one doesn't know what they're missing when limited using a mouse...

I don't know how many ways one can say "You guys are just ignorant if you don't use my workflow methods..." but I think you've made that clear by now.

Personally, my level of ignorance is such that I use just one fader. I'm pretty happy with my AlphaTrack and enjoy the ability to just click a track in the TOV and then quickly make an adjustment with a single fader. Maybe I'll feel compelled so move on from my ignorance and spend a lot of money to buy a motorized control surface with multiple faders, but I generally need to have an inkling it's something I *NEED* before I spend money. Which dovetails nicely with...

As with any business, it is up to any given manufacturer to show the need and create a want for it's products. So hand in hand with developing a product is creating awareness of it's need. So just because the demand seems low doesn't mean no one can not try to change that demand.

Seriously, you're just going to hang on to this? Yeah... let's say I'm a venture capitalist. Someone comes to me wanting me to invest a half-a-million bucks to bring a product to market. My first question: "What is the demand for this product? Do you have any data showing you can sell these?" If I hear "Well... we don't know if there's a demand, but our plan is to spend this money to design them and then with what's left we'll build a whole bunch of them, and then all we have to do is convince people they need them!" Well... at that point the meeting's over and I send them on their way. Seriously, more business go broke doing what you suggest than not.

I'd be surprised to learn mouse mixers knew what they were missing.
Hey, mankind got around before there were cars, trains and airplanes, never even thought of a better way right?

Again, there you go with the sort of backhanded put down to people who work differently. Would you be surprised to know that I actually know many pros who eschew control surfaces? One of whom I *GAVE* an AlphaTrack to as a gift and he still doesn't use it.

Fader based hardware controllers sure aren't "optional" for me.

Yes. That's kind of clear by now. But then you aren't betting a company on it.

[toodamnhip]

I think fader based hardware controllers are "optional" to the degree one doesn't know what they're missing when limited using a mouse...

I don't know how many ways one can say "You guys are just ignorant if you don't use my workflow methods..." but I think you've made that clear by now.

Personally, my level of ignorance is such that I use just one fader.

Using one fader shows you are not ignorant. It shows you are smart. How you got all personally attacked in what I said is beyond me because you DO use a hardware fader. If MOTU wants to design a one fader unit that works correct, that would be cool too.
And “my workflow”?. You sure harped on and on about how this is all MY workflow.
Brotha James, hardware faders for mixing were around long before MY workflow, it isn;t my workflow at all. And it isn’t MY workflow I am espousing. It is a workflow in the tradition of how the majority of time in recorded audio has passed, with the ability to physically manipulate a control. Mixing with a mouse is the odd way, and the newest handicapped way.
You have one fader. That’s fine. I think it is good you have a fader and I recall vividly how badly you and your brethren wanted that fader to work back in that thread in which you fixed it. Suddenly you think I am over board wanting a hardware surface? One fader is fine, 8 better...zero? Zero is very tough and a handicap one can get over, yes. But once one has even ONE fader, they hate going back. Remember? I seem to recall that you sure missed your one fader.

[James Steele]

Using one fader shows you are not ignorant. It shows you are smart. How you got all personally attacked in what I said is beyond me because you DO use a hardware fader.

There you go projecting again. I didn't feel *personally* attacked, but I was speaking for users who may not use hardware faders and gave you an example of someone I know who is a professional who doesn't. What I'm saying is you're actually making value judgements on the way other users work. You may be right, you may be wrong, but you it's an opinion and I think just perhaps it's a put down to those who choose not to work they way YOU work.

If MOTU wants to design a one fader unit that works correct, that would be cool too.

What if they want to design none, which has been their choice to this point?

And “my workflow”?. You sure harped on and on about how this is all MY workflow.

Yes... I've mentioned that it is your workflow and I'm not saying others don't SHARE your workflow. The fundamental issue here is whether enough people work the way YOU work, which you are convinced is superior, to warrant MOTU making a substantial capital investment to bring to market a control surface that meets your needs and the needs of others who work the way you do.

Brotha James,

I ain't your brotha so skip the folksiness please.

