Poll: When will we have a proper control surface for Luna?

[slynch]

The folks at UA have created a great DAW and have been working towards a true in the box analog console experience in Luna. With the console extension(s) and the initial control surface support, it's going in a direction that I believe will someday make it the de-facto DAW that will replace Protools. (The idea that Luna might replace Protools is a debatable statement but we can talk about that in another thread.) One thing that will obviously be needed is hardware inserts and I believe that will come soon. But in my mind an absolutely essential requirement is proper control surface support. And by "proper" I mean the following:

1. A control surface that intuitively controls the Luna console extension parameters, volume, pan, etc.
2. A control surface that doesn't require menu diving to get to a parameter
3. A control surface that doesn't require you to remember what a certain knob does for a certain plugin. Some might want a control surface to be able to be mapped to any plugin and that's fine but not at the expense of being intuitive. I'd be fine if this control surface only worked with the console extensions. I don't mind using the mouse if I need to do a surgical EQ with something like Pro Q 3 but I don't want to have to think about which knob to use to change a parameter on a console extension.
4. And lastly, a control surface that is available for use in ARM mode for tracking. I assume if there's a control surface that can control the console extensions, this will be true, but it would be a notable difference from something like the SSL UC1.

Currently I use the SSL UF8, UF1, and UC1 for mixing and I've recently picked up a Console 1 that I use in Apollo Central mode for tracking. This all basically works but it's clunky, and it's notably frustrating that with all this hardware there isn't any real control over the console extension(s) since those are not plugins and so can't be controlled by the UC1.

As I understand it, with the console extension architecture and the fact that they are not plugins, they can't be controlled by something like SSL 360 Link and even if they could, that control surface support wouldn't be available in ARM mode for tracking.

So given all this, am I right in assuming that the only way we can have a control surface that supports the points above is if UAD makes their own hardware controller for Luna? Or do you think that the SSL UF8, UF1, UC1 combo will somehow be able to control console extensions with a future update? I'm skeptical of this given the console extensions architecture.

TL;DR
When will we have a control surface for Luna that supports the 4 points above?

 

[PaintedSkyStudios]

Last I heard: Likely Never, but here's to hoping that will change because I certainly would buy one done right. We'd have real analog workflow.

 

[slynch]

Last I heard: Likely Never, but here's to hoping that will change because I certainly would buy one done right. We'd have real analog workflow.

Who'd you hear that from and when? I hope that's not true. It seems pretty crazy that the answer would be never. To me the whole idea of the console extension falls on it's face if there were never any plans to control it hands-on with a reasonable piece of hardware.

 

[hotspot]

the whole idea of the console extension falls on it's face if there were never any plans to control it hands-on with a reasonable piece of hardware.

But that’s just you…
A lot of folks work with Luna since 4 years and love it whether control surface or not.

As much as I‘d love to hear the opposite… Drew was relatively clear on that topic.
So, C1 for me w/o control over extensions.
But it’s okay.

 

[slynch]

But that’s just you…
A lot of folks work with Luna since 4 years and love it whether control surface or not.

As much as I‘d love to hear the opposite… Drew was relatively clear on that topic.
So, C1 for me w/o control over extensions.
But it’s okay.

That's a good point. I'm sure there are many people that don't care that much about control surface support.

But still.... I'm not really saying that because I really want a control surface to control the extensions (although I definitely do). I'm saying that because it just doesn't quite make sense to me.

I think of it like this... As UA was making Luna, they came up with the idea of the extension architecture, and decided to make those extensions not as plugins but as a home grown part of Luna itself. At that point they had to immediately know that there was no way for any other control surface on the market to control those console extensions. And everyone at UA was totally cool with that???

It just doesn't make sense to me that UA would make Luna in a way that they knew there would be no control surface support for arguably the best feature of it. So I've always been thinking that they have to be working on a control surface for Luna. But maybe I'm just seeing this totally different.

In any case, you mentioned that Drew was clear about this. Can you point me to where he addressed this?

 

[Quint]

That's a good point. I'm sure there are many people that don't care that much about control surface support.

But still.... I'm not really saying that because I really want a control surface to control the extensions (although I definitely do). I'm saying that because it just doesn't quite make sense to me.

I think of it like this... As UA was making Luna, they came up with the idea of the extension architecture, and decided to make those extensions not as plugins but as a home grown part of Luna itself. At that point they had to immediately know that there was no way for any other control surface on the market to control those console extensions. And everyone at UA was totally cool with that???

It just doesn't make sense to me that UA would make Luna in a way that they knew there would be no control surface support for arguably the best feature of it. So I've always been thinking that they have to be working on a control surface for Luna. But maybe I'm just seeing this totally different.

