Best Midi Controller ever for SAC ...to date!!

[Fulvio fullcode Politi]

Hi Everybody,

Very long time not logged in here, for who is interested on a quick update on Behrckie's status please take a look at the facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Behrc...767535?fref=nf

Fu

[Jeff Scott]

Trying to grasp where you are taking this Fu...are you saying that it will be possible to have 24 Faders worth of BCF control all at once?

[Sound Machine Inc]

Trying to grasp where you are taking this Fu...are you saying that it will be possible to have 24 Faders worth of BCF control all at once?

yeah 'cause you can already have 32...

and if it's purely the control capability, why not wait and make it work with the x-touch stuff that could use RTP Midi over cat-5?

[Jeff Scott]

Yea...sorry...32 faders

[Fulvio fullcode Politi]

Trying to grasp where you are taking this Fu...are you saying that it will be possible to have 24 Faders worth of BCF control all at once?

I'm saying that, trough the use of 2 SACRemote instances hooked up with the actual Mackie .mct (running on the same machine) it will be possible to have 24 Faders of "BehrckieControl" all at once.... plus 8/16 faders of "native" BCF .mct that you can leave fixed on BUS and/or AUXES... oh and I forgot a BCR always chasing the channel strip!

(ok, I honestly tested it with just 2 BCF's at the moment cause it happened that for some days I had the chance to use another one from a friend... still trying to find some cheap used unit for better testing the concept, specially against CPU hit but I'm confident that it will stay low, and/or other issues that "could" arise... )

Sound Machine Inc
yeah 'cause you can already have 32...
and if it's purely the control capability, why not wait and make it work with the x-touch stuff that could use RTP Midi over cat-5?

As per the x-touch and other controllers, it should be possible "and easy" to adapt Behrckie's code to every controller that can handle NRPN's messages...
However to be honest I think that controllers with "LCDs" are unuseful with SAC, the GUI is already there (SAC itself) showing you all you need to see IMHO.... and this allow me to take sysex out of the game, or at least reduced to a minimum, not cause it can't be handled by Behrckie but cause I think it will be better for speed and reliability... To state it clear, I think ideal companion to Behrckie would be something like Martiaudio already built sometime ago, that makes use of a touch screen or more... a design that's not more and not less than quite all digital consoles.... this again IMHO!

As per the Rtp Midi and tablet operation, I'm planning to code a Behrckie - MIDI Studio Pro version - for iPad users... however that's not my priority at the moment, specially because there are already made solution out there, using the MackieProtocol as it is... but I understand it could be useful for a lot of people.

Cheers,

Fu

[Sound Machine Inc]

However to be honest I think that controllers with "LCDs" are unuseful with SAC, the GUI is already there (SAC itself) showing you all you need to see IMHO....

except in the situation where one could take an X-touch to FOH with NO computers and NO monitors to operate a basic "console" over cat-5.. then lcds are really useful... sometimes in installs or small ensembles you can get everything right during sound check and only need to ride levels out front, where it'd be nice to read what channel you are working on lol

[RandyHyde]

However to be honest I think that controllers with "LCDs" are unuseful with SAC, the GUI is already there (SAC itself) showing you all you need to see

Except for setups where we don't have touch screens mounted immediately above the control surface (ala Kuithe's setup). If you've got a standard portable setup (control surfaces attached independently of the display and no touch screen operation) then having the digital scribble strips can be *very* important.

IMHO.... and this allow me to take sysex out of the game, or at least reduced to a minimum, not cause it can't be handled by Behrckie but cause I think it will be better for speed and reliability...

There is no question that all those sysex messages create a lot of bandwidth over the MIDI bus and this creates problems for SAC.

To state it clear, I think ideal companion to Behrckie would be something like Martiaudio already built sometime ago, that makes use of a touch screen or more... a design that's not more and not less than quite all digital consoles.... this again IMHO!

Or, better yet, maybe SAC should support multiple Mackie units!

