Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR?

Author
CP
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 693
  • Joined: 2003/11/08 02:22:56
  • Status: offline
2005/05/01 23:47:40 (permalink)

Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR?

I'm looking at a Houston controller to replace my aging, but well loved, StudioMix. Has anyone used it with SONAR, and if so, is there a template for it somewhere?

Thanks!
#1

24 Replies Related Threads

    losguy
    Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 5432
    • Joined: 2003/12/18 13:40:44
    • Location: The Great White North (MN, USA)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2005/05/01 23:56:25 (permalink)
    "Houston, we have a problem..."

    Sorry, couldn't resist. It's the first time I've heard of this controller, and that's just the first thing that popped into my mind. OK, now is a perfect time for someone who knows what they're talking about to punch in...

    Psalm 30:12 (then "Tools->Crossrefs" on the left)

    The Manifestation of the Kingdom
    #2
    davidchristopher
    Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1360
    • Joined: 2004/06/18 15:51:14
    • Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2005/05/02 10:47:53 (permalink)
    I believe the Houston is discontinued... you might want to rethink that choice...


    Having said that, there was a used one on sale at Lakeshore Music in Burlington, and I took a good look at it. It seemed to be flimzy and cheap, like a plastic toy. I was not at all impressed. I've owned MCUs and currently use the CM-Labs stuff, both of which is much better built. The Mackie gear is very very well supported in Sonar.

    The MotorMate (CMLabs)... well, I'm working on it ...slowly... Motormate basically uses the HUI protocol, so any HUI compliant surface "should" work with it. YMMV.


    D

    EDIT: Typo & Spelling
    post edited by davidchristopher - 2005/05/02 10:49:14
    #3
    John
    Forum Host
    • Total Posts : 25797
    • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2005/05/02 12:15:19 (permalink)
    Sonar will not support the Houston. It is no longer being made. Even Steinberg is not that good at supporting it. It was a dog when it came out and it still is.

    The first time I saw one was in a Cubase SX 1 Steinberg clinic it crashed Cubase SX.


    Best
    Joun
    #4
    CP
    Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 693
    • Joined: 2003/11/08 02:22:56
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2005/05/02 13:03:13 (permalink)
    Hmmm... thanks for the info!
    #5
    getgo
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1
    • Joined: 2006/04/01 10:39:14
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/01 10:49:32 (permalink)
    I am glad this thread got started. I am new to SONAR and this is my first post.
    Interestingly I had the same Question about the Houston.
    I have been using a Houston with Steinberg's Nuendo for a couple of years.
    I can tell you for sure that this unit is not made anymore AND Steinberg no longer supprts it.
    There is definitely alot of bad input out there on the Web about the Houston.
    Unfortunately I donot have any other controller to compare it too but I am thinking about getting the Mackie Universal so I can use it with Sonar; now that I know that my Houston will not work. Any other Mackie users out there or any other suggestions for Surface Controllers for Sonar?
    #6
    crimsonwarlock
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 14
    • Joined: 2006/03/26 14:51:50
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/02 05:09:00 (permalink)
    I just got a Tascam US-2400 and it works nice with Sonar. It is not directly supported on the Sonar-side (as far as I know) but the Tascam has a specific driver-mode for using it with Sonar. I searched this forum for info on it before I got it and there is one little problem (sometimes it initialises wrongly) but there is also a very simple workaround for it that takes about 30 seconds to set straight when initializing goes wrong. I can post detailed info on this if needed/wanted. The Tascam US-2400 is currently lowered in price tremendously. You can get it way below a 1000 USD (I've seen it on the web for 799 USD). For that price you get 24 mixer channels with motorised touch sensitive faders (the master fader is motorised as well). The only thing lacking is LCD-readouts on the channels to see where you are. For me not a big issue as most of my projects don't go beyond 24 tracks and if they do I'll just live with it. Tascam has a software solution to show you the active channels on the controller but I haven't tested it so far.
    #7
    LucidMusic
    Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 54
    • Joined: 2005/11/25 14:14:58
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/02 15:18:34 (permalink)
    Crimsonwarlock,
    I would like to know how to correct the initialization issue on the tascam 2400. I have one too and I do have a problem with it occassionally. Thanks for any help.
    #8
    crimsonwarlock
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 14
    • Joined: 2006/03/26 14:51:50
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/02 16:01:50 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: LucidMusic

    Crimsonwarlock,
    I would like to know how to correct the initialization issue on the tascam 2400. I have one too and I do have a problem with it occassionally. Thanks for any help.

