Motorized Pots

  • Endless rotary encoders would be a better idea, motorised encoders would probably double the bill of materials cost :P


    some people prefer pots, because it’s easier to replicate manual automation during live performances. also, it’s easier to read their current value by the position of the pots marker. just imagine what 127-piece LED rings around the rotary encoder will cost just to have the same amount of usability. ^^


    But yes, either give us motorized pots or rotary encoder with surrounding display rings showing the current value (high resolution, 9-part led ring is not going to cut it).

  • Endless rotary encoders would be a better idea, motorised encoders would probably double the bill of materials cost :P

    You mean something similar to what the APC40 uses? Motorised pots would probably increase the fragility of the virus and make it more likely to break down, also more expensive to fix a break down!

  • Motorised pots would probably increase the fragility of the virus and make it more likely to break down, also more expensive to fix a break down!


    I highly doubt that. Yamaha uses motorized faders on their digital consoles for a long time now. they’ve proven to be reliable and do not fail earlier than regular faders. I see no reason why it should be any different with motorized pots.

  • some people prefer pots, because it’s easier to replicate manual automation during live performances. also, it’s easier to read their current value by the position of the pots marker. just imagine what 127-piece LED rings around the rotary encoder will cost just to have the same amount of usability. ^^

    There are several ways to intelligently represent fader's and pan pot's positions with LEDs, having more steps than just 16 (what can be bought with dedicated rings, or 32 with ready built encoder such ALPS). I worked out some concepts and allready installed that in industrial devices including intelligent roll-on, when finger moves away from the knob (track ball behaviour eben without mass), automatic fine tune when movement slows down to adjust needles for automatic surgery and eletronmicrosoping) Many of these function need not much more than software and do not significantly increase costs.


    Currently I am about to build such a device for general input, which could also be used as a midi trigger / controller, if the values are translated to MIDI-Protocol, what should be possible up to a limited rate. I am already using such a configuration with wehite leds and simple ALPS step24 encoders managing deical figures up to 999. (My Audio-Synthworkstation works with parameters 0...1013 unlike MIDI).


    You may want to get inspired here: http://www.mikrocontroller.net/topic/284005#3010957


    See the "StereoOutput Meter Defintion" as an example. The same can be done with Compression - showing both the input + outvolume volume and the compression with just one meter. Therefore I designed them with RGB LEDs. Prototype and Video Animation are in progress.


    Summary: I prefer rotary encoders in any way. And I prefer the display of the value as LED-postions since you could do much more with it than just representing the postition of the knob. For typical studio und audio functions like compression, volume control and such, it is also sensible to change the display to the achieved response of the triggering value, in terms of the volume it its.


    Imagine the typical problem with patch design: Many parameters (filters ...) do influence the final amplitude of a patch, so when setting it's indivual volume to met the typical mix, you won't look at the primary number, entered straight forward as a parameter, but you will adjust it intuitively by feeling as long as you see/hear no overrun or over volume. Logically spoken: This patch volume is no an input parameter but an output of a regulation process, while sound designing. Displaying the volume in this case is much more reasonable. The obtained vaue is jsut for your records.