FP1 (Classic) and FP8/16 are nothing alike. FP1 (classic) is also a very old product. It is unwise to base anything on FP1 in terms of FP8/16. There have been firmware updates for FP8/16 which are only making them better still.

The rotary encoder now on FP8/16 scrolls one bar at a time standard. No special adjustments required and it always works that way.

The LX61+ looks like a nice controller for sure but even coupled with FP1 will be nowhere as deeply integrated as FP8/16 is currently with Studio One.

The thing with FP8/16 is you will never know any of it until you actually get it hooked up to your system. Then after a few weeks you will wonder how you ever lived without it. It makes fast operations possible too in Studio One. Really reducing mouse and QWERTY keyboard operations. Speeds up workflow in a major way. If you can get a lend of one I would look into that option.

I have worked with FP 1 (Classic) for a long time too. What I have found is even with FP8 having 8 faders in front of you actually improves your mixes. The fact you can look at any group of 8 channels at once and just fine tune them for balance puts you closer to a nicer mix. My mixes have actually improved since using FP8. FP16 would be even better in terms of seeing any 16 channels at once as well.

You can look at all tracks or just audio or midi or VCA's or buses. It is easy to navigate large sessions. Faders can show sends and also edit all the Presonus plugin parameters. I am pretty sure third party plugin parameters can be setup to also be controlled from the faders when asked to.

Am I able to completely configure any button/knob to do whatever I want them to do?

The LX61+ has very tight integration with SO provided. I don't use that. Instead, I have setup every knob/button/slider to exactly what I want them to do, not what Nektar set them up to do. It's actually set up as 3 devices in my system.

I haven't ruled out FP8/16 completely. It's just a big unknown at this point. What I'm really talking about is the ability to get an FP8/16 into a pure MIDI mode so that I can freely map everything in SO and other DAWs.

For example, I am able to use the FP1 with Reaper only thru the kindness of strangers that have provided a plug for Reaper that will handle it.

I was looking into the FaderPort 8. I do have a FaderPort single channel and I still have it hooked up and use it. The single faderport has been rock solid for me and there is only one reason I got the X-Touch instead:
1 single $499 device controls Studio One AND my XR-18 interface with a single button to toggle between the two. That is what sold me. Yes, it will take a bit of getting used to the same buttons doing different things, but so far, I am happy.

BTW for the X-Touch users, I am almost finished the document I created for Studio One mapping too! When I get done, I will upload it.

Jemusic wroteIf anyone is considering a control surface for Studio One, Faderport 8/16 is way ahead of any other device. Trust me on this.

Unfortunately i cannot agree!

I compared both and I'm very disappointed about Faderport.

1) I'm missing panning knobs. For this function you have always to switch.
2) I'm missing a fader for master volume. In my workflow it is very uncomfortable, when during adjusting channel volumes, there is no direct access to master volume.

But this is not main course, the most disappointed point is is
3) the faderport control was not able, to control more than 8 parameters of a plug in. Therefore there is no banking function.
And now I coming back to point 1) : please add 8 knobs to faderport, implement a banking function and a possibility to set all 8 faders and all 8 knobs (or 16 - because faderport 16 is also not the real solution - because for some plugins you really have more than 16 parameters to controller AND it is a big haptic difference to control some parameters with knobs or faders ) to control plugins , then I agree with you!

The post was made quite a while ago, but with respect to "touch select" and if it worked in Studio One (I can't speak on the X-Touch, but I can on if Studio One shook hands with this).

Jemusic wroteJust out of interest even Faderport 8 which has a much deeper level of integration with Studio One won't do this. Touching a fader is not enough to select a track. Personally I am not sure I would want this anyway. On FP8 you have to bring the track of interest into view and then press the Select button for that track in order to select it.

On my Novation SL MKII, touch select works in that it indicates the track you will adjust that fader. I just checked, and it still works this way. What occurs is the fader highlights to show feedback of the selected fader is in fact that channel before committing to any fader movement. That's awsome.

I agree with Jemusic that I wouldn't want the actual channel to be selected (the whole channel highlighted).
Like the Novation SL MKII, the fader highlight indication is also shown with the FP8, or other touch sensitive Faderport. Channels selection should require pressing the respective channel button, or scrolling as can be done with the Faderport 8/16.

