MORTRIX MIDI foot controller

[Quatschmacher]

1 hour ago, Woodinblack said:

Isn't the psu connector the same as every boss connector that has been on a stage with pretty well every group since the end of the 70s? It seems to do alright mostly (and of all connectors, its the one I haven't had a problem with).

Yes. 

[Quatschmacher]

10 minutes ago, prowla said:

 I would've thought that two versions would increase the development costs.

I would expect so. Not to mention the extra work in bug testing two versions as opposed to one. There is already enough to keep on top of as it is and we’re only human. 

[Quatschmacher]

34 minutes ago, itu said:

As seen here, it might be eye-opening for many potential users to show different user scenarios:

- rack units

- certain pedals (FI!)

- other unit communicating via MIDI

 

That could help users with less MIDI-knowledge to see possibilities that are there, but aren't so obvious to us mortals.

There are a few videos on the Instagram page and there’ll be more to come in due course. There’s a lot of stuff for us to tackle at the moment and we are few in number and fitting it in around our day jobs. 

[Woodinblack]

1 hour ago, prowla said:

 

It looks pretty much the same to me. ... Keith McMillen 12-Step MIDI pedals.

 

The 12 step midi pedals have a choice of two types of USB plug for power, but not a power plug

[prowla]

42 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

The 12 step midi pedals have a choice of two types of USB plug for power, but not a power plug

Yes, I partially picked up on the “computer-grade connections” comment. 
I have a 12-Step, but also a CIOKS power supply with a USB out. 

[EBS_freak]

2 hours ago, Quatschmacher said:

I would expect so. Not to mention the extra work in bug testing two versions as opposed to one. There is already enough to keep on top of as it is and we’re only human. 

There is no two versions of code. Its the same version of code - just the functions that you are able to be called are disabled until they are unlocked via license/firmware update...

 

...like cars. Most computer intensive modern cars have now standardised the hardware and are locking out features in software.

 

A case determining which functions are available are determined by which license is running... or which functions are active in a code manifest.

[EBS_freak]

4 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

Isn't the psu connector the same as every boss connector that has been on a stage with pretty well every group since the end of the 70s? It seems to do alright mostly (and of all connectors, its the one I haven't had a problem with).

I haven't got a problem with the connector if it's part of a pedal board. If it's on the device on the floor, not in a prewired pedal board, then there is a vulnerable connection as one of the apes that you are sharing the stage with gets the cable wrapped around their show.

[itu]

4 minutes ago, EBS_freak said:

There is no two versions of code. Its the same version of code - just the functions that you are able to be called are disabled until they are unlocked via license/firmware update...

What I have seen in production - in person - I would say our dear @Quatschmacher is right. Two versions equal twice the testing. Just locking out something may lead to very strange behaviour in the unit. Without extensive tests the limited/disabled version is not automatically stable.

[EBS_freak]

3 hours ago, prowla said:

I'm sensing negativity...

No negativity - just highlighting that it's a very niche product that is being pitched in an environment that has very few users requiring this tech. There are some massive considerations in play here -

 

Think about it, this product needs to be targeting users of fx. Not all bass players use fx.

 

From those users, those users need to be using mostly, but preferably all digital fx (you could have analogue fx in play but they would be limited to being on MIDI switch relays - you can't really make use of the USP features of the midium to make it worth while)

 

From those users of digital fx, you have to tap into those users that are interested in remote controlling all the presets or making use of the deeper features of those pedals to warrant getting the unit.

 

Even if you get this far, that target user has to be wanting to shell out in excess of the cost of a Helix stomp to achieve it.

 

And even then, you are taking a chance on a new product... they could be dead be and gone as quickly as they have come to market. Any bugs in the code, if the company flops, you haven't got any support to have them fixed. And when it comes to complex systems like this, there will be bugs.

[EBS_freak]

4 minutes ago, itu said:

What I have seen in production - in person - I would say our dear @Quatschmacher is right. Two versions equal twice the testing. Just locking out something may lead to very strange behaviour in the unit. Without extensive tests the limited/disabled version is not automatically stable.