    Well, if it is the same problem: sometimes all three sections of the Tascam are getting linked somehow. So they correspond only to the first eight tracks in SONAR. When you move the first fader, the first fader in the second and third section on the Tascam move with it. Same for all eight faders in each section on the Tascam.

    I found this problem being discussed here on the forum and also a solution posted: when this happens, re-initialise the Tascam and remove & re-install the control-surface definitions in SONAR. This takes just about a few minutes. However, I found that you don't have to remove the control surface definitions. Here are the steps I follow to reset the Tascam to normal behaviour:

    1. Have SONAR started, the 'problem' will occur.

    2. Restart the Tascam with the Sonar key combination (Switch to standby, power-button on the Tascam is flashing, press + hold master SEL and AUX2 and then press the POWER button).

    3. In SONAR go to TOOLS and then choose MACKIE CONTROL, in the window that opens hit the 'configure layout' button (right bottom of that window).

    4. On the Tascam press & hold the F-KEY and SHIFT key and then press the MASTER SEL-key.

    5. In Sonar click on the same button (that should read 'Press again when done' at this stage).

    At this time your Tascam should return to it's proper configured state and the faders in the second and third section should move to the correct positions.
    #9
    LucidMusic
    Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 54
    • Joined: 2005/11/25 14:14:58
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/02 20:26:36 (permalink)
    Thank you crimsonwarlock for the help. This is exactly what happens to me at times. I will give it a try.
    #10
    rodreb
    Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 504
    • Joined: 2003/11/06 14:59:42
    • Location: Ohio
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/03 09:39:16 (permalink)
    Hi! I had that same problem when I first got my US-2400. I sent it back and got a new one and have never had that (or any other) problem again.
    #11
    cGar
    Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 628
    • Joined: 2006/03/16 14:33:25
    • Location: Santa Barbara, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/03 10:35:12 (permalink)
    I'm running two BCF2000s in Mackie Control Emulation mode!!! Works like a charm. Plus its the price is amazing. You can get 4 of these for the price of one makie control!

    Rock on,
    C.

    Go Big or Stay Home!!

    www.soundcloud.com/cgar
    www.myspace.com/cgarridomusic

    MacPro (8x2.8GHz)
    #12
    John Page
    Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 672
    • Joined: 2003/11/10 20:40:45
    • Location: New York
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/03 14:26:20 (permalink)
    I'm running two BCF2000s in Mackie Control Emulation mode!!! Works like a charm. Plus its the price is amazing. You can get 4 of these for the price of one makie control!


    Not to poo poo on the BCF2000 but it's not in the same league as the Mackie Control you do get what you pay for in this case
    #13
    cGar
    Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 628
    • Joined: 2006/03/16 14:33:25
    • Location: Santa Barbara, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/03 14:46:41 (permalink)
    Hey i understand that the mackie control is nice, BUT you get only 9 faders, 8+ knobs and 20+ buttons for 1000 bucks. Oh yeah you get the LCD displays too!

    But for 1000 bucks you can get 4 times the amount of controls. The box is built just as sturdy! The main thing missing is the LCDs, but Behringer has developed a software on screen equivalent that is just as good. Their are a few missing shift buttons also,

    But for me and anyone who wants the biggest bang for their buck, I think 40 motorized faders, 64+ buttons, 40 endless rotarys, with on screen display that mimics the MCU exactly all for what you pay for 1 MCU! You cannot beat the BCF!!! and its price. IMHO! The thing is rock solid. Integrates up to 16 simultaneously in sonar side by side. One of my best study buys todate.

    Obviously if you had 4000 dollars you could get 4 mackie controls and it would be slightly nicer, but hey 4000 is a Waves diamond bundle or many other better things!

    Just my personal oppinion though,
    Chris.

    Go Big or Stay Home!!

    www.soundcloud.com/cgar
    www.myspace.com/cgarridomusic

    MacPro (8x2.8GHz)
    #14
    losguy
    Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 5432
    • Joined: 2003/12/18 13:40:44
    • Location: The Great White North (MN, USA)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/03 15:12:17 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: cGar
    Obviously if you had 4000 dollars you could get 4 mackie controls and it would be slightly nicer, but hey 4000 is a Waves diamond bundle or many other better things!

