pwalpwal
yes, but why did it fail?

I can only speculate, but there are some facts:
1) except the devices in this particular thread (Eucon), EVERY device can be integrated by users up to some level. Let say VS700 (and for sure as Console 1, I mean in respect to Sonar control). Takes from 15 minutes upwards (depending from target functionality). How many people are using that? No so hard to count by fingers.
2) if you look at the market, all Surface+Audio interface "hybrids" have disappeared. Not only from Roland. Digital mixers + Surface (mostly for the mixer) still exist, but more and more with "surface-less" variants in the products lists.
3) from Roland V I only have VS-20 (was cheap on e-bay...). For original price that is a joke: 2x2 of Focusrite Solo style. Has Boss hardware effects but unusable without computer (and not controllable from the device). Surface a kind of Korg nanokontrol but will less elements. Theoretically claim to have digital gain (I am not expert to judge that is true, but it has no normal analog gain), but has no endless encoders. All in one, cheap Edirol for the price toward MOTU/RME. Could that work?
 

Anderton

Zo
I will end with the fact that i also think a superbe control surface made by the brand itself with the maximum of 3rd party daws compability will push more and more sales ....and credibility .... 

The problem is that Cakewalk and Roland tried that already, and it was a commercial epic fail. When I do DAW seminars I always ask how many people use a control surface. Only a few hands go up, and even then, a lot of times it's more of a "scratchpad" like a Korg Nanocontrol.
 
The hard reality is that a proper piece of hardware is expensive to develop, and therefore difficult for people to afford. I think the best that owners of any DAW will be able to be expect in the future is touch control surfaces. The only exception will be Ableton Live, because you really can't use it as intended without a hardware controller - as I've always said, DAWs are studios disguised as software, while Live is a musical instrument disguised as software. Meanwhile, I do think the Softube integration is very good for those who want to go the hardware route.

Craig you can't say people don't use control surface , and the fact that Roland failded it depends on a lot of factor ....
The success of the console one or the Avid artist (cause it's seen in a lot , a lot of home studios and even pro studios) confirm exactly the opposite .... even Studio one and presonus has been served (not that great solution but at least they tried) ....
 
The VS 700 C is one of the best controls surface i'v'e seen , and even coming from the mouth of Harisson guyz when i talked with them about a possible console surface  for Mixbuss ....
 
Expensive ? Ok let's make a deal , give me a Developper time  for 6 months one day a week and i handle the HW side  ....
 
The thing is that tools have moved a faster that solutions .... when solutions reach the tools used : bingo , push is an exemple , MAschine can be concidered also ... but those are real DAW specific ...
 
When a solution meets factors like "price" spot on for market penetration , future , DESIGN , quality and biggest targeted Market in number , add to this a REAL MArketing : bingo .... Marketing a controle surface for Sonar only would be suicide .... , make one with deep flexibility (HUI , mackie controle , Sonar specific .....ect ..) great design , agressive price (the goal is not to make hell of profit , but to give visibility , undirect marketing for Cake would be already  a great start , add to this happy costumers and if it's done right from start , low maintenance ) ....  Why not ask simply Mr Tascam for the HW side or why not 3rd party like Harisson , SSL ect .. people that making faders and knobs is a joke for them ..... 
 
By the way here's the answer from Avid side :
 
http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?p=2420166#post2420166
 
Ball is in your side guyz ...
 
 

azslow3

pwalpwal
yes, but why did it fail?

I can only speculate, but there are some facts:
1) except the devices in this particular thread (Eucon), EVERY device can be integrated by users up to some level. Let say VS700 (and for sure as Console 1, I mean in respect to Sonar control). Takes from 15 minutes upwards (depending from target functionality). How many people are using that? No so hard to count by fingers.
2) if you look at the market, all Surface+Audio interface "hybrids" have disappeared. Not only from Roland. Digital mixers + Surface (mostly for the mixer) still exist, but more and more with "surface-less" variants in the products lists.
3) from Roland V I only have VS-20 (was cheap on e-bay...). For original price that is a joke: 2x2 of Focusrite Solo style. Has Boss hardware effects but unusable without computer (and not controllable from the device). Surface a kind of Korg nanokontrol but will less elements. Theoretically claim to have digital gain (I am not expert to judge that is true, but it has no normal analog gain), but has no endless encoders. All in one, cheap Edirol for the price toward MOTU/RME. Could that work?
 

you're right , i'm amazed by what i have achieveied with yiour software and it make me wonder WTF dev' are waiting to make great stuff ....
 
Basically with my maschien studio , i coontrol :
 
Tracks level (bank of 8 !!) Pan , send , mute solo , select , range of ACT ready knobs , ACt genereic template made for dynamic , EQ , Reverb and a generic one 
 
I have dedicated button for
 
EDITION : "copy / paste / undo / redo / Tools (display) Close / Supp / Quantiser / duplicate names "
 
GUI : Fit project ,Fit tracks , track manager , hide track , keep track views : pionaorand 7 screens sets ..
X ray , Act activation , Browser , inspector  synthrak , Save 
 
Transport and wheel , arrows' , zoom control and cancel and enter ...
 
I stop here but all this easlily with the help or Alexei !!(thks again for this !!) 
 