What I am proposing is not unusual. If you can't easily stub out code, you are doing something wrong in your code. There is no two versions. There is no twice the testing. It's the same functions in the code... they are present... just not able to be called due to a flag in the code saying that it can't be code, or shouldn't be rendered.

 

If the vendor is stating that they would have to support two sets of code, I would also be questioning their coding practices! (But am sensing that @Quatschmacherisn't the coder in all of this.

 

And PS, this is all meant to be helpful, not sh 1 tting on the product. I'm just highlighting the stuff that may cause the unit to fail in a very niche market.

Edited September 25, 2022 by EBS_freak

[itu]

6 minutes ago, EBS_freak said:

What I am proposing is not unusual. If you can't easily stub out code, you are doing something wrong in your code. There is no two versions. There is no twice the testing.

This really depends. This may be true in a small scale civil project, but not obvious in every area. Besides, some problems/bugs may be found, when those two systems are tested extensively.

 

In my previous life one of my coders once said he does not code bugs... well, who does?

[EBS_freak]

We shall agree to differ on code approaches!

 

And anybody that says they do not code bugs is full of it.

[Quatschmacher]

1 hour ago, EBS_freak said:

you could have analogue fx in play but they would be limited to being on MIDI switch relays

That’s not strictly true - Chase Bliss stuff is analogue with digital control and doesn’t require a loop switcher, just TRS MIDI. 

[Quatschmacher]

1 hour ago, EBS_freak said:

But am sensing that @Quatschmacherisn't the coder in all of this.

Correct; I know very little about coding.  I’m more on the side of feature and interface ideas and am the poor sap that has to sniff out and report the bugs. 😆
 

 

1 hour ago, EBS_freak said:

And PS, this is all meant to be helpful, not sh 1 tting on the product. I'm just highlighting the stuff that may cause the unit to fail in a very niche market.

Thanks. It is useful to hear other perspectives; obviously we’re very enamoured with what we’ve done and sometimes that can blind us to certain issues.

 

I think the main guy is acutely aware that this is going to be a niche product. Let’s see how it goes down at Synthfest. 

Edited September 25, 2022 by Quatschmacher

[prowla]

1 hour ago, EBS_freak said:

There is no two versions of code. Its the same version of code - just the functions that you are able to be called are disabled until they are unlocked via license/firmware update...

 

...like cars. Most computer intensive modern cars have now standardised the hardware and are locking out features in software.

 

A case determining which functions are available are determined by which license is running... or which functions are active in a code manifest.

You have to implement the functions to support the split and activation , you have to do two manuals, you have to run two product streams, you have to test both. 
None of that takes zero effort. 

[EBS_freak]

24 minutes ago, Quatschmacher said:

That’s not strictly true - Chase Bliss stuff is analogue with digital control and doesn’t require a loop switcher, just TRS MIDI. 

Ah so you are talking niche!

[EBS_freak]

7 minutes ago, prowla said:

You have to implement the functions to support the split and activation , you have to do two manuals, you have to run two product streams, you have to test both. 
None of that takes zero effort. 

As above, I’ll agree to differ.

[prowla]

1 hour ago, EBS_freak said:

As above, I’ll agree to differ.

Let’s leave the code there and see if it splits into two products on its own.

So, it does need effort. 

Actually, I don’t think it’s a particularly good idea anyway, though. 

[tauzero]

3 hours ago, itu said:

In my previous life one of my coders once said he does not code bugs... well, who does?

 

I always do. Got to keep the testers on their toes.

[tauzero]

It's got impressive capabilities but, as has been said, it's a niche product. It may be easy to use, but for simple control, it's easy and far cheaper to make your own or, failing that, go for a Morningstar. If you're sending a sequence of MIDI commands, wouldn't a MIDI sequencer suffice? Can't comment on the LFO side of things, that's not something I've ever done with MIDI.