    I'm thinking a Wendy Jr. burger a day for 11 years.

    Psalm 30:12 (then "Tools->Crossrefs" on the left)

    The Manifestation of the Kingdom
    #15
    John Page
    Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 672
    • Joined: 2003/11/10 20:40:45
    • Location: New York
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/03 15:14:06 (permalink)
    Hey i understand that the mackie control is nice, BUT you get only 9 faders, 8+ knobs and 20+ buttons for 1000 bucks. Oh yeah you get the LCD displays too!


    Wow you need to at least read up on the MC it is so much, much, much, much more, with the touch of a button I can access fader banks in groups of 8 or one at a time. you do not need to add additional MC's to access tracks past 8, you could access as many tracks as you have with a project, you can also set punch points, loop points add additional tracks (audio / midi) control effects, display levels, times, time frames, display track names, effects parameters, scrub wheel, zoom in and out scroll up or down, select tracks, arm tracks, mute tracks, solo, tracks with lighted indicators, undo, redo, copy, cut, paste, and on and on ...........you get what you pay for.

    The box is built just as sturdy! The main thing missing is the LCDs, but Behringer has developed a software on screen equivalent that is just as good. Their are a few missing shift buttons also,


    Hate to break the news to you but there is a whole lot more missing that just a few missing shift buttons. Look the BCF2000 is a very cool inexpensive unit and I considered one for a mobile laptop but I stand by my statement it's not in the same league.
    post edited by John Page - 2006/04/03 15:22:21
    #16
    cGar
    Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 628
    • Joined: 2006/03/16 14:33:25
    • Location: Santa Barbara, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/03 15:33:24 (permalink)
    Listen man no offense at all. But you seems to be missing what I am saying.

    Behringer has created an "emulation" mode that does everything that you mentioned.

    I can use one BCF to move across fader banks and aux banks just like the MCU. However I have two BCF2000s that move across fader banks in set of 16!!! And in my previous example I could chain 5 BCF2000s and move across fader banks in sets of 40 tracks at a time!!! All for the same price as 1 MCU. I can set punch points, loop points, play, stop, record, arm record, automate, solo, eq, fx, dynamics, etc, etc. Basically everything you can do with the MCU, I can do with the BCF in Mackie emulation mode. BUT I can do it 5 times cheaper or with 5 times the amount of physical controls if I choose to spend the 1000 dollars.
    (What 40 actual moving faders that do the same thing as the MCU for the same price, hmm not rocket science.)

    I do believe its you who should be reading up on the BCFs abilities.

    And just to clarify I am not knocking the MCU in any way (well maybe its price). With out the MCU there would be no BCF with MCU emulation mode. Mackie did it first. Behringer did it cheaper. And yes lets remember there are no LCDs (probably why its so cheap) but the BCFview programs slaps those LCDs right on your monitor which is really friggn' sweet!

    Its an amazing idea which behringer has bucked from Mackie. They just do it all for MAD cheaper.

    And word to those potential Mackie C4 users, Behringer is working on an emulation mode for the BCR2000 which will give you the C4 capabilities for 7-8 times cheaper.

    Gotta love that shizzle!
    Cgar.

    Go Big or Stay Home!!

    www.soundcloud.com/cgar
    www.myspace.com/cgarridomusic

    MacPro (8x2.8GHz)
    #17
    crimsonwarlock
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 14
    • Joined: 2006/03/26 14:51:50
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/03 15:34:10 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: cGar

    Integrates up to 16 simultaneously in sonar side by side. One of my best study buys todate.

    I was under the impression that you can not chain more then two BCF units. I seem to remember reading something like that and there was a quote from a Behringer support person saying 'they didn't know if it was possible or not'.

    I did look at the BCF as an alternative to the Tascam, but the BCF was missing to much for me (dedicated transport controls, touch sensitive faders, mute & solo buttons, etc.) I also have to agree that a Mackie control is on yet another level even if it was only for the LCD readouts, but it was just out of range for my budget (I realy wanted 24 faders, equalling a Mackie control with two expanders).

