Mackie Controller?

MixNut wrote on 4/7/2003, 11:26 AM
While leafing through Mix this weekend, I stopped to study a Mackie ad for its new "Mackie Control" transport and fader control board. I was overcome by frustration as I read the *long* list of product names the new Mackie Control supports...I think it's *all* of Vegas' competitors, from digi, to Cool Edit, to NUENDO. Sonic Foundry, of course, is not listed.

I became more frustrated as I read an article with "Mackie Control's" product designer who indicated a collaborative approach to controller function mapping and templatizing with each of the platforms it works with.

Did Mackie approach Sonic Foundry about this product? If not, perhaps SF should give them a ring...

If so, what the **** happened!?

Comments

MixNut wrote on 4/20/2003, 1:24 AM
Wow...Not 1 reply from SF...
MarkWWW wrote on 4/20/2003, 9:27 AM
I doubt if you will get a reply from SoFo about this.

The Mackie Control is a MIDI controller so it will only be usable with software that supports MIDI. The current version of Vegas doesn't support MIDI (apart from synchronisation with MTC or MIDI Clock) so there is no possibility of using the Mackie Control with the current version of Vegas.

One of the most requested features for future versions of Vegas has been to extend it to support MIDI, even if only for control purposes, and Peter Haller (SonicPCH) has indicated that he has done some work on a scheme based on Yamaha's OPT standard to add this sort of functionality in a future version of Vegas. I am optimistic that this may appear in Vegas 5 whenever that arrives.

But SoFo have a policy of not discussing forthcoming product features so I doubt if you will get anything out of them one way or the other until it is actually launched, if indeed it ever is.

Mark
LarryP wrote on 4/20/2003, 9:06 PM
I guess I don't know what I'm missing. I just finished a CD where we used volume envelopes and zoom extensively. We did things like make abrupt changes when the altos went from a high part to a low part (they sing much more softly), reduced a loud resonance on just a certain note on a guitar and eliminated some phrases on a background vocal. There was more gradual stuff we changed to compensate for not all the singers dynamics changing at the same time.

This was easy and quick and very repeatable. What am I missing?

Larry
MixNut wrote on 4/20/2003, 9:28 PM
Simply put...Speed. You've got 8 fingers and two opposable thumbs [theoretically]...You should be able to use at least *two* on two faders at a time...Or a fader and a pan...Or a fader and a filter roll...Or a fader and a mute... Plus, writing spline automation with a fader runs circles around mouse-drawing the same curves. Edit-wise, you can smoke mousing with a well-designed dedicate key controller.

There's also the carpel tunnel issue...Controllers minimize redundant movements in many cases.

There's also the ease-of-access to multiple controls simultaneously issue...Have you tried tracking a full band [including 8-10 drum kit mics, multiple mics on 2 guitarists, scratch vocal, bass DI, etc.] all at once with Vegas? It's not impossible...I do it frequently...But it's SLOW. SLOW sometimes pisses off eager bands and adds tension to the day. Having worked with analog multitrack for a decade and having experienced the relative ease and speed of dedicated track arming and monitoring selects on a remote during intensive tracking, I can say that a computer is NOT the best way to track performances.

I'm really not trying to slam Vegas...I bought it, at full price a month after version 1 came out and still use it regularly at home. I just get frustrated by the unrealized potential in this product and the slow rate it seems to take in its progression toward a well-rounded solution to my needs.

MixNut

SonyDennis wrote on 4/23/2003, 9:47 AM
We are aware of the demand for such a feature, and I think our last few releases have shown that we listen to requests from our users. This is not a promise of any future functionality; I just wanted you to know that we're aware of the requests for control surface support.
///d@