MIDI Fighter Twister controller - what sets it apart?

gkillmaster

I'm wondering why people seem to love these controllers so much. Do they really provide more capability or control functionality than other controllers like Launchkey or Nektar controllers like the Panorama P1 etc...

If the high resolution really results in higher precision tweaking, that would be great, but since MIDI only allow 128 increments of movement, it doesn't seem like the high resolution of the MFT would result in smoother transitions.

Thanks for any clarification or info on this.

Greg

jebni

I haven't used the ones you've mentioned, not very much else really, so have nothing to compare it to. But try to get your hands on one and have a twist of the encoders. It's really very satisfying. 😳 There's a weight and a heft to them that just works. And the range of ways you can get visual feedback is also very cool. When it works straight out of the box, as with Loopy Pro's built in support, which assigns all the loop colours automatically to each encoder, it feels magical.

gkillmaster

@jebni said:
I haven't used the ones you've mentioned, not very much else really, so have nothing to compare it to. But try to get your hands on one and have a twist of the encoders. It's really very satisfying. 😳 There's a weight and a heft to them that just works. And the range of ways you can get visual feedback is also very cool. When it works straight out of the box, as with Loopy Pro's built in support, which assigns all the loop colours automatically to each encoder, it feels magical.

Wow, interesting. Thank you!

espiegel123

@gkillmaster said:
I'm wondering why people seem to love these controllers so much. Do they really provide more capability or control functionality than other controllers like Launchkey or Nektar controllers like the Panorama P1 etc...

If the high resolution really results in higher precision tweaking, that would be great, but since MIDI only allow 128 increments of movement, it doesn't seem like the high resolution of the MFT would result in smoother transitions.

Thanks for any clarification or info on this.

Greg

Re higher resolution: if relative midi is controlling something that has more than 128 discrete values, it gives you higher resolution control (as long as the host handles relative midi intelligently). It basically sends “nudge up” and “nudge down” messages. So it can get to those in-between values missed by absolute midi control.

For example, let’s say you are controlling a tempo control that covers the range of 30 - 500. Relative midi can give you access to fine increments (how fine depends on the host’s implementation of relative midi). Lets it might let you increment the tempo in 0.5 bpm increments. An absolute midi controller would yield increments of 470/128 or increments of about 3.7 bpm.

gkillmaster

@espiegel123 said:

@gkillmaster said:
I'm wondering why people seem to love these controllers so much. Do they really provide more capability or control functionality than other controllers like Launchkey or Nektar controllers like the Panorama P1 etc...

If the high resolution really results in higher precision tweaking, that would be great, but since MIDI only allow 128 increments of movement, it doesn't seem like the high resolution of the MFT would result in smoother transitions.

Thanks for any clarification or info on this.

Greg

Re higher resolution: if relative midi is controlling something that has more than 128 discrete values, it gives you higher resolution control (as long as the host handles relative midi intelligently). It basically sends “nudge up” and “nudge down” messages. So it can get to those in-between values missed by absolute midi control.

For example, let’s say you are controlling a tempo control that covers the range of 30 - 500. Relative midi can give you access to fine increments (how fine depends on the host’s implementation of relative midi). Lets it might let you increment the tempo in 0.5 bpm increments. An absolute midi controller would yield increments of 470/128 or increments of about 3.7 bpm.

Thanks for the explanation! So I guess in some circumstances, the MFT would accomodate the extra resolution. That would be welcomed. I really appreciate and can hear the higher resolution in the Moog plugin parameters. I wonder if those parameters use this nudge conecpt.

espiegel123

@gkillmaster said:

@espiegel123 said:

@gkillmaster said:
I'm wondering why people seem to love these controllers so much. Do they really provide more capability or control functionality than other controllers like Launchkey or Nektar controllers like the Panorama P1 etc...

If the high resolution really results in higher precision tweaking, that would be great, but since MIDI only allow 128 increments of movement, it doesn't seem like the high resolution of the MFT would result in smoother transitions.

Thanks for any clarification or info on this.

