Forums > MaxMSP

non-MIDI fader box

February 8, 2006 | 3:43 pm

Hi

I’m looking for a (portable) fader box that has a higher resolution than MIDI, for use with Max/MSP. Someone suggested Lemur, but I would prefer traditional faders – the kind you can grab.

cheers

rh


February 8, 2006 | 4:07 pm

behringer bcf2000 can do 14 bit MIDI (NRPN)
not tiny, but portable

hth

/*j


February 8, 2006 | 4:15 pm

On 8 Feb 2006, at 15:43, ron herrema wrote:

> I’m looking for a (portable) fader box that has a higher resolution
> than MIDI, for use with Max/MSP. Someone suggested Lemur, but I
> would prefer traditional faders – the kind you can grab.

CM Motor-Mix? (Resolution here is, as I recall, 0..511.)

Of course, the more portable the box is, the smaller the faders will
be, and the less useful it will be to have resolution greater than
0..127. There are better, if more fiddly, ways to get high resolution
from control surfaces.

– N.

nick rothwell — composition, systems, performance — http://
http://www.cassiel.com


February 8, 2006 | 4:29 pm

I tried the Motor-Mix – it simply transmitted in increments of two when set to the higher resolution. Even with a short throw, the higher resolution will be helpful for my purposes – 128 values is incredibly limiting. And what are the better, fiddly ways?

thanks

rh


February 8, 2006 | 4:29 pm


February 8, 2006 | 4:30 pm

if you can lay your hands on one, they’re hopelessly behind orders (at least
here in central europe).

> CM Motor-Mix? (Resolution here is, as I recall, 0..511.)


February 8, 2006 | 4:37 pm

i use the bcf2000 at gigs all the time, and it’s portable enough.
i was able to cram the bcf2000, my alumbook, fw410 interface
and assorted cables and such into a mixer gig bag and stick it
in the overhead when i did my recent west coast tour. worked
flawlessly. it’s simple to program, though you wouldn’t know it
from the manual.
cheers
bruce

bruce tovsky
http://www.skeletonhome.com

"Sometimes the appropriate response to reality is to go insane."
Philip K. Dick


February 8, 2006 | 5:24 pm

Are you generally happy with it? I’ve been considering Motor-Mix, but
the Behringer is probably a lot cheaper.

Thanks,
Trond


February 8, 2006 | 5:58 pm

hi trond
for the money it’s an amazing deal. for me, the moving faders is what
sold me, since i usually have about 3 – 4 banks of fader presets to
control
levels as well as parameter tweaking, and i get the immediate fader
repositioning so that i don’t get confused. it’s nice that it works
with both
usb and midi, and it gives you banks of knobs and buttons as well.
it’s not exactly what i would call sturdy, but the flip side is that
it’s light
and easy to carry around. and it’s also got a regular power cable
instead
of a wall-wart, and that’s a plus in my book. i dragged it all around
california
and it worked like a champ without a glitch.
cheers
bruce


February 8, 2006 | 6:01 pm

With the great motormix externals for Max, the MotorMix console can
have an unlimited number of virtual faders. My effects processing
patch uses 80 faders, each of which can be accessed instantaneously
by the push of a button. The Behringer is pretty much limited to 8
faders, although with some tricks, it would probably be possible to
recreate the functionality of the MotorMix to some degree.

Georg


February 8, 2006 | 6:43 pm

so not true. the bcf2000 limits you to 8 faders AT A TIME but has
presets
that essentially do the same thing that the motormix does. i can set up
say 5 or 6 presets to access as many faders as i need, as well as having
banks of knobs and buttons assigned to additional functions. its
programmability
is well thought out, though not well explained in the manual, and the
knobs
all have led rings to orient you. while i haven’t done much with a
motormix
outside of trade fairs, i’ve read a lot about it, and it does have
functionality
beyond what the bcf2000 can do. it’s also about 5 times the price.
cheers
bruce

bruce tovsky
http://www.skeletonhome.com

"Reality is whatever refuses to go away when I stop believing in it.."
Philip K. Dick


February 8, 2006 | 7:56 pm

and what about the BCR2000 ?

http://www.behringer.com/BCR2000/index.cfm?lang=ENG

anyone working with that one ?
curious to hear about it..

32 high-res rotary knobs, and a bit cheaper too…
no faders and no motorization though…

ciao,

Joost.

