[sdiy] Control Interface Angst </ Wakeman>

[John Loffink]

You can connect a MIDI knob or slider controller to your computer for
control of multiple softsynth parameters, but this has a slew of
limitations:

* 7-8 bit resolution zipper noise, or extensive software editing to add
an "event smoother" macro as in Reaktor.

* Most softsynths of any merit have more knobs than your controller
does, requiring bank switching (that context sensitive control again).

* Even if you have enough physical controls to map, they won't map in a
logical fashion to the onscreen graphic.  Most softsynths are
combinations of switches and knobs/slider.  How would you map
knob-knob-slider-5 way switch-knob to a MIDI controller? You could put
them all on knobs, but then you have no visual cue to tell you when the
5 way switch has selected the proper setting.

I've always thought a computer with dual mouse controls would be best
for softsynth control, but until we have mainstream OS support this
isn't likely to happen.  

John Loffink
jloffink at austin.rr.com 

The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com/

The Wavemakers Modular and Integrated Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/

> 
> Controlling a complicated synth with a mouse is a bit like having a
large
> traditional analog synth with hundreds of stiff potentiometers (with
> half-moon shafts) and only one actual knob--which you have to move
from
> shaft to shaft, in order to adjust your sound. Who in their right mind
> would want a synth like that?
> 
> What I would like to know is, why do computer users in general settle
for
> just one mouse-like (continuous input, if you will) device? Why can't
we
> have a row of rotary encoders or sliders next to our qwerty keyboards?
> Something? Anything?
> 
> A lot of design software would benefit from more simultaneously usable
> controls. Why aren't these common devices on general purpose
computers? Is
> it social inertia?
>