In any case, you mentioned that Drew was clear about this. Can you point me to where he addressed this?

UA also hasn't released a new tape or console extension since Luna was released, and that was four years ago, with the only exception to that being maybe the API, but even that was released in 2021, so it's still been three years since that. Let's hope it's not the case, but what if extensions have become a dead end concept? Maybe there's no real efforts from UA to develop a controller (either their own or work with a 3rd party to do so) for extensions because there's not going to be any more new extensions added to Luna, and UA isn't going to devote resources to working on extension HW control for a dead end concept?

I know that kind of sounds crazy, but it's been four years since Luna was released, and there have been zero new tape/console extensions added in the last three years . For something that was supposed to be one of the cornerstones of the Luna experience, extension development has been decidedly lacking.

 

[chrisharbin]

We've had a few of these lately. Last I heard (today) was that Drew hinted that it's not that easy, thus, it's not likely soon. We all want it, and I think we'd pony up a pretty penny for it, but it doesn't look good.

 

[Neotrope]

happy using SSL setup with Luna

 

[slynch]

happy using SSL setup with Luna

I’m also happy with the same setup. But it’s not at all useful for tracking because the SSL plugins are disabled in ARM mode. If that could change it would be nice.

 

[Neofolk]

Existing users: We have spent a lot of time and money with you UA, and even though other companies are making plugins as good as, or even better, we remain loyal. Do you think we can have hardware inserts in Luna or even maybe a cool control surface some day?

UA: Here's a lofi plugin for beat makers. Also, we sure wish all the rest of you would stop bugging us. What part of "nothing to report at this time" don't you get?

 

[hotspot]

To stay on topic, the real question is, what was originally intended for the extensions? What is the idea behind them?

I don't necessarily see them as a reinvention. Harrison Mixbus was set up in a similar way years ago.
Luna goes one step further and allows the character of the console to be variable.
It gives the impression that further extensions will follow at some point, but this has yet to be realised.
The question is, what was the original goal.

How much money can be earned with it to put resources into further development?
Understandably, UA is not letting us look at the cards here.

Therefore, as a user, you can only guess. In view of the fact that there has been nothing new to announce in this context for a long time, I currently see no reason to assume that active development is taking place at this point.
Which is a pity.

From this point of view, as a user I would prefer development resources to be invested in further extensions rather than in the development of a new control surface, which is a completely different market segment that requires other specialists.
In view of the fact that it is a market niche that is already occupied by a number of manufacturers with many years of experience, it would be nonsense from a business point of view to put any effort into it.

As a user, I would also rather appreciate it if UA used its core expertise and put most of the effort into it.

 

[Drjack69]

The folks at UA have created a great DAW and have been working towards a true in the box analog console experience in Luna. With the console extension(s) and the initial control surface support, it's going in a direction that I believe will someday make it the de-facto DAW that will replace Protools. (The idea that Luna might replace Protools is a debatable statement but we can talk about that in another thread.) One thing that will obviously be needed is hardware inserts and I believe that will come soon. But in my mind an absolutely essential requirement is proper control surface support. And by "proper" I mean the following:

1. A control surface that intuitively controls the Luna console extension parameters, volume, pan, etc.
2. A control surface that doesn't require menu diving to get to a parameter
3. A control surface that doesn't require you to remember what a certain knob does for a certain plugin. Some might want a control surface to be able to be mapped to any plugin and that's fine but not at the expense of being intuitive. I'd be fine if this control surface only worked with the console extensions. I don't mind using the mouse if I need to do a surgical EQ with something like Pro Q 3 but I don't want to have to think about which knob to use to change a parameter on a console extension.
4. And lastly, a control surface that is available for use in ARM mode for tracking. I assume if there's a control surface that can control the console extensions, this will be true, but it would be a notable difference from something like the SSL UC1.

Currently I use the SSL UF8, UF1, and UC1 for mixing and I've recently picked up a Console 1 that I use in Apollo Central mode for tracking. This all basically works but it's clunky, and it's notably frustrating that with all this hardware there isn't any real control over the console extension(s) since those are not plugins and so can't be controlled by the UC1.

As I understand it, with the console extension architecture and the fact that they are not plugins, they can't be controlled by something like SSL 360 Link and even if they could, that control surface support wouldn't be available in ARM mode for tracking.

So given all this, am I right in assuming that the only way we can have a control surface that supports the points above is if UAD makes their own hardware controller for Luna? Or do you think that the SSL UF8, UF1, UC1 combo will somehow be able to control console extensions with a future update? I'm skeptical of this given the console extensions architecture.

TL;DR
When will we have a control surface for Luna that supports the 4 points above?

