I bought a Faderport used on ebay. Waiting to hear from Presonus for the software update.
I can keep it or the Mackie MCU on N12 and or on PT. Best part it all fits on my coffee table studio. I also just got 2-more monitors and swing-arms. It’s going to look like a 747 cockpit 
If you got the 1 fader Faderport V2, someone on the Cubase forum made a midi remote script for it and it works perfectly. No MCU required.
I will look for it - thanks .
I will run PT and N12 at the same time piggyback. So I will have the Faderport on one and the Mackie MCU on the other depending on what I am doing…
For sure I meant you don’t have to use the MCU Protocol with the Faderport in Nuendo if you use the midi remote script
The problem I have with your statement is that no clone has ever implemented the full capability of the Mackie Control. With the real Mackie Control no DAW developer has implemented all the abilities and capabilities inherent in the MC/ MCU. Emagic with Logic had the most integrated version with the Logic Control. Right now the one Developer that I have come across that has the most complete support for it is Image Line with Fruity Loops Studio. Cakewalk now Bandlab also has useful and extensive support. One of the main reasons other CSes fail in the market, is the hardware developer tries to reverse engineer the software. This is very difficult to say the least. Mackie left it up to the software developers to support it. No reverse engineering needed. Everyone is welcome to get the MC protocol. Mackie publishes this. That is why there are so many clones. The problem is these clones don’t have the internal hardware that the MC has.
Most users have no ideal what the MCU can do. In the end it is ones own decision as to which CS to buy. My purpose here is only to offer another choice.
I don’t think I’ve come across just what the functionality the MCU has that the clones don’t have, and I also wonder how important that could be. The keyset being the same on clones + open protocol implies it’d be the same.
Wouldn’t that depend on how well the clone implements the protocol? I have seen tons of issues with users who can’t get the clone to work well at all. Native support may or may not be available for any given CS without MC mode. So why not get the real thing? Further., as to price, used ones are readily available. Because they are “built like a tank” ,your words, they are a good buy.
By the way the MC protocol is meant for software developers not for clone makers.
Users having a problem with a clone is one thing, the clone not having the full protocol implemented is another thing. What are some examples of missing features?
It’s a pretty ‘firm’ statement.
Well, the chassis is one thing and the faders another. One reason I’d be weary of getting any used controller is that the faders is the main reason to get it and those are electromechanical parts that by definition will wear. And there’s no telling just how worn they are until you actually use the specific unit you’re buying.
The Euphonix Mix were crap quality as well as the silver Avid Mix. The black Avid Mix was only a hair better and I’ve seen plenty of cracked bodies on those. The s1 seems a lot better to me, much harder, firmer plastic and much better buttons. So if I were to compare the four - silver/black Mix, s1 and Mackie - the s1 and the Mackie are likely quite similar because the main problem will be faders giving out.
Anyway, you can surely get a used s1 and if it’s more expensive than the MCU then it also means better resale value if that’s a thing for a prospective buyer. But no matter how I slice this in my head I simply can’t get the MCU to be a better value. Even just having the tablet and deeper EuCon feature set makes it much better even if you’re spending say $1,500 for that, new, and like $900 on a used MCU. Still worth the extra money.
Tried to find it again, but can’t locate. Maybe 1-2 years ago the company that helped design the S1 hardware posted a cool video about their process and all the prototypes they went through.
Designing a functional controller is an art form in itself. In a former life when I worked at HP my cubicle was one over from the guy that designed the styrofoam packaging and welcome matte for scanners. Listening to endless conference calls. It’s fascinating.
This is the part that all the cheap clones take shortcuts on or skip altogether. Yes, properly designed hardware costs more (just like the iPhone), but usually it’s for a good reason and it’s a good investment. The cheapest always wins race we’ve been on is not a winning strategy.
If I find the video, I’ll post a link.
Surprised no one has mentioned the Raven controllers by Slate. The small one starts at $1,000 USD.
https://www.slatemt.com/raven-mti2/
To me there are a few things that I don’t like with Raven.
I’ve never tried it but my friend in LA who primarily works on big feature film scores has been using it for years. He’s even in one of their videos. I agree with you about the tactile feel of faders though, I still use my SSL Nucleus but it might be getting a little long in the tooth. 
Name one that has a Logic Control mode and a HUI mode? Download the protocol and see for yourself.
My MC has Peeny & Giles faders. They are well respected and they cost more. I have had it from when it first came out… Not a glitch.
Further, its still in production.
Aren’t those protocols other than MCU?
Isn’t MCU a superset that contains Logic Control and HUI?
Not really. I forget which was not part of the original MC (Mackie Control not the Mackie Control Universal) The MC had the internal hardware to have them all. That means the MCU (and MC after being upgraded with new firmware) has a great deal more ability that other CSes do not possess.
Read up on the MCU and MC it is extensive. It may need a lot of digging but it’s there.
I’m not sure why we are having this conversation. Either you want one or not. I don’t care which. I only put this out there as another choice. I know its a very good controller.
Mackie Control Universal (MCU)[edit]
In 2003, the Mackie Control Universal (MCU) protocol was introduced, combining together functionality from Mackie Control, Logic Control and HUI into a single protocol.
If this matters, as you seem to suggest, then I think it would be nice if you could tell people what you can do on the Mackie controller that you can’t do on the Behringer or Presonus or whatever clone it is that people might consider… SSL?.. Just let people know what functionality is missing so they know why they should consider avoiding some controllers.
It really was that simple.
Based on my long history with this Faderport v1, Presonus does not come back around very often for firmware updates. (Check the release notes for an idea.) But to be fair, Yamaha does not have a great track record for long-term support, either, IME.
Given the hit-and-miss support and reliability for control surfaces, this seems like a prime target for an open-source standard.
Yeah been 2-days since i heard from Presonus - not a tricky question they either have an update that works with N12 or not!
I do have the option of using the Faderport wit PT and the mackie with N12 that doesn’t seem to be an issue.
keep in mind it was originally designed for handling banks of 8-track ADAT digital tape machines!)
Never heard that before, then why do most control surfaces do so too. BTW it actually has 9 faders. With the XT unit you get 8 more.
The 9th is called master but I have yet to figure out how to get it to work with my old PT7.4