Me Either :(

Off the top of my head, my understanding is that ACT is still generally not bi-directional (they seem to have worked around this in the V-700 and V-100, but in terms of the setup interface that is given to end-users) - so you could probably set up the Alphatrack to control the EQ and to be a multi-purpose ACT controller, as far as that goes, but you would lose the display feedback and, more importantly, the motor fader - which is kind of the main attraction anyway - and possibly other functionality that may or may not still be there with X1. Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. 

Anyone with better/contradictory information, feel free to correct me - this is just as far as I understand it. 

subtlearts


Off the top of my head, my understanding is that ACT is still generally not bi-directional (they seem to have worked around this in the V-700 and V-100, but in terms of the setup interface that is given to end-users) - so you could probably set up the Alphatrack to control the EQ and to be a multi-purpose ACT controller, as far as that goes, but you would lose the display feedback and, more importantly, the motor fader - which is kind of the main attraction anyway - and possibly other functionality that may or may not still be there with X1. Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. 

Anyone with better/contradictory information, feel free to correct me - this is just as far as I understand it. 

After doing some reading up on ACT, I believe you are correct.  Frontier has a decent publication on its MIDI implementation, so now I'm just trying to figure out the best way to have it talk to Cakewalk.  

snookerc


  Frontier has a decent publication on its MIDI implementation, so now I'm just trying to figure out the best way to have it talk to Cakewalk.  

You go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

snookerc

After doing some reading up on ACT, I believe you are correct.  Frontier has a decent publication on its MIDI implementation, so now I'm just trying to figure out the best way to have it talk to Cakewalk.   

You might need some info on the hooks on Sonar's end as well - I remember from talking to the Frontier guy that he was somewhat limited by what was exposed in the host. I don't know where you'd get that for X1 - maybe one of the friendly Bakers can drop a hint? 


Anyway. I don't have X1 yet but I'm considering jumping on board soon - esp. if I can get a crack at the demo first - and I'd be happy to help test whatever you come up with. I'm not sure I can be much help on the programming front, but I'm not bad at troubleshooting... 

subtlearts,
 
In an earlier post, you mentioned you were considering the other DAW that starts with "R". I demo'ed that for a while, and one of the reasons I abandoned it was it's limited support for my Alphatrack.
 
Another major reason was that it had no staff view whatsoever.
 
In regard to Alphatrack support, I'm just guessing, but it may be difficult (or even impossible?) for improvement in that area. That daw seems to treat a lot of things as objects with no inherent distinctions between them. That can be very powerful in some ways, but in the case of the Alphatrack it backfires.
 
The mode buttons (pan, send, eq, plug-in, auto) don't work at all because the daw doesn't tell it "this object is an eq", or "this object is a plug-in" or "this object is a bus send". So as far as controlling those kinds of things, all the Alphatrack can do is scroll through all parameters in all objects on a track with one of the encoders, and change the value of the current parameter with another encoder. If all you had on a track was one send, or maybe even one simple eq, you might be able to live with it. But it's pretty normal to have a lot more than that on a track, and I didn't think I could live with that continual scrolling through dozens of parameters trying to find the one I wanted to change at the moment. It would be similar to using a single ACT setup to control all sends/eqs/plug-ins on a track at the same time.
 
I'm not trying to dissuade you from testing other DAWs; like a lot of people I did the same. But so far, I have concluded that while other DAWs look very appealing at first, once you take the time to do the research and actually use them, they're not really better, just different. You have to decide whether the overall differences suit your personal use/preferences or not.
 
As I think you said, Alphatrack integration is probably strongest with Sonar, and that is very important to me. I'm hoping that Cakewalk and/or Frontier can work out control of the ProChannel.

Indeed, I'd noticed those points. In fact I have to say I have never gotten into a real habit of using the Alphatrack's full feature set in a deep way, though I appreciate how well it's integrated with Sonar up to 8.53 - I really often find it's just as quick and easy to do most things with the mouse. 

That said, I agree that there are some major limitations with Reaper and I'm drifting back towards the Sonar camp for a number of reasons. I've been enjoying watching the alpha process over there, it's a very different model to how Cakewalk works and overall I have to say I prefer it - open, community-driven, rapid and responsive, and based on a very forward-thinking business model. And it seems to be working. However, the fact remains that Cake has a deeper feature set on many levels and that will likely continue to be the case for a while to come. 

I also had a dabble with Studio One, looked into Record, and so far haven't dived into either pool. I'll probably be around here a while longer regardless. 

What I really like about the Alphatrack versus the mouse is that I can sit back in my chair at the optimum listening position, and not have to stare at the computer screen, maybe even close my eyes, while mixing. I feel much more "musical" when doing that than when I'm clicking and moving  the mouse around on the screen.

I know what you mean about the "R" business and development model, it nearly sold me. But then I had a third "major" issue with it. As much as the object architecture lets you do just about anything with anything, for some reason, you cannot add a bus to the master output.

I do this in Sonar so I can insert IK ARC (which I also heartily recommend) to treat just the sound going to my monitors, while not affecting bounces/exports. Sure, there's a work around in "R", but I finally remembered that I don't have any of these issues with Sonar.

In fact, dare I say, Sonar has always done everything I need and been very stable for me. It was only all the negativity about X1 that made me start wondering if the grass really was greener on some other side.

I also demo'ed Studio One Pro, and at first thought it might be the way to go. But then it worked poorly with Alphatrack, would not work at all with my Emulator X VSTi, didn't have midi instrument definitions, a staff or event view, etc.

So for the foreseeable future, I'm sticking with Sonar. I currently use 8.5.3, but I think I will eventually get X1, or maybe hold out for X2.

Hey again. Sounds like we're in similar places with all this - though I haven't tried your 'lean-back-and-mix' technique, sounds like a cool trick, I'll have to try it. 

I'm also an ARC user and also like to put that on an output bus - a habit so that it never accidentally goes on the render, which I take from the Master, which then goes into output and ARC. I also alternate that with Isone for headphone mixing, which I also highly recommend - recently updated as part of Jeroen's transition to Toneboosters. Cheap as chips and works a treat. 

Alphatrack with Studio One is limited to MCU or HUI mode, right? Presonus probably won't support it because it competes with their Faderport, I guess. Silliness. That was one big reason I didn't spend more time with it, that plus I didn't really dig the interface all that much, all the blue gave me a headache. 

Yes, I think we have similar perspectives as well as gear. I see you have an E-mu 1616m, I have the older 1820m.
 
As far as Studio One, my experience was that Alphatrack worked "best" using the MCU emulation, and Tranzport worked "best" using the HUI emulation. Even under these supposedly industry standard emulations, there was only about 50% functionality, so it wasn't enough to make me happy. I didn't mind the look of the interface, but overall I did not find the program as intuitive as so many people said it was.
 
Thanks for the info on Isone, I'll have to look into it. I usually do initial mixing with headphones.