I think what you’re asking for, whilst certainly an amazing concept, probably isn’t on the cards. It’s a big thing to do, and will rely on there being enough people who will actually buy it… I don’t think Luna has enough users yet for a serious investment from UA into dedicated controller, or even any bit of hardware that’s entirely dedicated to Luna tbh. Could (and hope to) be wrong

I have just bought a UC1, a UF1, and an iPad running MetaGrid (tried SD… brilliant, but I think MG has the edge). Early days with it yet, so frustrations and niggles will undoubtedly pop up, but so far it’s doing most of the stuff I need it to, and I’m very happy with it. I can now do a lot of things I do regularly without a mouse, from the first button push, and it’s vastly improved my workflow. With unison stuff, the Apollo controls the preamp and high pass anyway, so it’s only the other stuff… so I suppose it depends how often you need to access that, whether that’s frustrating or not.

That being said, I really really would like Luna to open the plugin on screen when I press the corresponding button on the controller…. Without having to go down the rabbit hole of macros… Even if they gave us a key command for it, that would be something we could assign.

But… yes I would like to be able to control the console extensions with the UC1. I won’t begin to understand the architecture, because to a layperson like me, it’s just a plugin that occupies the preamp and an insert… but apparently not.

I really hope that the recent friendliness between SSL and UA ends up with deeper integration. You never know, Luna 2.0 might have an SSL console ext which is directly controlled by the UC1/UF8/UF1. We can dream eh!

 

[slynch]

From this point of view, as a user I would prefer development resources to be invested in further extensions rather than in the development of a new control surface, which is a completely different market segment that requires other specialists.
In view of the fact that it is a market niche that is already occupied by a number of manufacturers with many years of experience, it would be nonsense from a business point of view to put any effort into it.

Part of the issue that I see with the console extensions is that precisely how they’re made makes it so that no other company can work on a hardware controller for them. They’re not made with an open plugin architecture. They’re basically just part of Luna itself. So that just leaves UA with the burden of making a controller for them from what I can see.

From what has been said here so far it seems unlikely that that’s happening which is unfortunate.

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

In view of the fact that there has been nothing new to announce in this context for a long time, I currently see no reason to assume that active development is taking place at this point.

If UA ports the SSL's without making them extensions, I would consider that the final answer. No Neve extension is probably the final answer already but I'm in denial.

 

[Quint]

If UA ports the SSL's without making them extensions, I would consider that the final answer. No Neve extension is probably the final answer already but I'm in denial.

Yeah, I could totally see the licensing stuff being mixed up in the lack of any new extensions in the last three years. Neve and SSL would have been obvious for new extensions, but UA seems unable to do an officially licensed version, and hasn't seemed interested in doing an unlicensed version, at least up to this point.

Maybe we'll get a 610 version sooner than later? I don't know. It all does make you wonder what the future of extensions are. I think UA should just move on from the officially licensed stuff when it's not an option, and just get on with it. Also, there is a lot of other stuff out there that could be cool to emulate. Look at all of the other classic consoles and tape machines out there that haven't been done. It doesn't have to be just NEVE, API, SSL, and Studer.

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

I think UA should just move on from the officially licensed stuff when it's not an option, and just get on with it.

Agreed. Can you imagine Vintage Valve (610 + Fairchild) and Modern Valve (VoxBox + Vari-MU) extensions? I think those would draw in more users than even the API Console.

 

[Quint]

Agreed. Can you imagine Vintage Valve (610 + Fairchild) and Modern Valve (VoxBox + Vari-MU) extensions? I think those would draw in more users than even the API Console.

Console
Flickinger
Trident
Auditronics
EMI
Helios
RCA
UA 610
Electrodyne
Quad Eight
Others I'm forgetting

Tape
Ampex MM1200
3M
MCI
Stephens
Telefunken
Otari
Others I'm forgetting

Bottom line, there are plenty of other interesting options. At least some of these could maybe even potentially be licensed. Others couldn't or probably couldn't, but so what?

Look at all of the stuff Acustica has sampled. That should give people an idea on what's possible.

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

Indeed. I'm just thinking of the easy wins. Century Tube would make more sense than 610, in which case the Vintage Valve and Modern Valve consoles are pretty much already done.

 

[UA User]

Can you imagine Vintage Valve (610 + Fairchild) and Modern Valve (VoxBox + Vari-MU) extensions?

Yes on both! But wouldn’t it make sense to combine the 610 preamp and EQ with the UA 175B/176 compressor for a channel strip and have the Fairchild as bus compressor?

 

[caramiafreddie]

a LUNA controller will be a game changer! And Hardware insert is needed