[Ardour-Users] Korg nanoKONTROL2

Paul Davis paul at linuxaudiosystems.com
Mon Jan 30 04:51:01 PST 2017

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:40 PM, David Kastrup <dak at gnu.org> wrote:

> Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com> writes:
> > I'd like to fix the nanoKontrol issues, and doing so won't be very
> > hard.  But it will also be extremely inefficient unless I can be in
> > realtime communication with someone who (a) has a nanoKontrol (b) can
> > build ardour from source.
> Well, that would sort-of make it desirable that one can (in the long
> haul) make it in some general-purpose manner where the actual work does
> not require rebuilding Ardour?

Why? Why not make it so that you can fix errors in automation curve shape
without rebuilding ardour? Why not write the whole thing in an interpreted
language just that nobody ever has to rebuild Ardour?

> Steps in that direction would be
> a) give Midi device settings a possibility to dump a sysex file on
> startup.  That would make it possible to configure a device for Ardour's
> use.

Most devices don't do this. Certainly no MCP device, nor devices like the
Push2 or Maschine.

> b) give some actual possibilities to configure Midi messages for mcp
> devices (Mackie control devices).  It would appear that the current XML
> files for those devices just contain a list of capabilities.

This is incorrect. Many (most) MCP bindings can be rebound by the user,
except for a few where we deem the intended semantics so completely clear
that we don't allow it. There is already support for several different MCP
devices, all of which differ simply by using different config files which a
user with a text editor can modify.

> c) allow to configure sent-back control sequences when triggering Ardour
> functions (rather than just controls).

This is insufficient.

> d) document Midi configuration?  The current documentation does not
> contain any information about the configuration of Midi.  But
> archive.org shows that this has been removed only about a year ago.
> Why?

There is documentation in the manual. Maybe it doesn't cover what you want.
But it isn't clear what you want.

> All of those are not specific to the nanoKONTROL but would purportedly
> useful for other devices as well.
> At any rate, being able to work on this without recompilation would
> probably draw a few more contributors interested in making their own
> devices work without becoming a full-fledged developer.

We are not interested in this, sorry. Writing good control surface support
is not a trivial task. Creating a framework/system to implement good
control surface support without writing code is even more complex

The issues with the nanoKONTROL are trivial and easy to fix.

> --
> David Kastrup
> _______________________________________________
> Ardour-Users mailing list
> ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> To unsubscribe  or change your mailing preferences please visit:
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-users-ardour.org/attachments/20170130/8a0a614b/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the Ardour-Users mailing list