Sure that if i buy console one , i will make a generic surface for act ...and the alaphtarck will handle the fader side ...

Here's what can be done with a generic control surface and a Talented and dedicated guy (Alexei and its AZ controler)
 
 
Template in NI editor

 
Screns shot on my dynamic ACT page , i have made a constant layout that answer 90 % of what i use on my Tools ....can be used with almost all my dynamic stuff , made the smae for eq and reverb ...i 'm working on a generic for Tapes , saturaiona dn aother Tools (CL1B comp ACT focused here)
You see my labels (color coded also and the plugin vst paramater name in the center of screen)
 

 

 
 
 
 
 

Zo
 
Craig you can't say people don't use control surface 

 
Look at the sales figures. You can sell only 25 control surfaces a month, and still break into the Top 10 at retail domestically.
 
The total universe of people using any given control surface with a DAW is small. Just as it makes no sense to record an album in a big commercial studio if you're only going to sell 200 copies, it doesn't make sense to spend precious development time on something that benefits few users.
 
In any event I'm using Artist Series controllers with SONAR, and they work fine. And of course there's azslow3's expertise to make various controllers talk to SONAR.

If one are serious about a CS it seems to me one would get one that works with all software that supports hardware controllers. To my knowledge there is only one. Its called the Mackie Control.  

Zo
By the way here's the answer from Avid side :
 
http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?p=2420166#post2420166
 
Ball is in your side guyz ... 

And this is where there is a disconnect between Cakewalk and the surface manufacturers: Cakewalk have stated numerous times the responsibility lies with the surface manufacturers, and they provide the API for them, the surface manufacturers say the reverse.  I think that the reality is that it IS Cakewalk's responsbility to do the integration work (and it would seem that this is the case with other DAWs - it's the DAW writers who do the work).  Now they might decide it's not worth their while compared with other development they have on their plates, which is fine, but that is a tacit acceptance that SONAR won't be a good choice for someone who wants to have a choice of closely integrated control surfaces.

KPerry

Zo
By the way here's the answer from Avid side :
 
http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?p=2420166#post2420166
 
Ball is in your side guyz ... 

And this is where there is a disconnect between Cakewalk and the surface manufacturers: Cakewalk have stated numerous times the responsibility lies with the surface manufacturers, and they provide the API for them, the surface manufacturers say the reverse.  I think that the reality is that it IS Cakewalk's responsbility to do the integration work (and it would seem that this is the case with other DAWs - it's the DAW writers who do the work).  Now they might decide it's not worth their while compared with other development they have on their plates, which is fine, but that is a tacit acceptance that SONAR won't be a good choice for someone who wants to have a choice of closely integrated control surfaces.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. And I believe you are right there is a disconnect between the 2. they both have different goals and different ideas. However in the end, without a DAW the control surface makers are just producing a giant high priced paper weight. So you would think CS makers would be more involved in pressing DAW makers to work with them VS the other way around.
 
The only way I see an increase in production between the 2 is if control surfaces started flying off the shelf. being sold in large quantity's. then it would probably grab sonars eye to invest some time where the money is at. And to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't blame them.
 
I use a Mackie Control myself and have been very happy with the way it works within Sonar.
But I would like to see an affordable solution in the future which everyone can benefit from.
Unforto, I don't see that happening for a long time from now.
 
You do bring up some great points. I hope someday they find an even meeting place to work more productively.

KPerry
I think that the reality is that it IS Cakewalk's responsbility to do the integration work (and it would seem that this is the case with other DAWs - it's the DAW writers who do the work).

First of all, when it comes to Eucon, CW did do the integration work. SONAR was one of the first DAWs to jump on Eucon. It works fine. In fact if you peruse the net, you'll find comments from Pro Tools users calling the Artist Series a "doorstop" because they couldn't get it to work (although like SONAR, it works just fine. You just have to know when to enable Eucon services). But when for example Avid changes the API to make a product more compatible with newer versions of Pro Tools, and after being around for several years it turns out the product hasn't been "flying off the shelves" and only a small percentage of a DAW's population uses it, why should Cakewalk spend the time to develop something that benefits only a handful of users so that a different company can sell more controllers?
 
You could argue "But then Cakewalk would sell more copies of SONAR because of its integration." I don't think so. SONAR already integrates with Mackie Control devices, Console 1, some (all?) of the Nektar controllers, etc. I really don't think people base a decision on which DAW to buy because of integration with a specific, more-or-less proprietary control protocol - they buy a DAW for what the DAW does. However if they do, given that the Artist Series is very much Pro Tools-centric, if you love the Artist Series so much you base a DAW purchase decision on it the only logical choice would be Pro Tools.
 
When you look at controllers like those from Alesis, M-Audio, etc. that support various DAWs, the controller company chooses which DAWs/instruments/plug-ins to support based on what they think has the greatest (preferably cross-platform) market share so there's the greatest pool of potential buyers for that controller. I highly doubt that, for example, Avid developed the code for Akai Pro's Advance keyboards to support Pro Tools. Avid probably gave a copy of Pro Tools to Akai and said "have fun, let us know if you encounter any problems." Like it or not, that's the way things work in this tiny, low-margin industry.

.