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…
I just bought a Qcon Pro-X + extender.
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.
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.
You seems to know which are not supported any why for all my suggestions.
I know what works for my setup. But check out the Nektar Panorama devices. They seem to have done the job.
At least they seems to be interesting as a keyboard and a controller for a player. But as a mixing tool it seems more like a toy without motors. Their technology could of course be used to build a very good mixer controller, but it does not exist.
I have now tried the panorama. It is a joke. I have not seen so many bugs in a little box for a long time.
Except for that it does not give access to the mixer features that steinberg has added last 3-4 years it fu*k up
your MCU mixer views. It does note even has the 16 plugin slots. (MCU has) However I think most of the problem can be traced back to steinberg and their remote sdk. Is nuage build upon that? I guess not…
Love the CMC controllers - my favorite is the AI. In combination with the mouse you can do a lot. Yet purchased the QCon Pro X. The Cubase implementation is better than the Faderport to my opinion, although the Scribble Strips on the Faderport show more data.
What puzzles me is that a lot of the MCU functionality described in the “Remote control devices” manial is not supported by any of these controllers.
And also I do not understand why Steinberg gave up the production of the CMC controllers - Maybe a sacrifice to the go together with Yamaha?
It is really strange that they have not made any follow ups to CMC (or CC121). CMC touch faders are not good so I have always assumed that is why the are discontinued. The software has not been evolving for many years so I guess that they dont see any future for this. Strange that is since AVID seems to do a huge business from their devices.