The New MIDI Remote is

I’m not so sure. Yes that would be great as it would stop the feedback loop, and allow devices like Novation and Akai, to set response based colour feedback. But just disabling the automatic Feedback, while still allowing scripted feedback won’t move the faders.

Hopefully the intent of mOnProcessValueChange will be that of what I called mOnHostValueChange :man_shrugging:

I think you’re convoluting the easy GUI mapping mode and the JavaScript way of doing things?

I was working under the assumption, that this thread was about the former.

And so it’s arguably more comparable to working with the now legacy Generic Remote, which does not echo midi messages back to the sending remote device (while still sending midi messages from changes initiated by Cubase or other remotes).

So the approach Jochen offered for the next maintenance release seems to sound fine to me for the simple MIDI Remote mapping GUI.

1 Like

I use my Midi Fighter twister with the generic remote and it’s far from “useless”. I doubt that the generic remote is going away any time soon.


You twist my words but I don’t want to go any deeper. They’ll no listen anyway.

true :wink:

I’m sorry, but it seems your interpretation was correct, and I was wrong in my optimism:

So what I’d like is if upon selection of a track, based on a string being present in the name (like “SM Horn”), that a specific page with mappings could be selected and a MIDI/OSC trigger be sent out, so that I could change pages in a TouchOSC setup - so if I select an SM Horn track, my TouchOSC immediately displays an appropriate editor with controllers specific to that instrument. Quick Controls are okay, but on more complex and controllable instruments one wants not just 8 knobs but often more like 3 knobs, ten faders and some keyswitches, maybe even a lot of them, and all labeled, and in positions best suited to their use with that instrument. And the goal here is for the user to always be presented with what they need in any context. How doable is this with the scripting?

Why do we need to address QC anyway, in the case of tablet control, when so much can be established simply by associating a page with the name of a track?

Unfortunately I can confirm that the 12.10 fix does not fix the problem. Bummer.

1 Like

Dont k ow if this is interesing to anyone

Those are so cool, and if they were reasonably priced they would be selling as fast.
But they don’t really provide anything you can’t get from a Launch Control or MIDIMIX.

A measly 3 knobs with Monogram costs MORE than 24 knobs, 8 faders, and 16 buttons. +.

So why would you invest in Monogram?
It just doesn’t make any sense!

What has their response to all of the quality issues that have been reported? They offer a “Care Plan” that is more expensive that buying one of the above mentioned alternatives.

The price is just ridiculous! This is beyond the point of opinion, it is objectively a scam product.

If someone is willing to pay the price, then the price is right. Do you get just as worked up if someone buys a vintage U47 for $30k when they could’ve had 300 SM57s for the same price? Why would anyone buy a Bentley when you can get a used Ford Fiesta for a fraction of the price?

It’s not a scam and your opinion is subjective.

1 Like

@mlindeb What I hear you saying is that you disagree that my statement is objective, but do agree that the product is grossly overpriced.


Because they are Jeremy Clarkson and not Richard Hammond. Is there a James May option?

Yes of course. You are voicing your own personal sentiment. How could it possibly be objective?

I don’t think I said that. There are luxury items all over our society and I’m ok with that. If someone feels like spending the extra money on something just because it looks pretty, great! No issues.
(I’m also a lover of fine arts which doesn’t fill any practical purpose!)

Lol! I think that would be an Aston Martin. Still way out of my price range!

1 Like

Ironic, isn’t it? …

Thank you very much Nico5, that is very kind of you!
Eventhough I am back on Cubase 12 for now, I am having trouble with a lot of things, and will wait until there have been bug fixes, and improvements for Cubase 12!
And then I will be using the script from Jef Gibbons for sure!
Thanks again!

1 Like

Yeah, Arturia basically told me, “Whatever. Go away.” Apparently they don’t care about customers who own older hardware. I had some serious hardware issues when I first bought my controller and they did fix those, but I’ve had tons of issues with their sales and support otherwise. I’m really wishing I would have bought somebody else’s controller.

I have a KeyLab 88 (not MK II) which was always a real pain to configure for in Cubase, even though Arturia made it look like it was a breeze.

I don’t know JavaScript, but if I can ever find the time, maybe I can hack through the script for the KeyLab Essential 88 to see if I can adapt it to the KeyLab 88. (I’d rather be working on my music!)

Motorized Faders with the Midi Remote?
I can get iCon Platform M+ to work great with Makie Controll (but it is so limited, just for mixing…)
I created a page to use the encoders for Quick Controlls… but that´s it…
If I try to use the Faders, I can but, there is no info flowing from Cubase back to the faders for them to acquire the position, so the faders function as if they werent motorized…

Is there a way to make them work with Midi Remote???
… As I would change between banks, they will function normally acquiring the values of the tracks…
Then, I would change into INSTRUMENT page (a page I created in Midi Remote…), and the faders will attain the Instrument Quick Controll positions… or even better (but I don´t know also if it is possible)… it would change page automatically at opening an instrument,

So close and so far yet from my ideal setup… Cubase Midi Remote is getting it a bit closer, but darn! Motorized FADERS!!! (which can react to changing pages inside Midi Remote, also to the Quick Controlls…) is it possible?

It is so far a big disappointment. It share the same problem as the previous version Generic Remote. It even share many bugs. It is not a change of cubase, it’s a new polished interface for the same old midi interaction.

Sorry you feel like that. Could you please describe your use cases we missed to address here? It’s very valuable for us having a detailed picture of the users points of view.

1 Like
  1. MIDI is really a poor idea this days. A socket interface please.
  2. It does not have interaction with all functions. You need feed back from EVERY command you can send, and a way to poll it’s current status.
  3. Channels section is hilarious. You can have ONE and it is not defined what selected channel it is. It seems to be the first from a counted from project order. Your mixer view handle multiple sections, your API does not. And a lot of functions is done with multiple sections. It should have been a SET within the API from the first place.
  4. The information is not typed. It will be a problem in the future, we can not have a proper compile time check that there is no incompatible changes, or we have a API that can not remove object properties. (EVER!) (Like change the selected channel to a list of channels. You then need to have both, instead of having the “old” selected channels to be channels.first() or something. (ok, I have a bias, I dont like javascript)

I also send a bug report, that is not even commented about interaction with remote controllers and transports. It is a not a new bug, it is the same problem as with GR.

One way to get a round this bug is to have some popper feedback from cubase so the controller can retry to set intended transport action.