...hardware faders for mixing were around long before MY workflow, it isn;t my workflow at all. And it isn’t MY workflow I am espousing. It is a workflow in the tradition of how the majority of time in recorded audio has passed, with the ability to physically manipulate a control. Mixing with a mouse is the odd way, and the newest handicapped way.

Hardware faders were around long before computers and DAWs. You use the word "handicapped" as a prejudicial way to describe it. I'm not saying in some cases faders aren't useful. I have an AlphaTrack as I stated. Does that mean that if I want to insert volume automation to fade a track over 8 measures it's smarter for me to manually write the fade using my AlphaTrack, than to simply draw a ramp over the 8 measures? In that scenario, which method is truly the handicapped one? Point is there's merit to both approaches.

You have one fader. That’s fine. I think it is good you have a fader and I recall vividly how badly you and your brethren...

There you go again with a "brethren" thing... please stop it.

...wanted that fader to work back in that thread in which you fixed it.

I didn't fix it. Someone else did. We found someone who was willing to update the control surface bundle to be compatible with 64 bits. The programmer did it to help out and said if he sold TEN (at 50 bucks a shot) he'd make minimum wage for the weekend and he'd be fine. He did us a FAVOR. $500. An EXISTING bit of hardware that fortunately needed a relatively simple fix for someone possessing the skills to fix it. What you want is an entire order of magnitude different and more expensive, so for the record, your orange ain't my apple.

Suddenly you think I am over board wanting a hardware surface? One fader is fine, 8 better...zero? Zero is very tough and a handicap one can get over, yes. But once one has even ONE fader, they hate going back. Remember? I seem to recall that you sure missed your one fader.

Geez... you keep throwing the AlphaTrack thing in my face. Again, it's NOWHERE NEAR the same situation. It was a piece of hardware that worked in DP for years until the 64-bit update. If MOTU already had a multifader control surface that was working in DP32 and broke in DP64, I'd support you all the way in wanting that fixed. As it is now there's NOTHING WRONG WITH YOU WANTING MOTU TO MAKE A CONTROL SURFACE. The only thing I've brought up, that you seem to not care about, is that there are financial realities involved and a large capital investment to make. You seem to think that MOTU should spend whatever money necessary to bring a product to market regardless of demand. They should spend the money and then gamble that they can CREATE the demand. Oh... and they need to spend ENOUGH money to make a control surface that's superior in many ways to the third party solutions out there that heretofore have been "good enough" for most users.

So I'm just saying that it's all well and good for you to want what you want, but MOTU probably can't run their business in denial of the realities of economics and having to maintain profitability to meet payroll, etc.

[toodamnhip]

OK Mr. James Steel. We are not brothers anymore, and any assumption we ever were was my own ignorance.

[James Steele]

OK Mr. James Steel. We are not brothers anymore, and any assumption we ever were was my own ignorance.

It's all in how it's said, man. It rubbed me the wrong way. It is obvious that this debate has long since become unproductive. I've said my piece. I'm all for companies showing users with every wonderful technological goodie they can as if there were an endless supply of money to do so, but sometimes it's just not that way. If MOTU made such a device at a competitive price point, I might even buy one. The whole point is are there ENOUGH users without them having to launch an ambitious (and likely expensive) education and promotion campaign with the objective on not just selling the product, but selling the working methods that motivated the product. MOTU has to get into control surface advocacy. It's all very interesting.

[magicd]

I'm going to step out on thin ice and post as an audio engineer, not a representative of MOTU. As far as the MOTU rep thing is concerned, obviously we pay attention to this board and all the suggestions and requests that come from here.

As an audio engineer who was working professionally in the late 1970s (I am so dang old...) I feel I have an opinion that at least carries some experience behind it. I've cut plenty of tape.

The last time I used faders for a mix was probably 20 or so years ago. I do not miss physical faders.

From a historical trivia point of view, I wonder when the first faders actually appeared in use? Here's an audio mixer form the 1930s:



I get calls from customers who ask if they should get a control surface. In some cases I get told "no way am I mixing with a mouse". My response is that it is strictly personal preference. I would never presume to tell somebody what they should want or how to do a specific job. I can answer the question from a technical point of view. Physical faders are not required to mix inside DP. After that it really is personal preference.

