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.
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.
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.
@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!
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!
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.
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.
- MIDI is really a poor idea this days. A socket interface please.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
The biggest problem for me is that most of the features are to be accessed via Key Commands.
This effectively turns knobs and sliders into “repeated keystroke emulators” which is a very awkward way to approach it.
We need direct access to the actual functions and the system to be aware of basic input, like the turning direction of a knob.
Having to test this in our own code feels very primitive and tedious.
I agree with this. However, commands assigned to opposite pairs DO make sense for a keyboard approach. Like Zoom. In [G] and Out [H]. One could argue that we could have just one Zoom command, and then use a keystroke as a modifier and an extra “more global” key like the cursor keys, so that we say Z+up arrow = zoom in. Z+down arrow = zoom out. It would be very different though and people are used to years of it working the way it already does.
I would very much like it if we had a surface element for exactly this purpose. There are many commands that are organized as opposite pairs that work wonderfully with knobs. Some for reference:
Nudge Left/Right (This works for events and also a selection range of the range tool)
Loop Range Left/Right
Punch Points Left/Right
Fades and Event Volume
Increment/Decrement Fade In
Increment/Decrement Fade Out
Increment/Decrement Event Volume
Select Previous/Next Event
Previous/Next Active Part
And I’m sure I’m missing a lot more opportunities here.