You know, what I would really like is f...
three position mechanical switches.
But they won't do it because it's too
old-fashioned. And the thing is it would probably be cooler for you sighted
folks to because you could be looking at something else or even inside
yourselves while playing.
Meanwhile I would be glad to talk to your
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:02
Subject: Re: hardware vs software - this
time from a blind man's view (was "Re: two little guitar loops")
A response from my friend:
Yes it can
be done. I don't know if it's a tri-color LED you speak of
or 3 separate
LEDs. Doesn't matter too much really. You would probably
want to pick off
the LED outs and buffer them though because an LED
generally draws about
20ma and some motors(to vibrate) will draw more
than that and also you
want to be careful because when the motor
starts up it creates a back
voltage as a spike so that has to be
The problem is you'd
need the device to modify it. There are also a
million ways you could have
it do something else besides LEDs.
If he wants a Pro mod,I'd be into it,but
if he just wants something
slapped together,I wouldn't do it.
oh wait,I looked at the device;that's a shit load of LEDs.
Why not a
braille device interfaced? I wonder if those individual
buttons can be
found in a midi command hidden somewhere. That would
If you want, I can forward your email to him and if you're up
custom job he'd be the man who could make it happen. He made a
for me that used the light from a Repeater's tempo indicator to
tap information to a Lexicon Vortex. He's quite handy.
Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:27 AM, William Walker<email@example.com>
> Rainer wrote:
> "Another controller which comes to mind
(even though it looks very Eighties
> cheap SciFi) is the P5 dataglove:
You have a total of eleven control
> channels (x/y/z position of your
hand, x/y/z axis rotation of your hand,
> bending of each finger). And
there's a software that maps this data to MIDI
> messages. Might
something like this work for you?"
> Wow that actually sounds
really cool do you have a link for that Rainer?
> From: Rainer Straschill
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 1:20
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: hardware vs software - this time from a blind man's view (was
> two little guitar loops")
> yes, I know what you mean by "hardware". Actually, my
> (the "computer without hardware") was targeted at that
fact that, as
> you continue to point out, the majority of hardware
effects (at least
> those most people here are interested in) are in
> computer systems, featuring some sort of software inside
> Now regarding your quest for an easy-to-use
> I will in fact stick a little bit with the
> simply because it's easier to customize a man
machine interface here.
> The most important thing for you seems
to me (and I'm of course open
> for any corrections to this statement)
for you to have a man machine
> interface which doesn't require visual
feedback of any sort. This
> 1. any commands you issue
must not be context-sensitive.
> 2. any controllers you use must have
good haptic feedback for you to
> identify which controller command
you're about to issue.
> 3. any sort of information feedback from the
computer (other than
> what you hear in your music) must be
> ad 1:
> This affects both the structure of the
software solution and of the
> interface you're using. I'll try to give
one example to see if that
> makes sense to you:
> in an earlier
implementation of my computer-based looping setup (using
> Mobius), I
would select tracks by linking the "previous track" and
> "next track"
commands to a footswitch each. When I changed my approach
> insofar as
to look at the screen less, this did no longer work:
> earlier, if I
wanted to switch to, say, track 1, I had a look at the
> screen, and if
track 3 was selected, I would simply press "previous
> track" twice. The
> I added a BCR2000 faderbox which has a row of
buttons with eight
> buttons. Now I simply hit the leftmost button in
that row to go to
> track 1. This is no longer context-sensitive:
pressing that button
> will always bring me to track 1.
> this of course kicks out beautiful solutions like the
> jazzmutant, and may also make options like the Akai APC40 with
> huge number of buttons somewhat cumbersome. Also, foot
> might be a problem (are they?). Now my question: how about
> with motorized faders? Or something like an Akai MPD24 (4x4
> matrix, six faders above it, and two rows of four endless rotary
> each beneath it). Would that work for you?
Another controller which comes to mind (even though it looks very
Eighties cheap SciFi) is the P5 dataglove: You have a total of eleven
control channels (x/y/z position of your hand, x/y/z axis rotation of
your hand, bending of each finger). And there's a software that maps
this data to MIDI messages. Might something like this work for
> ad 3:
> again: would motorized faders
> Again, this is just meant as a collection of thoughts
tossed out - not
> a solution which works for you.