I've known more than one user who came from an analog background, bought a control surface, and then stopped using it after a short period of time.

I don't use a capo on my guitar. I can play a C#minor without the capo, and the capo just gets in my way. I know very good guitarists who do use capos. All we can say is that it's good to have the choice!

There are disadvantages to physical control surfaces. They take up room. If they are in front of you, they can create reflections from the monitor speakers. You want to mess with an 8 band graphic EQ with a control surface? I'll bet I can out tweak you every time with my mouse. I have a 50 track mix. Where are the faders for all those tracks? Etc.

I also can't use roller ball mice. They give me hand cramps. I know engineers who can only work with roller ball mice.

In a perfect world, ever person has the options they want at their fingertips. In a perfect world, engineers have experience and skill with all techniques and they just pick the ones they like the best.

So this thread is about two things. TDH has suggested that MOTU makes a control surface (I'm back to being MOTU-Dave now). That's a legit request and as mentioned, MOTU listens to all suggestions. The secondary subject is whether physical faders (analog mixers, summing boxes, tape decks, lava lamps, Jimi Hendrix posters, tea boys, shag rug music stands, etc) are "requirements" for audio engineering work.

I am here to defend the point that as engineers, we are creative problem solvers and we use the tools we find to do the best job we can. If I meet an engineer that uses D-Beams and his toes for mixing, and he says that is the only way to work, I'll respect that point of view (and I'll continue to work in the way that suits me best).

Dave

[Prime Mover]

Wow Dave, that was great to hear. I'm actually kind of shocked that you never use faders, but I understand as I don't either. I'll admit, my reasons are largely financial and space-saving. I have a very limited budget and have built up my studio over many years of necessity for various hardware. My space is also extremely limited. When facing the prospects of choosing between a new mic for an upcoming tracking session and a control surface, the mic will always win out. I trained on faders back in school and would have no problem using them, but I've also learned to work quickly without them for the last 10 or so years, and so it's kind of a tough to justify spending the money and adjusting my workflow to make use for it. Frankly, my concern is that if I got a control surface, I'd almost never reach for it and it would be a wasted purchase. For those engineers who have really immersed faders into their workflow, I can understand the frustration with not having many options. But as Dave said, unlike the analog days, faders are hardly a requirement for mixing, and one can learn to work very quickly and systematically without them.

It's sort of like the multiple screens vs. one screen argument. I work with 2 screens exclusively for video editing at work. Got a second screen at home and worked with it for about a week before I realized it just wasn't working out. Sold the second monitor and switched to a 3-spaces workflow, much happier now.

To be honest, TDH, I find some of your comments a bit insulting. I consider myself a very seasoned engineer and composer, having trained and worked in various areas of the field for about 15 years, recorded a number of albums and spent upwards 10,000 hours or so in DP alone. I've worked with faders, and although I see their advantages, I also know that they don't mesh with my workflow tendencies. I don't feel handicapped and I don't think it's a marker of a pro vs amateur as I think you are insinuating.

[FMiguelez]

Seriously, you're just going to hang on to this? Yeah... let's say I'm a venture capitalist. Someone comes to me wanting me to invest a half-a-million bucks to bring a product to market. My first question: "What is the demand for this product? Do you have any data showing you can sell these?" If I hear "Well... we don't know if there's a demand, but our plan is to spend this money to design them and then with what's left we'll build a whole bunch of them, and then all we have to do is convince people they need them!" Well... at that point the meeting's over and I send them on their way. Seriously, more business go broke doing what you suggest than not.

You guys are tough to convince! Certainly tougher than the Dragons themselves
(from the Dragon's Den)




I must say I LOVE my Novation keyboards with Automap and DP8. They just work!

8 Faders, 8 pots, 8 pans, 16 buttons and more go a loooooooong way for mixing and using plug-ins. It's certainly cheaper than a full blown control surface, but extremely powerful when mixing! I couldn't be without it anymore. In this respect, I see what TDH means. But from a business stand point it seems to make little sense for MOTU, I think.

[bayswater]

FM, what a great idea! Let TDM go on the Dragons and pitch this. Can't wait to hear what O'Leary says.

