An Argument To Keep The Generic Remote

So let me start by saying I’m a fan of the new midi remote editor. I think for mapping midi hardware from major manufacturers it’s a great start and I’m sure it will only get better with time.

However, for those of us that like to make custom touch screen interfaces using Lemur, or TouchOSC it’s really cumbersome and the generic remote is much easier. So although it’s probably too late to change Steinberg’s thinking on this, I really hope they change their minds and keep the Generic Remote.



Why, please? Is it because you would need different “interface” for every single Lemur/TouchOSC page? Or something different? Sorry, I’m just curious, thank you for explanation.


I do agree that generic remote was simpler because we just had to deal with “MIDI parameter = function”.
No need to chose between different types of controls or any GUI placement. (which in my opinion is not very useful once you start digging in JS).

BUT, the MIDI remote can give you a lot more possibilities for feedback. And Lemur and TouchOSC are perfect tools for displaying parameter names, values, colors…

Plus, if you already are scripting in Lemur or TouchOSC, learning JS and the MR-API isn’t that hard.



So the reason it’s much easier is that when you are making a touch screen layout, you spend a lot of time designing it. Literally sizing out and moving around all of the faders, knobs and buttons. Then to have to recreate that in another program (The Midi Remote) takes even more time. Where as with the generic remote, it was just a list. Midi CC73=this action.

Now if you already have a hardware midi controller, like something from M-Audio and Steinberg have already re-created the layout of that in the MR, then that’s super easy.

But having to recreate your own touchscreen layout in Cubase is cumbersome.

Hi Thomas_Marin, what are you referring to with “JS”.

Also what are the more possibilities for feedback with the MR? I’m curious

You’re overlooking the API side of the MIDI Remote. This means that interface controller ssuch as Lemur, TouchOSC etc. would be able to interface with Cubase better.#

You could create the mappings direct from the app and send script files that could be loaded straight within Cubase as an automated process.

That’s basically where this is headed.

1 Like

JS is short for JavaScript, which is the language used by the MR API.

It gives you access to a deeper level of integration with Cubase/Nuendo.

For example, you may have more than one independant bank of faders, different port, use MIDI in to run functions you wrote… enables the support for 14bit messages (nrpn, rpn…) or SYSEX.

Regarding feedback, you can enable some controls to send parameter name and value as a string to your device. For example, the fresuency of the eq would send ‘257Hz’ instead of a midi value.

I’m currently designing a layout on Touchosc with which i’d like to monitor and control 8+1 tracks (from preamp to fader) plus control-room and a lot of shortcuts, bells and whistles on a 15" screen. This is not possible with the old generic remote.

But, in the other hand, i think that the table-like presentation of the generic remote is faster for basic use.

By the way, you don’t HAVE to give your MIDI remote a nice layout. As far as i know, all controls could be on top of each other it would still work. It’s just there to look nice for the casual user.



This is a great idea, i didn’t thought of sending JS through MIDI. Must be possible, but i guess it would slow down the initial loading.

I was thinking anout making an initial communication between controller and nuendo to set the number banked tracks, number of knobs…

Hi thomas_martin, thanks for the explanation of the advanced possibilities! Personally, I’ve never used JavaScript and the idea of learning a scripting language isn’t at the top of my list, but maybe it’s easier than I’m imagining. I’ll see what I can find out doing my own research and reading the Cubase manual and then maybe come back and ask some more questions.

The advanced parameter control is definitely intriguing, I’m just worried I’m gonna go down a rabbit hole and not write any music as a result, lol.

Well I thought you were into scripting since you’re using Lemur and TouchOSC.

The scripting part of these apps are in my opinion theur true strength. Although i stopped using Lemur since it seems development is stopped (the website seems to be down too). But the newer version of TouchOSC with Lua scripting is pretty good.

Learning a scripting language is not that complicated, there are lots of tutorials about JS or Lua online. Yet it is a very powerful tool.

And to me it’s a pleasure, because i love the learning process.



Hi Thomas, thanks for the encouragement and yes I totally agree that the scripting aspect of Lemur/TouchOSC is the most powerful feature of it. And similarly I moved from Lemur to TouchOSC because they apparently fell off the face of the earth and stopped development. lol

I have done some scripting, but it’s mostly copy and paste from forums with a few minor tweaks. Maybe it’s easier and more rewarding than I’m anticipating. Will definitely look into it as I do love creating workflow enhancements.