    If you follow the link in my sig there are pictures showing the Tascam

    #18
    cGar
    Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 628
    • Joined: 2006/03/16 14:33:25
    • Location: Santa Barbara, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/03 15:40:01 (permalink)
    John Page wrote"set punch points, loop points add additional tracks (audio / midi) control effects, display levels, times, time frames, display track names, effects parameters, scrub wheel, zoom in and out scroll up or down, select tracks, arm tracks, mute tracks, solo, tracks with lighted indicators, undo, redo, copy, cut, paste,"

    You can do everything on your list except: zoom and maybe copy cut and past. I need to check the pdf again!

    crimsonwarlock wrote: "dedicated transport controls, touch sensitive faders, mute & solo buttons, etc.)"

    This is all in the BCF!

    And I am pretty sure you can chain as many devices at the mackie spec allows!

    If anyone has tried this and failed with the BCF, let me know cuz I was planning on getting a third one!

    Thanks,
    Cgar

    Go Big or Stay Home!!

    www.soundcloud.com/cgar
    www.myspace.com/cgarridomusic

    MacPro (8x2.8GHz)
    #19
    crimsonwarlock
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 14
    • Joined: 2006/03/26 14:51:50
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/03 17:02:36 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: cGar

    crimsonwarlock wrote: "dedicated transport controls, touch sensitive faders, mute & solo buttons, etc.)"

    This is all in the BCF!

    I think you might missunderstand what 'touch sensitive' means. I did an extensive search on the web and I'm quite convinced that the BCF does NOT have touch sensitive faders. I've read several posts of BCF owners describing problems resulting from the fact that they are not touch sensitive.

    I found a good explanation here: http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?t=20418
    From the link above:

    All automated faders can be moved with your hands. Touch sensitive ones also recognize when you simply put pressure on the fader knobs themselves whether you've alredy programmed some moves or not. This means that if the automated faders are already moving around on their own (because you just did a pass and programmed 'em) and then in the middle of their little dance you suddenly lay your hands on 'em again to change what they are doing (i.e. your interupting their flow to re-record what they are doing), the faders RECOGNIZE that you are touching them in order to redirect their movements. If they are NOT touch-sensitive, the little motors just keep on pushing the faders up and down as you had already programmed them to do whether or not you are trying to change their flow, and will resist you (completely I believe...seems like if you push back to hard you'd strip 'em). They don't "recognize" that you are touching them again.


    Google on 'behringer bcf touch sensitive' and you will find a lot more info on this 'problem' with the BCF.
    #20
    John Page
    Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 672
    • Joined: 2003/11/10 20:40:45
    • Location: New York
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/03 18:02:57 (permalink)
    Listen man no offense at all. But you seems to be missing what I am saying.

    Behringer has created an "emulation" mode that does everything that you mentioned.


    Listen man no offense at all. But you seems to be missing what I am saying.

    Behringer has created an "emulation" mode that does everything that you mentioned.


    It's cool, like I said it's a cool unit and it has a great price point for what it does I don't want to put it down and not everyone has the cash for the MC but there are reasons why the MC is 4x more money

    http://www.mackie.com/home/showimage.html?u=/products/mackiecontrol/images/ZOOM_MCU.jpg

    Vs

    http://www.behringer.com/BCF2000/index.cfm?lang=ENG
    post edited by John Page - 2006/04/03 18:09:35
    #21
    daverich
    Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3418
    • Joined: 2003/11/06 05:59:00
    • Location: south west uk
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/03 18:53:01 (permalink)
    indeed the BCF is not touch sensitive.

    Nice unit for the money though.

    Kind regards

    Dave Rich.

    For Sale - 10.5x7ft Whisperroom recording booth.

    http://www.daverichband.com
    http://www.soundclick.com/daverich
    #22
    cGar
    Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 628
    • Joined: 2006/03/16 14:33:25
    • Location: Santa Barbara, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/04 00:31:49 (permalink)
    Thanks All,

    I gotta read up on this "touch sensitive" thing. Not having it hasn't hurt my mixes or the hands on experience but maybe it could have been helping it?! Gotta do a bit of research. Anyway, obviously when looking at the two units the MCU is the more impressive one, visually. The BCF only attempts to mimic the MCU and I'm very happy that sonar supports it so well. But I have found that what you gain in price (IMHO) overwhelmingly trumps what's missing (which isn't much).

    All in all, hope I didn't get too heated. Obviously I like my product and others like the MCU. I just spent tons of time investigating the pros and cons and in the end I got what I wanted (actually two of them) with 700 dollars to spare.

    Best to all,
    Chris.

