Re: [linux-audio-dev] read it and drool

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] read it and drool
From: David Olofson (david_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Fri Dec 08 2000 - 04:17:43 EET


On Tuesday 05 December 2000 21:30, Chris Baugher wrote:
[...]
> > > Also the rotary encoders I have seen don't have position stops
> > > like potentiometers do. (It wouldn't make sense for the
> > > incremental variety, but maybe it would for the absolute).
> >
> > Well, the whole point is just that there are no stops! :-) The
> > deal is that you lock the current position of the encoder with
> > the GUI item you select, and then move incrementally from there.
> > The GUI is the feedback, but you turn the knob instead of
> > fiddling with the mouse.
> >
> > I think of this controller as something you should use with the
> > non-mouse-hand, but that should still behave similarly to the
> > mouse wheel and buttons WRT GUI context. That is, just move the
> > mouse over the control (which might be highlighted in some way,
> > to indicate that the GUI is alive and in sync with you), and turn
> > the knob. The GUI control will follow!
> >
> > Yes, only one knob, as an extension to the mouse and keyboard
> > setup.
>
> Ahh... I see where you're going with the single knob thing. I was
> thinking more of a MIDI knob box where you have many knobs that can
> be mapped to many different things. In that case the price of the
> encoders would become a significant factor, and it would probably
> be cheaper just to buy an off-the-shelf unit. But it would still be
> fun to build!

Yep, the high resolution encoders are pretty expensive. The low
resolution versions arent (the kind you'll find on the average
synth/sampler), but they have very low resolution. (20-40 steps per
rotation; like a mouse wheel.)

One could probably get away cheaper with custom parts, designed for
the job, but that's probably only relevant if you're going to build a
few hundred units or more... :-)

> > I just think it gets messier if you add more physical controllers
> > together with a GUI, at least in some situations. Going that way,
> > I'd rather build some kind of integrated physical and grahpical
> > UI... I
>
> ??

What I mean is, consider a software mixer application with 32
channels and an external knob box with 8 channel strips. To access
all channels, you need to remap the knob box, which means you cannot
easily see where each knob is connected. You could mark it clearly on
the GUI or whatever, but you still have to find out which strip is
connected to which channel for the moment.

With a single wheel, you never need to take your eyes off the screen,
and there is only one destination where it can be mapped - the widget
that's currently under the mouse pointer.

Now, obviously, this doesn't solve the "operate multiple objects at
once" issue of mouse operated GUIs...

So, the obvious solution has to be to construct something that looks
and feels like a real physic device, but that is still dynamic like a
computer screen. Sounds very simple, eh? ;-)

I'm thinking along the lines of projecting a computer generated image
onto a control surface with real knobs. Touch screens are close, but
not quite there, as you get no physical feedback from them. I'm
thinking about the kind of stuff you've seen as special FX in science
fiction movies... :-)

//David

.- M A I A -------------------------------------------------.
| Multimedia Application Integration Architecture |
| A Free/Open Source Plugin API for Professional Multimedia |
`----------------------> http://www.linuxaudiodev.com/maia -'
.- David Olofson -------------------------------------------.
| Audio Hacker - Open Source Advocate - Singer - Songwriter |
`--------------------------------------> david_AT_linuxdj.com -'


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Dec 08 2000 - 07:48:02 EET