[prowla]

7 hours ago, tauzero said:

It's got impressive capabilities but, as has been said, it's a niche product. It may be easy to use, but for simple control, it's easy and far cheaper to make your own or, failing that, go for a Morningstar. If you're sending a sequence of MIDI commands, wouldn't a MIDI sequencer suffice? Can't comment on the LFO side of things, that's not something I've ever done with MIDI.

I can't say its "easy" to make your own?

I'm not sure the "sequence" of commands here is the same as a sequencer; I think that the "sequence" here is more about controlling MIDI devices parameters, perhaps in order, rather than triggering notes.

As mentioned, I could see myself using one of these to control settings/select patches on a number of devices; heck, if I changed my switcher from the Quartermaster to a MIDI-capable one, this could be the only unit required on the floor and the pedals themselves could be on a shelf in a rack.

[BigRedX]

18 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

Isn't the psu connector the same as every boss connector that has been on a stage with pretty well every group since the end of the 70s? It seems to do alright mostly (and of all connectors, its the one I haven't had a problem with).

 

Which is one of the reasons why I haven't used individual pedals since the mid 80s.

 

Even before I went the multi effects route anything with non-locking power connectors was safely put away in a rack case where there was no danger of anything becoming disconnected mid-performance.

[BigRedX]

17 hours ago, prowla said:

It looks pretty much the same to me.

Also similar to the ones on the Roland PK5 and Keith McMillen 12-Step MIDI pedals.

My thought is: you wire these things up on a pedalboard and never plug things directly into it.

 

IMO when you only have a single pedal, mounting it on a pedal board seems to be overkill to solve a problem that shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

I would have thought that devices like this are designed to try and reduce stage floor clutter, not add to it. If this was the device for me I would hope to be able to use it as my only pedal and therefore wouldn't want the added hassle and bulk of a pedal board for a single device.

 

Since the early 90s all my "pedal boards" have been a single multi-footswitch device, ideally with smallest footprint possible. Only two have required an additional power connection - one used a standard IEC mains connector, and the other had a mechanism that held the cable in place to prevent it from being pulled out. All the other took their power directly from one of the rack devices they were controlling via the same cable as the data.

[BigRedX]

9 hours ago, tauzero said:

It's got impressive capabilities but, as has been said, it's a niche product. It may be easy to use, but for simple control, it's easy and far cheaper to make your own or, failing that, go for a Morningstar. If you're sending a sequence of MIDI commands, wouldn't a MIDI sequencer suffice? Can't comment on the LFO side of things, that's not something I've ever done with MIDI.

 

Depending on your DAW, creating a MIDI CC LFO should be easy. I can "draw" one in seconds using the hyper edit page of Logic. I suspect that if I searched on-line I'd be able to find plenty of ready made examples that I could download for my DAW of choice.

[EBS_freak]

20 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

 

Depending on your DAW, creating a MIDI CC LFO should be easy. I can "draw" one in seconds using the hyper edit page of Logic. I suspect that if I searched on-line I'd be able to find plenty of ready made examples that I could download for my DAW of choice.

This is the key difference of this product - enhanced functionality that lets you ditch the laptop. Whether it will do as complex as Logic.. well, that

 

Yup, you can get another MIDI sequencer pedal (already mentioned but I won't mention again as that's not the product in question) - but it's not a doddle to program - in the fact that if you need to make a small change on the gig, you need to get your laptop out. It falls down on the UI aspect.

With LFO, yup, you can do that in logic - but then again, you are carrying around a laptop (not a big issue if theres a laptop already present in your setup) but a bit of a ballache just for supporting a LFO.

 

And whilst yeah, you could say knock up some code to do the sequencing and LFO on say an Arduino, it's the ability to edit again which is the ballache. The big point about the midium is the fact that it's bringing this UI into the unit to help with the ease of operation. Alot of MIDI products - require you to mess about with a PC/MAC editor... (which is still preferable if you are doing a lot of deep editing) - but simple changes on the device are nice to be able to do. And thats where the UI is so important.

 

Who can remember Chunk's Synth pedal - what a complete failure of an onboard editing UI!