Icon Qcon pro X Master leds meter

Today I finally got my Qcon Pro-X & XS, and as it seems the bottom display isn’t supported??
Not sure if this is a limitation of the Mackie Protocol, as the unit seems to be Cubase ready.

The bottom display is useless. “ch1 ch2 ch3…”. It doesn’t make any sense.

From the Icon site:
“The Lower LCD Display On My Pro X Doesn’t Bank…
This is typical behavior for the QCon Pro X. The lower LCD display is designed to be used with the QCon Pro XS extender to help coordinate the order of units and tracks to allow users to arrange their units in any order they’d prefer. “

That’s pretty useless, you’d set this up once, and you can rearrange this in Cubase as well.

To clarify what is going on with the QCon Pro X:

  1. The QCon Pro X uses the MCU protocol.
  2. This (pretty old) protocol does NOT support master LEDs or a 2nd display.
  3. Icon extended the MCU protocol so you can address the 2nd display and the master LEDs.

The only DAW which currently supports these Icon extensions is Bitwig Studio. With all other DAWs the 2nd display and master LEDs simply do nothing.

To make it work with Cubase either Icon or Steinberg need to implement these extensions. It cannot be “fixed” with a firmware update.

Steinberg can publish their SDK to the public so we can get a community driver, or a driver from Icon without that they have to sign NDA’s with Yamaha/Steinberg.

There is a lot of things that can be done to improve remotes in cubase. But I it will compete with Nuage so I think Yamaha is stopping that from happen.

I just bought a Qcon Pro-X + extender.
That´s absolutly not competing with Nuage… 1 Nuage fader pack is about 10x more expensive than my Qcon set…

Most people buy functionality. A daw controller is a box with knobs, displays etc. They control the functionality of cubase if is a thousand dollar knob or one dollar knob does not really matter for that. (Yes there could be huge other aspects as quality, resolution, durability etc)
And if it cost a tenth of Nuage the price point will be a problem for Yamaha if they could do the same functions; and all the functions are within cubase so why should they not?

So you’re saying Steinberg would rather not support any other controller?? Come on, like because of that I would go and spend close to €20k on a basic Nuage set?? http://www.pro-audio-store.com/top/mischpulte/digital/yamaha-nuage.php
Unless I would turn professional or win the lottery, I won’t buy it in a million years, so no, it’s not competition. :frowning:
If they would release a Houston 2, that would be competition.

Nuage is much, much more than a controller, and is zero competition for any other hardware. It’s price starts at 20,000 USD, fer cripes sake.

Nice, a controlled bending of spacetime for 20,000 USD is quite cheap. In my opinion it is a yamaha sound card in the same colour as a Nuage controller, without magic.

They have limited support for some hardware that more or less is the same as what they supported when yamaha bought steinberg. Lot of new functions have been added to cubase since then, and many are related to mixer functions than have NOT been added to the existing controllers. But I dont say that you should not buy a Nuage. It is like comparing a Volkswagen car with a Ferrari. You put petrol in a hole, and the device take you from point A to point B. There problem here is that Steinberg let the Ferrari run on a highway, but the VW have to run on goat road. Let them run on the same road and the difference becomes a lot smaller.

Only because those manufacturers haven’t added them. Other companies have, Nektar, for example.

You are right, and the manufacture for the drivers for MCU is steinberg, and they have not do their part. And I also understand that the manufactures does accept to do NDA’s with yamaha/steineberg. A other example is CC121 which is made by yamaha/steinberg they have not done any proper updates of their functionality to match what is added to cubase. Add CMC’s to that. Yamaha/Steinberg has failed on 3 out of 3 for their own and the most common used on the market. Go figure.

That’s your opinion, and you have a right to it, I guess. But I hope you don’t take offense at my pointing out that there’s no such thing as an MCU driver that SB manufactures. And as far as your wish that those products get added functions, personally, I don’t expect products to get new features years after they’re discontinued. I’m happy if they still work as designed, and the drivers are updated when needed.

I have 2 cmc-FDs, a TP and a QC, all doing what they are designed to do quite well, plus they’re being used as custom controllers via Bome midi transformer. I’m curious to know if you own any of these devices?

I think the problem here is that most controllers use the Mackie Protocol.
The Qcon Pro-X has features which are added to the original protocol?? (Master leds & second display strip)
For these to work, Steinberg has to add them to Cubase/Nuende, right?
But if every other manufacturer adds different features to the existing protocol, Steinberg would have to adress this for every single controller, which they most likely won´t.
Unless new features are officially added to the Protocol itself. The protocol is there to unify this stuff.

Have QC,HC and CC121 from yamaha/steinberg. I also have others like Mackie Control, a original MCR-8, a BCR2000 and a Fronter Tranzport. Ok, lets me ask this question then, what controller should I buy to get access to the new mixer features in from what was modern when C121 was designed to current cubase 9.5? And CC121 is still sold as cubase controller but unfortunately not CMC that really had more potential to get cubase controls to fly.

No limitation on that it is for older version of cubase…

Steinberg could put the controller driver in a public SDK as base. However, steinberg might have signed NDA:s with Mackie so it might not be possible due to legal reasons.

@steve I read your lack of response as the complete list of the current supported controllers.

I don’t know why you would think I’d know the answer to that.