DTouch support for Steinberg Cubase 9.5 (new DTouch Standard Mode...)

[Tumppi]

Hey!
Is it possible to have different skins for floating mixer?
I'd love to have one that looks like Nuendos faders and the controls around it...

Just another thought... Don't know where I get these, sorry

[Tumppi]

Here is another wish: can the maximum number of rows in the macrofolder be increased? 20 is too little to make toolbar as wide as possible across the screen.

Bye / Tumppi

[~ufo~]

Here is another wish: can the maximum number of rows in the macrofolder be increased? 20 is too little to make toolbar as wide as possible across the screen.

I noticed that too

[n0nspaz]

Hi, I have not used Dtouch yet but I have bought the Cubase license and I have a 42” TV and PQLabs G5 overlay ready to go. So I don’t understand all the terminology and working methods described in this thread yet, since I haven’t used it yet. I am concerned about the Standard Mode issue. Is it safe to say that I can still build my studio around this equipment or does it not create a solid reliable workflow ? Using Win10-64 here.

And with the ProTools license, I will be set up for success on both platforms, with no major hangups, yes?

How much can I expect to still have to use the mouse? I do music production and audio post mixing for a living.

Thanks

[DT_bettinzana]

Is it safe to say that I can still build my studio around this equipment or does it not create a solid reliable workflow ?

What do you mean with “not create a solid reliable workflow”?

[~ufo~]

As far as using the mouse is concerned, I guess it greatly depends on the workflow and the person.

Personally, after a few years (on DTouch for PT) I find:

- I mix almost completely using the touch screen.
- I prefer editing audio by touch, although some things I will do by mouse.
- Editing automation by touch can work really well, but you need to avoid moving breakpoints and lines accidentally. (stay tuned for a video on that).
- Creating and editing MIDI also works quite well in PT by touch, my experience in Cubendo on that has been less fruitful.
- Navigation was the weak point of (D)touch for me since scrollbars are simply not designed for touch. However, with the new NavPad behaviours (drag content, lock direction) I find I'm using it a lot more than I used to.

So all in all I can get by without using the mouse quite well, but I still use it, sometimes almost exclusively for a while. Habits, dementia
But it's fine to mix and match. It's maybe even better, ergonomically, to switch between input methods than using only one.
I would advise you to not force yourself to use the touch screen, if you feel the mouse is handier for a particular task.
You can always explore later, when you have some time, if the touchscreen method of that task can have advantages over the mouse method.

Let your experience be painless, playful, not forced. You will naturally find that some things work really well on the touch screen, and other things you (stil)l do better by mouse. This may move towards one or the other over time, or not.
The touch screen gives you more options, brings the DAW closer, without taking away much of how you used to do things.
That's my experience at least...

Good luck!

[Tumppi]

You need to buy separate versions of DTouch for PT and Cubase.

[Havoc911]

Hi, I have not used Dtouch yet but I have bought the Cubase license and I have a 42” TV and PQLabs G5 overlay ready to go. So I don’t understand all the terminology and working methods described in this thread yet, since I haven’t used it yet. I am concerned about the Standard Mode issue.
Thanks

I was too when I was in the process of deciding what to purchase (physical control surface v. Raven v. Dtouch). Personally, I think the standard mode is better than having to deal with syncing an overlay. No longer do you have to be locked into a specific screen layout or resolution. You're also no longer at the mercy of Steinberg (or Avid) changing something in an update that breaks the sync. The terminology sounds like you're going backward in terms of features/functionality, but the opposite is true.

Cheers,

Jonathan

[n0nspaz]

Thank you for that detailed description of your workflow, Yvo. It is heartening to hear that MIDI editing and audio event editing can be done comfortably by touch. Yes, I am sure the fast, old habit of the mouse will remain, but at least it sounds like having this giant monitor in front of me will be well worth it. It will be good for the body to get away from using the same tools (mouse/kb) for 30 years....

My main concern was setting up the giant touchscreen in front of me, only to still need the mouse more than say 35% of the time. That’s what I meant by the (vague) ‘rock-solid solution’.

I realize that still need to buy the ProTools DTouch as well. One thing that I am curious about is zooming and scrolling in both edit & mix views. Navigation and viewing clips at different zooom levels are things that I do constantly, and I assume that the hot buttons at the bottom make this faster and easier than traditional methods? Perhaps everyone has different solutions to this.

Thanks, really looking forward to finally setting this up, in the next month or so!

[DT_bettinzana]

My main concern was setting up the giant touchscreen in front of me, only to still need the mouse more than say 35% of the time. That’s what I meant by the (vague) ‘rock-solid solution’.

OK, now I understand what you mean with that sentence. I thought that you were concerned about the support of future versions of Cubendo. Anyway, let me say that the standard mode has the advantage to be "only" based on the Steinberg Remote Control SDK. So, till when Steinberg will support it, we will be compatible. Take into consideration tha the SDK was released to a huge amount of HW/SW developers; breaking it would cause a revolt (think about the many HW control surfaces, evoluted MIDI master keyboard, etc ...).

The "legacy" mode was based on both the SDK and a good amount of othere tricks. Due to some changes in the graphics engine of Cubase 9.5, the tricks started to be impossible or unreliable.

So, to resume, the current "standard" mode can be considered rock solid (in the sense of this discussion) and future proof.