I spent about a year trying to program around SAC's limitations. I gave up after about a year of frustration -- it *almost* worked, but SAC's reliability took a nose dive.

Yes, you can support multiple Mackie units by running multiple instances of SAC Remote. That is, however, not without it's own problems (the "select" button, for example, doesn't work properly in that situation).

Also, when it's all said and done, SAC doesn't really support the concept of "banks" and "layers" (found on other digital mixers) very well. It would be nice to attach the control surfaces to blocks of eight arbitrary faders anywhere on the board (or should I say, "boards"), not just in the order specified by the F-mixer. At one time I remember a "custom" view Bob was talking about; that would *partially* alleviate the problem, but who knows what became of that idea?

I encourage you to keep trying and hopefully you'll find a solution that works well for you. I finally gave up trying to get SAC to meet my requirements and decided to suffer with the way SAC works today -- I just got tired of the frustration. Maybe that fits into Bob's view of the world; however, the end result is that I almost *never* recommend SAC to people who ask me about the system I'm using at shows (versus a couple of years ago when I was an official "Kool-aid drinking devotee"). Of course, all the low-cost digital boards out these days make recommending SAC much more difficult.

I can live with most of the problems in SAC, but the control surface problem is insurmountable IMO. I have too many guest engineers who *can't* mix effectively on a mouse (or don't want to). Even with experienced engineers (e.g., my staff), too many operations are too slow (like rapidly muting/unmuting three or four vocal mics through a show to keep gain before feedback up; something that's easy to do on a physical board but crazy with a mouse).

Many of my opinions of SAC will change when (if) better control surface support arrives (official support, I might add). Until then, SAC gets the job done and I've already paid for it (both hw/sw as well as training), so I'm not rushing out to buy a new console. However, as I said, I'm not really recommending it to anyone these days.

If a major update (with many of the features Bob has mentioned over the past two years -- especially multiple Mackie CS support), I'd go back to recommending the system. However, as I look back to the number of "major" feature updates I've seen in the 3 or so years I've owned SAC, I'm not really expecting anything.

SAC works. It's not particularly elegant or user-friendly, but it works. At this point in time, I wish I hadn't wasted all my time and money trying to get it working with control surfaces in a better fashion (BCR, Mackie C4, and multiple Mackies). Some things worked reasonably well (BCR, C4), somethings didn't work out well at all (multiple Mackies). In the end, however, I rarely even bother hooking up one Mackie MCU these days -- by itself it's cumbersome (ever try adjusting anything beyond gain on that unit?) -- and 9 faders really isn't useful; 16 minimum (plus at least 8 more for outputs, groups, and axes) would make the work well. And it would be nice if those 16 inputs were on two banks of 8 so they could be assigned independently (e.g., of the F-mixer).

Oh well, I'm just wasting time ranting. It won't change anything.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

[Fulvio fullcode Politi]

ok ok guys I know it's kind of an already lost war to try make everyone happy with any kind of setup, but I'll try to be more clear...

except in the situation where one could take an X-touch to FOH with NO computers and NO monitors to operate a basic "console" over cat-5.. then lcds are really useful... sometimes in installs or small ensembles you can get everything right during sound check and only need to ride levels out front, where it'd be nice to read what channel you are working on lol

I think I know what you mean so you're right ...but I would always prefer to invest my money and efforts in a real custom solution like Martial did, you could use something like that instead of a christmas tree it's as compact, much much more powerful, good looking and simply cool in my opinion! That said, and as I already said, I will consider to include sysex and scribbles for the scribbles addict! but only after I will be done with my works on BCF-BCR.. because they're really cheap, one can buy the 2 of them on e-bay for the price of a single x-touch unit, or less ..so to still have some bucks in the pocket to give a look at some " simple 2 touch " touchscreen have you tried the scroll function behrckie adds to the f mixer to navigate the console? that alone worth the price of a touchscreen for me!