    Go Big or Stay Home!!

    www.soundcloud.com/cgar
    www.myspace.com/cgarridomusic

    MacPro (8x2.8GHz)
    #23
    losguy
    Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 5432
    • Joined: 2003/12/18 13:40:44
    • Location: The Great White North (MN, USA)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/04 11:35:47 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: crimsonwarlock
    From the link above:
    All automated faders can be moved with your hands. Touch sensitive ones also recognize when you simply put pressure on the fader knobs themselves whether you've alredy programmed some moves or not. This means that if the automated faders are already moving around on their own (because you just did a pass and programmed 'em) and then in the middle of their little dance you suddenly lay your hands on 'em again to change what they are doing (i.e. your interupting their flow to re-record what they are doing), the faders RECOGNIZE that you are touching them in order to redirect their movements. If they are NOT touch-sensitive, the little motors just keep on pushing the faders up and down as you had already programmed them to do whether or not you are trying to change their flow, and will resist you (completely I believe...seems like if you push back to hard you'd strip 'em). They don't "recognize" that you are touching them again.

    Google on 'behringer bcf touch sensitive' and you will find a lot more info on this 'problem' with the BCF.

    The BCF is not touch sensitive, but I tried to get something implemented in the UCS (Universal Control Surface) which would mimic touch sensitivity. Basically, all a control surface plugin has to do is scan the incoming MIDI CC from the fader unit to see if it is different from the "command" CC being sent out to the fader unit to drive the motor. If it is, then the parameter could automatically arm for automation and record, just as it does with a touch sensitive fader. The only difference it a tiny "fight" at the beginning, after which it would "let go" of the knob and let you move it.

    Anyway, I'm not sure if it actually got in to the UCS, so it may be a moot point.

    Psalm 30:12 (then "Tools->Crossrefs" on the left)

    The Manifestation of the Kingdom
    #24
    crimsonwarlock
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 14
    • Joined: 2006/03/26 14:51:50
    • Status: offline
    RE: Anyone using Steinberg's Houston Controller w/ SONAR? 2006/04/04 14:52:38 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: losguy

    ORIGINAL: crimsonwarlock
    From the link above:
    All automated faders can be moved with your hands. Touch sensitive ones also recognize when you simply put pressure on the fader knobs themselves whether you've alredy programmed some moves or not. This means that if the automated faders are already moving around on their own (because you just did a pass and programmed 'em) and then in the middle of their little dance you suddenly lay your hands on 'em again to change what they are doing (i.e. your interupting their flow to re-record what they are doing), the faders RECOGNIZE that you are touching them in order to redirect their movements. If they are NOT touch-sensitive, the little motors just keep on pushing the faders up and down as you had already programmed them to do whether or not you are trying to change their flow, and will resist you (completely I believe...seems like if you push back to hard you'd strip 'em). They don't "recognize" that you are touching them again.

    Google on 'behringer bcf touch sensitive' and you will find a lot more info on this 'problem' with the BCF.

    The BCF is not touch sensitive, but I tried to get something implemented in the UCS (Universal Control Surface) which would mimic touch sensitivity. Basically, all a control surface plugin has to do is scan the incoming MIDI CC from the fader unit to see if it is different from the "command" CC being sent out to the fader unit to drive the motor. If it is, then the parameter could automatically arm for automation and record, just as it does with a touch sensitive fader. The only difference it a tiny "fight" at the beginning, after which it would "let go" of the knob and let you move it.

    Anyway, I'm not sure if it actually got in to the UCS, so it may be a moot point.

    I completely agree that such an implementation would come close to emulating touch sensitivity. I also don't want to put down the BCF as I think it brings a motorised CS within reach for a lot of people. For me, after reading a lot of info on the net (including here on the forum) I was scared away by the stories of 'fader-fight' as a result of the lack of touch sensitivity and also because I couldn't find any info from people that have chained more then two of them (although now it seems clear that it's possible) and I wanted 24 channels. To make a long story short, the BCF goes here for Euro 199,- so three of them would be close to Euro 600,- and I got my Tascam US-2400 for Euro 899,-. So for the extra 300 I have touch sensitive faders, a dedicated master fader (also motorised), a great working transport section and a great looking unit to boot.



    Looking good, doesn't it

    Oh, and yes, that is a small Behringer Eurorack mixer at the right and no, it isn't noisy (it's actually very quiet) but it will be replaced soon as I need a few more inputs for routing stuff into the computer.
    #25
    Jump to:
    © 2014 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1