--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Nick Batzdorf <recording@e...> wrote: > "Eric Baird" <eric_baird@c...> wrote: > > > > Just bring the desired application to the > >> front (make it the active application), and your control surface > >> will control it. When you'd like to make changes to CueMix > > > Console from the control surface, just bring CueMix Console to > >[the foreground] > > Right, CueMix Console has been HUI/etc.-compatible for a while now. > What you really want is for Logic to control the DSP mixing > directly, Hmm ... you mean, persuade MOTU to give the 828mk2 driver a separate virtual MIDI port just for control, then set up some environment objects to send messages to that port, without using Cuemix? > They fixed one problem with using CueMIX DSP this way a while ago: > letting you name inputs. > I don't know whether you can hide inputs > yet, but that was the other problem. A 2408 only uses 24 of its > 50-odd potential inputs, for example, and you had to scroll through > lots of unused channels to get where you wanted to go. That's not > practical for a monitor mixer, which you need to be able to operate > very quickly. I think it would be great if you could use an additional CueMix page to reorder the inputs and outputs. It's a pain having to have a stack of unused ins and outs enabled under logic just so that you can reach the higher port numbers assigned to the optical I/O (for instance). If you could reassign the ordering, it would also answer all the complaints from people about the default input and output numbering being somwhat inconsistent. One slight cosmetic niggle that I have with the current control surface implementation is that the channel names for the eight analogue inputs are "Anl1" to "Anl8", and because the "el" looks like a "one", it looks on the display more like like "eleven" to "eighteen" But that's me being petty. > But at least a HUI or compatible will work, and I think this is > a big step in the right direction for us mixerless wannabees. It feels like a possible first step to all sorts of hypothetical future options ... in a perfect world, it'd be nice if the 828 could have a control surface plugged directly into it, and if the two could functio ntogetehr as a unit without a computer connected. Then I suppose you could have a button-push option on the 828mk2 telling it whether it ought to be acting on the control surface info itself or passing it on to the computer (and it would then be up to the computer whether or not to echo back the information down a dedicated control midi stream). If they could work together directly, it would even leave open the option of maybe retrofitting an 828mk2 motherboard inside a Control, to turn it into something that could function as a combined one-piece interface/controlsurface/standalone mixer, like the Yamaha 01X. I seem to remember there being a lot of empty space inside Control behind the back panel (which is mostly blank) ... don't know if there's enough space in the right places to pop in the guts of an 828. It's an intriguing idea.