Control|24 and ProControl with Pro Tools 11?

[louieshowers]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

Sure it is.

Have we improved the ADB keyboard that those Macs used to have?

What about Ultra Wide SCSI 10,000 RPM drives?

The bottom line is that nobody supports computer hardware that is 12 or more years old. Doesn't matter whether or not it still works well. Companies move on.

I'm with you guys. I think Avid should make the driver but these analogies all fail.

How are you "with us"? How can you expect people to believe this when you have justified Avid's decision in greater detail than anyone else on this thread? They made a $15,000 product unusable on purpose at the same time they released a complete rewritten PT! They used the "i gotta have it" mentality to drive update sales and (get ready for it) hardware sales. This was a strategy that was identified and rejected by customers that are too damn smart to flock like sheep with their checkbooks at hand. How can you dispute this. And good for Shane for really showing expertise and dedication to helping people here.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by deanrichard

... for Avid to pay someone to make these changes while working on the internals of the PT software, supporting the Control 24 is not an expensive proposition. ...

How do you explain the fact that the faders on these controllers work better than HUI if it's really only a MIDI controller? Might not the presence of one of these controllers trigger running Pro Tools in some different mode that may have been baked into low level code? If this is the case, it certainly could make supporting 11 a VERY expensive proposition.

[michael c]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

How do you explain the fact that the faders on these controllers work better than HUI if it's really only a MIDI controller? Might not the presence of one of these controllers trigger running Pro Tools in some different mode that may have been baked into low level code? If this is the case, it certainly could make supporting 11 a VERY expensive proposition.

This is why it would be in Avid's best interest to truly explain why it isn't economically feasible for them to write drivers for ProControl and Control 24. I think their user base would feel much better about buying expensive controllers in the future if they knew why their perfectly useable controller and center piece of their studio won't work now.

[michael c]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

The bottom line is that nobody supports computer hardware that is 12 or more years old. Doesn't matter whether or not it still works well. Companies move on. The only devices that still work past that amount of time are units that don't need newer drivers. Like a USB mouse or keyboard. If they needed a new driver, they wouldn't be written as the company probably makes newer devices that they continue to support.

Kenny-

I get your point, but we have an old Mark of the Unicorn Midi Time Piece in one of our set ups that is over 25 years old and still works! MOTU wrote a new driver for that just a few years ago and they have several new and improved USB midi boxes out.

Obviously, there is always the exception. As has been stated several times by many Avid supporters, it is a bad business decision to alienate your high end user base when you are rolling out a new product such as PT11 and HDX.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by michael c

This is why it would be in Avid's best interest to truly explain why it isn't economically feasible for them to write drivers for ProControl and Control 24...

Revealing proprietary information may well not be in Avid's best interest. They have already said it would be too costly and you say they are lying. That's really the essence of this argument.

[louieshowers]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Revealing proprietary information may well not be in Avid's best interest. They have already said it would be too costly and you say they are lying. That's really the essence of this argument.

Delivering these drivers is in their best interest. Experienced and knowledgeable people know they are lying. I think that is a better way of wording it.

[deanrichard]

Bob, you're talking about a difference in fader resolution. That's a trivial software problem, likely solved at the messaging layer. Inside the bowels of the PT software you have internal resolution higher than any device will likely attain, or that you will need. Some controllers faders only have 128 (0-127) steps, others have 512, 1024, etc. So you do simple bit-shifting or mapping to match the internal resolution. Let's say the internal fader resolution is 16-bit (likely higher, but for argument's sake) and you're using a MIDI controller with 8-bit resolution. You simply bit-shift, which will fill the most significant 8 bits when passing messages to the internals.

BTW - I'm not the one who said the Control 24 is basically sending MIDI messages via ethernet. I was not aware that was true. Shane is the one who has successfully done remapping of the Control 24 messaging - and I give him a ton of credit for that. And the people who want their Control 24's to work in future versions should be offering him bribes right now. I checked into the AHK macro language he mentioned, and it's interesting stuff. I had no idea how powerful some of it is.

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

How do you explain the fact that the faders on these controllers work better than HUI if it's really only a MIDI controller? Might not the presence of one of these controllers trigger running Pro Tools in some different mode that may have been baked into low level code? If this is the case, it certainly could make supporting 11 a VERY expensive proposition.

[Dave Lang]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

They have already said it would be too costly and you say they are lying. That's really the essence of this argument.

Nailed it. And I think they're lying.

[deanrichard]

I prefer the term "exaggerating". Dramatically.

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Revealing proprietary information may well not be in Avid's best interest. They have already said it would be too costly and you say they are lying. That's really the essence of this argument.

[YYR123]

Either way they have pissed off the faithful - and it will not easily be won back


But it seems they are more interested in selling video systems to movie houses that use newer control surfaces instead of audio studios