* * * * *
With respect to klausegon, sure, there are those differences, and a few more like FP8's rather week universal cursor control. Compared with Novation's simpler autodial mouse over, for instant use of dialing over virtually any parameter.

You can't fault the FP,'s one pan knob. You knew that buying it, and looking at the cost cutting to power ratio, Presonus did a great job here.

You also knew there was a main master volume knob. With 8 faders, it's not likely any fader could be reassigned to be a master fader.

On the third item, there are 8 fader, and 8 button iassignments, but true, you can't store them in the FP8 itself. Still, encoder banks can vary, independently, per channel, so you could have for example 20 different Pro EQ's each with 8 fader assignments, and 8 button assignments across those 20 channels independent of one another. You can save plugin setups within the devices when you map them though.

Yeah, too bad there are only the 8 fader + 8 buttons per with no savings of sets, where on the other hand, a Mackie, Behringer, or a. number of other HUI controllers can have multiple encoder storage. That is documented and was not some hidden secret, as I recall. You'll need that other multi bank controller.

I still recommend all of the FP's to each users need, so I can't slam the product at all.

For visability, you might want to enter your points about the FP8 in a new post (or the Faderport post). I get it though. The FP8 has its strong and weak points, but it's price point is really an advantage. Too bad there isnt some FP8+.

Anyway, I'm sure like most of us, you're getting some great use out of it.

Users with a controller that uses the Mackie MCU protocol should check this out.....

https://modernidiots.com/

lixisoft wroteUsers with a controller that uses the Mackie MCU protocol should check this out.....

https://modernidiots.com/

Looks like a real good resource for X-Touch and MCU users.

I came whisker close to buying the Icon Qcon Pro some years back. Only, the FP8 had just entered the Frey. Glad I got it. I still like those other controllers too, and the X-Touch is also a bargain.

Love the close integration of the FP8 with Studio One.

I still drool over the SSL Nautilus II though. Only the budget has other priorities

Sorry, I guess I never posted this even though it was completed a couple years ago...Someone resurrected this thread so thanks for that!

patm300e wroteSorry, I guess I never posted this even though it was completed a couple years ago...Someone resurrected this thread so thanks for that!

Top notch, thank you for all the effort...

arjansmittenaar wrote

patm300e wroteSorry, I guess I never posted this even though it was completed a couple years ago...Someone resurrected this thread so thanks for that!

Top notch, thank you for all the effort...

Thanks!

klausegon wroteI compared both and I'm very disappointed about Faderport.

1) I'm missing panning knobs. For this function you have always to switch.
2) I'm missing a fader for master volume. In my workflow it is very uncomfortable, when during adjusting channel volumes, there is no direct access to master volume.

But this is not main course, the most disappointed point is is
3) the faderport control was not able, to control more than 8 parameters of a plug in. Therefore there is no banking function.
And now I coming back to point 1) : please add 8 knobs to faderport, implement a banking function and a possibility to set all 8 faders and all 8 knobs (or 16 - because faderport 16 is also not the real solution - because for some plugins you really have more than 16 parameters to controller AND it is a big haptic difference to control some parameters with knobs or faders ) to control plugins , then I agree with you!

You don't need a pan pot on every channel at all. The single pan pot works great. It pans any channel you select. Keeps the front panel uncluttered.

Master volume is simply accessed by pressing Master and the large rotary encoder takes over master level easily.

All parameters in plugins are now controllable over several pages.

What I think what I need is my choice. The fact, Presonus opinion to tell users what they have to wants or not, will finally seen in success of a product.
If Presonus is happy with it - congratulations.

However, I see many devices are being squandered on EBay, so it seems, some users have after some expirience with this device the opinion, that there is not really a beneficial in the workflow.

One is the hardware, the other is the software integration.
The guys in Hamburg really made an effort!

We just have to recognize, that it is not trival to integrate the old MCU protocol better into StudioOne.

The desire on the part of the user is certainly there. This shows me the efforts of some users to improve the Mackie MCU template. Due to the software development for Faderport 8/16 - if you analyze the templates for the Faderport and MCU from the beginning, the similarity is more than obvious - I have the assumption that Presonus will not invest a lot of energy here.