——————————————-

Joost Rekveld
———– http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld

——————————————-

"The mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible"
(Oscar Wilde)

——————————————-


February 8, 2006 | 8:20 pm

I created very easily a setup with 64 faders using the pushbuttons on
the top rotary controls to select banks – these were linked to a
jit.matrix/coll setup, which worked very well – and you could use other
buttons to select more banks if you wanted. My only worry with the
BFC2000 is that it seemed to occupy an awful lot of cpu time. My
patches did not have anything like the space that they had using other
controllers. That may be specific to the iMac setup I was using, but I
would recommend that you check it out.

Best

Lawrence

Lawrence Casserley – lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk
Lawrence Electronic Operations – http://www.lcasserley.co.uk
Colourscape Music Festivals – http://www.colourscape.org.uk


February 8, 2006 | 8:25 pm

i actually bought both the bcf2000 and the bcr2000,
thinking i would need the bcr2000 for its knobs. but
i found that i could configure the bcf2000′s knobs and
buttons in such a way that i didn’t need the bcr2000
for my regular live stuff. then again, i’m generally not
doing a lot of knob tweaking…. but most of the stuff i
said about the bcf goes for the bcr as well: nice features,
poorly written manual (or just bad translation from german)
and slightly flimsy construction being the main points.
for the money, the bcr2000 is incredible – led rings on
all the knobs for under $200 US.
cheers
bruce

bruce tovsky
http://www.skeletonhome.com

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
Albert Einstein


February 8, 2006 | 8:32 pm

But the knobs are all rotary encoders, so you can update them in the
same way as motorised faders when switching context. I just don’t like
using rotary controls – otherwise it’s just the same as the BCF2000.

Best

L

Lawrence Casserley – lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk
Lawrence Electronic Operations – http://www.lcasserley.co.uk
Colourscape Music Festivals – http://www.colourscape.org.uk


February 8, 2006 | 8:32 pm

On 8 Feb 2006, at 19:56, Joost Rekveld wrote:

> 32 high-res rotary knobs, and a bit cheaper too…
> no faders and no motorization though…

Why would you want to motorize a rotary encoder?

nick rothwell — composition, systems, performance — http://
http://www.cassiel.com


February 8, 2006 | 8:48 pm

my thoughts exactly….
although it might sound cool having 32 of them reposition….
b

bruce tovsky
http://www.skeletonhome.com

"Reality is whatever refuses to go away when I stop believing in it.."
Philip K. Dick


February 8, 2006 | 8:55 pm

euh, I think i’ve learned just know that these knobs are rotary
encoders, so sure, doesn’t make much sense..

——————————————-

Joost Rekveld
———– http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld

——————————————-

"Ears hear and eyes see. What then does mind do?"

——————————————-


February 8, 2006 | 9:27 pm

That’s not true either. On the BCF 2000, the presets switch between
different sets of MIDI controller data, much like the Peavey PC1600
fader controller I used to own, whereas the MotorMix in connection
with the Max motormix objects offers a higher-level representation of
fader, button and rotary knob actions which makes it much easier to
manage the data (see Darwin Grosse’s manual). I assume that it would
be pretty cumbersome to completely recreate the functionality of the
Motormix with the BCF, but it seems that Lawrence has been quite
successful at that.

Georg


February 8, 2006 | 9:40 pm

it’s amazing that behringer can make these with led rings on all
the knobs for under $200 US. well, not including tax…
b

bruce tovsky
http://www.skeletonhome.com

"To know is nothing at all; to imagine is everything."
Albert Einstein


February 8, 2006 | 9:43 pm

I didn’t actually try to emulate the Motormix, but I guess what I did
is not far off it – I could post the patch if it helps.

L

Lawrence Casserley – lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk
Lawrence Electronic Operations – http://www.lcasserley.co.uk
Colourscape Music Festivals – http://www.colourscape.org.uk


February 8, 2006 | 9:53 pm

Please do ;-))

Georg


February 8, 2006 | 10:03 pm

hi georg
not to beat a dead horse here, but that’s not true either. true, the
bcf2000 does have presets – setups might be a better term – but
they are totally user-configurable. behringer ships them with some
convenient templates, but they are totally user rewritable. and it’s
quite easy to copy one preset to a number of other presets and make
changes. i configured one preset with all the data i needed for my
setup, copied that to three more presets, changed some midi channels
and i had another three banks of fader control within two minutes.
best
bruce

bruce tovsky
http://www.skeletonhome.com

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
Albert Einstein



Nat
February 9, 2006 | 12:47 am

"behringer ships them with some
convenient templates, but they are totally user rewritable."