Except for setups where we don't have touch screens mounted immediately above the control surface (ala Kuithe's setup). If you've got a standard portable setup (control surfaces attached independently of the display and no touch screen operation) then having the digital scribble strips can be *very* important.

Again Martial design, or better an expanded version of it, not Kuithe's solution, is what I have in mind

There is no question that all those sysex messages create a lot of bandwidth over the MIDI bus and this creates problems for SAC.

Honestly said, up to date, I never experienced midi overflow using SAC or SAW, they are fast as hell IMO! I was honestly making me worries about the care, and time, I got to put into coding it, without adding overflow to the system myself!

Yes, you can support multiple Mackie units by running multiple instances of SAC Remote. That is, however, not without it's own problems (the "select" button, for example, doesn't work properly in that situation).

Again, touchscreen concept "a la Martial" + the ability of Behrckie's code to hook up a BCF + BCR to the SAME machine, solves the problem of the selection, operator touchs the screen to select on the Main machine and just use the BCR to handle the task with channel strip control.. also, if one is in searchs for gain or HiPass or LoPass, behrckie will make the pot's of all of the BCF as if they were touch sensitive, so you will always control the right channel "without" even the need of a channel selection.

I encourage you to keep trying and hopefully you'll find a solution that works well for you.

I did already found it... just trying to adapt it for everyone (quite impossible task as said, so let's just say to the most of us using SAC) and yours and others help would be much much appreciated/needed... but one needs to try it before.

I finally gave up trying to get SAC to meet my requirements and decided to suffer with the way SAC works today

Not with you there... never give up!! ..and always try to soffer the less!

Also, when it's all said and done, SAC doesn't really support the concept of "banks" and "layers" (found on other digital mixers) very well.

If you refer to banking in synch with a Main copy and the remotes copies, I solved it... now working on "layers", if with "layers" you refer to the monitoring consoles ...

It would be nice to attach the control surfaces to blocks of eight arbitrary faders anywhere on the board (or should I say, "boards"), not just in the order specified by the F-mixer.

...however the solution actually needs this "limitation" you pointed out for the F-mixer... but I'm probably missing you here, cause I spent time letting the SAC remote chasing the MAIN banking, otherwise it seems they actually stays on the channels you put them on.

At one time I remember a "custom" view Bob was talking about; that would *partially* alleviate the problem, but who knows what became of that idea?

obvious, like multiple mackies support but then.. I totally give up on the option of constantly flaming Bob ... sorry.
And most important, Behrckie is already offering support for multiple mackies (or behringer/mackie) .. BCF + BCR and I think your operator would be quite happy and faster with it, and you too if you only give it a try

Oh well, I'm just wasting time ranting. It won't change anything.

Sure in the end, if you want, these talks are only a BIG waste of time, but this is specially true if one decide to make criticism and fire on something without even trying it before... that's really sad in someway.
But as said in the beginning of this post, we are all different human being and it's probably impossible to come out with a solution that fits for everyone, so I rise my hands.... I'm on holyday anyway.

peace to you all and see you soon.

Fu

[Jeff Scott]

Fu: I'm going to encourage you to keep working on the approach you've outlined. Yes there could be a million different versions to do a million different things for a million different people. The SAC community really needs to experience your system before we engage in debate over the multitude of various approaches.

What I find interesting is it seems to me that you have broken down some barriers in the use of Midi to give us a level of flexibility that Bob's stock code has not, up to this point, been able to do. I seems to me that you have designed an architecture that will allow a high degree of control and customization down the road. So its a win / win for all of us.

[operationwhat]

Fu don't get upset.This is normal for the SAC forum.I stand besides you and I support you totally! Anyway, in November, I'll be on a small tour with my band and we are taking SAC for a ride with a 32" touchscreen and a pair of BCF and BCR.The band engineer figured after dealing with different muxers and outboard every night, it would be better to use our stuff.So talk soon, will need some custom features All the best \m/