[Klaus]

I'm going to step out on thin ice and post as an audio engineer, not a representative of MOTU. As far as the MOTU rep thing is concerned, obviously we pay attention to this board and all the suggestions and requests that come from here.

As an audio engineer who was working professionally in the late 1970s (I am so dang old...) I feel I have an opinion that at least carries some experience behind it. I've cut plenty of tape.

The last time I used faders for a mix was probably 20 or so years ago. I do not miss physical faders.

From a historical trivia point of view, I wonder when the first faders actually appeared in use? Here's an audio mixer form the 1930s:



I get calls from customers who ask if they should get a control surface. In some cases I get told "no way am I mixing with a mouse". My response is that it is strictly personal preference. I would never presume to tell somebody what they should want or how to do a specific job. I can answer the question from a technical point of view. Physical faders are not required to mix inside DP. After that it really is personal preference.

I've known more than one user who came from an analog background, bought a control surface, and then stopped using it after a short period of time.

I don't use a capo on my guitar. I can play a C#minor without the capo, and the capo just gets in my way. I know very good guitarists who do use capos. All we can say is that it's good to have the choice!

There are disadvantages to physical control surfaces. They take up room. If they are in front of you, they can create reflections from the monitor speakers. You want to mess with an 8 band graphic EQ with a control surface? I'll bet I can out tweak you every time with my mouse. I have a 50 track mix. Where are the faders for all those tracks? Etc.

I also can't use roller ball mice. They give me hand cramps. I know engineers who can only work with roller ball mice.

In a perfect world, ever person has the options they want at their fingertips. In a perfect world, engineers have experience and skill with all techniques and they just pick the ones they like the best.

So this thread is about two things. TDH has suggested that MOTU makes a control surface (I'm back to being MOTU-Dave now). That's a legit request and as mentioned, MOTU listens to all suggestions. The secondary subject is whether physical faders (analog mixers, summing boxes, tape decks, lava lamps, Jimi Hendrix posters, tea boys, shag rug music stands, etc) are "requirements" for audio engineering work.

I am here to defend the point that as engineers, we are creative problem solvers and we use the tools we find to do the best job we can. If I meet an engineer that uses D-Beams and his toes for mixing, and he says that is the only way to work, I'll respect that point of view (and I'll -continue to work in the way that suits me best).

Dave

Hi Dave
Finally a rep from MotU talking about control surfaces here
Let me refrain about the long standing
Hardware playthru level bug
http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... =1&t=51701
assosiated with DP and control surfaces
I hear that MotU listens, so why is this not fixed , minimum since DP 4.61 ?
In a rec / o'dub situation, this is a deal breaker with mk3 hardware...

Best regards

Klaus

[FMiguelez]

FM, what a great idea! Let TDM go on the Dragons and pitch this. Can't wait to hear what O'Leary says.

Ha!

Something tells me he'd give one of his epic "I'm about to be OUT" speeches, with the Canadian accent and everything (out sounding like oat, of course)

[James Steele]

Let me refrain about the long standing
Hardware playthru level bug
http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... =1&t=51701
assosiated with DP and control surfaces
I hear that MotU listens, so why is this not fixed , minimum since DP 4.61 ?
In a rec / o'dub situation, this is a deal breaker with mk3 hardware..

And there's our friend Klaus. I just knew I could count on him for this post.

[Klaus]

Let me refrain about the long standing
Hardware playthru level bug
http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... =1&t=51701
assosiated with DP and control surfaces
I hear that MotU listens, so why is this not fixed , minimum since DP 4.61 ?
In a rec / o'dub situation, this is a deal breaker with mk3 hardware..

And there's our friend Klaus. I just knew I could count on him for this post.

Hehe...
I knew too you would chime in...
All the best to my friends

Klaus

[James Steele]

Hehe...
I knew too you would chime in...
All the best to my friends

I sincerely hope someday they address that issue for you, Klaus. Of course, given where things on the PCI side are headed, I doubt it will show up in that context.

[Klaus]

Hehe...
I knew too you would chime in...
All the best to my friends

I sincerely hope someday they address that issue for you, Klaus. Of course, given where things on the PCI side are headed, I doubt it will show up in that context.

My english is to limited...
what is "PCI" ? Actually I don't know what your reply means...

Thanks

Klaus