Greg

Re higher resolution: if relative midi is controlling something that has more than 128 discrete values, it gives you higher resolution control (as long as the host handles relative midi intelligently). It basically sends “nudge up” and “nudge down” messages. So it can get to those in-between values missed by absolute midi control.

For example, let’s say you are controlling a tempo control that covers the range of 30 - 500. Relative midi can give you access to fine increments (how fine depends on the host’s implementation of relative midi). Lets it might let you increment the tempo in 0.5 bpm increments. An absolute midi controller would yield increments of 470/128 or increments of about 3.7 bpm.

Thanks for the explanation! So I guess in some circumstances, the MFT would accomodate the extra resolution. That would be welcomed. I really appreciate and can hear the higher resolution in the Moog plugin parameters. I wonder if those parameters use this nudge conecpt.

Synth internal parameters are almost always high resolution. When you turn the virtual knobs in moog soft synths , those knobs are not limited to midi resolution. The resolution issue is when you use midi to control them.

gkillmaster

@espiegel123 said:

@gkillmaster said:

@espiegel123 said:

@gkillmaster said:
I'm wondering why people seem to love these controllers so much. Do they really provide more capability or control functionality than other controllers like Launchkey or Nektar controllers like the Panorama P1 etc...

If the high resolution really results in higher precision tweaking, that would be great, but since MIDI only allow 128 increments of movement, it doesn't seem like the high resolution of the MFT would result in smoother transitions.

Thanks for any clarification or info on this.

Greg

Re higher resolution: if relative midi is controlling something that has more than 128 discrete values, it gives you higher resolution control (as long as the host handles relative midi intelligently). It basically sends “nudge up” and “nudge down” messages. So it can get to those in-between values missed by absolute midi control.

For example, let’s say you are controlling a tempo control that covers the range of 30 - 500. Relative midi can give you access to fine increments (how fine depends on the host’s implementation of relative midi). Lets it might let you increment the tempo in 0.5 bpm increments. An absolute midi controller would yield increments of 470/128 or increments of about 3.7 bpm.

Thanks for the explanation! So I guess in some circumstances, the MFT would accomodate the extra resolution. That would be welcomed. I really appreciate and can hear the higher resolution in the Moog plugin parameters. I wonder if those parameters use this nudge conecpt.

Synth internal parameters are almost always high resolution. When you turn the virtual knobs in moog soft synths , those knobs are not limited to midi resolution. The resolution issue is when you use midi to control them.

O, I see. Thanks for the information!

wim

Having the possibility for the host to tell the controller the position of a control can be a great benefit ... though it rarely works out that way due to lack of midi feedback in most apps**. When it works it's great though. Think of being able to open a session and have the LED rings for all the encoders indicate the position of what they control. In practice this doesn't work with a lot of apps and/or you have to jump through some hoops to fake it.

Another thing is banks. The Twister, for example, has four banks giving 64 encoders and 64 buttons to work with in one compact controller.

Price isn't at all bad either considering what the components alone would cost for anything like it in a DIY build.

(** This script can kinda-sorta compensate in some instances.)

mistercharlie

The LED rings snap to show you the value of a parameter when, for example, changing channels, or devices in Ableton. I love it for this. Feels like a hardware controller.

gkillmaster

Is the MFT MIDI 2.0? If not, it does make me wonder if they will release an updated version that takes advantage of MIDI2.0.

Tentype

The visual light feedback, configurable resolution, options to set a button detent, multiple banks switchable through dedicated buttons or through midi, great knob feel, option to click a knob and have it switch channels and colours immediately...

The MFT is really hard to beat for how immediate, configurable, stable, but I think mostly how visual it is. In some of my sets I have over 70 individual knobs configured and with the colours and groupings on the MFT it's easy to know where I am while flipping through pages.

I haven't found anything that can compete yet and I don't generally fanboy. If something looks better - I try it.

jebni

BTW, I recently tried updating the firmware, and the app simply didn’t work, and span into an endless error loop — it feels like their Amazon Web Services account expired or something. Can anyone confirm that the latest version is… out of date?