And Behringer also provides a nice Java based editor which makes editing presets a snap. I really don’t see what you could do with the motormix the behringer could not…



Nat
February 9, 2006 | 12:48 am

jasch wrote "behringer bcf2000 can do 14 bit MIDI (NRPN)"

Not totally true, it’s actually 10 bits sent using a 14 bit message. (for the faders)Still much better than 7 bit…


February 9, 2006 | 10:26 am


February 9, 2006 | 2:04 pm

So you’re saying it would transmit a maximum of 1024 values via the faders? That would be worth it for my purposes. I"m wondering if it can transmit to Max via USB, and what the resolution would be in that case. Fianlly, also wondering if i can use the Motormix in some way (e.g. with 14 bit messages) to get a higher resolution. (I think I’d still like to buy the behringer, though, because the motor mix, which we already have, is quite heavy).

thanks to all for the responses

rh


February 9, 2006 | 2:28 pm

10 bits only! What’s a shame… if the repartition is equally done,
the precision is just 100 steps per centimeter, which is definitively
not enough for a slider :-)

ej


February 9, 2006 | 3:42 pm


February 9, 2006 | 4:11 pm

thanks for posting this lawrence. it’ll be interesting to experiment
with.
cheers
bruce

bruce tovsky
http://www.skeletonhome.com

"Sometimes the appropriate response to reality is to go insane."
Philip K. Dick



Nat
February 9, 2006 | 7:40 pm

>>>>>>I"m wondering if it can transmit to Max via USB

Totally, and you can use the MIDI IO as an additional MIDI to USB interface

>>>>>>and what the resolution would be in that case.

Same resolution as MIDI. The resolution is defined by the bit-depth of the analog to digital converters used in the controller, not the transport protocol.

>>>>>>Fianlly, also wondering if i can use the Motormix in some way (e.g. with 14 bit messages) to get a higher resolution.

I highly doubt the Motormix has a resolution higher than 10 bits, even the Digidesign ProControl we have here (very expensive) has 10 bit ADCs… It’s probably the same ADCs that drive most of the motorized controllers (not the motors though).

Messages requiring higher resolution than the typical 7 bit are always encoded in 14 bit because they use 2 7 bits control numbers to acheive the higher resolution. Most of the time, higher resolution messages are lower than 14 bits.


February 10, 2006 | 8:36 am

I’ve recently got that one, and I’m very happy with it(but: before it, I
used reworked game controller, with noisy faders… replaced them with
another set of even noisier faders, resolution was low…so bcr was kind of
revelation)

there were only two downsides so far: when a knob is set to relative mode, a
led does not snap from 0′ to 360′(this has a workaround),

and I also had some problems of computer not detecting bcr, but also found
an workaround – just reinstalled driver(this is on xp), and it worked
without restarting. happens rarely though…

their java librarian didn’t work for me(hey, that’s a third downy), but I
found another great bcr/bcf librarian, birdie’s bcfredit

nrpn 14bit works fine if I remember correctly, I think I was able to get
0-16383.

and all that that all those disco leds do

so,
great


February 10, 2006 | 4:38 pm

Quote: Nat wrote on Thu, 09 February 2006 12:40
—————————————————-

>
> >>>>>>Fianlly, also wondering if i can use the Motormix in some way (e.g. with 14 bit messages) to get a higher resolution.
>

>
> Messages requiring higher resolution than the typical 7 bit are always encoded in 14 bit because they use 2 7 bits control numbers to acheive the higher resolution. Most of the time, higher resolution messages are lower than 14 bits.
—————————————————-

This is what I’m wondering: if the MM could send two 7 bit numbers at at time, as if it were a pitch bend controller. (The MM documentation that i’ve downloaded is pretty horrible.)

rh


February 17, 2006 | 10:30 am

try setting setting up a knob and a slider with all the same
settings, nrps, range etc..

-the slider works normally, and the LED ring around the knob shows
where it is set, but.
-the knob now acts like a fine control! and the slider automatically
adjusts!

gross and fine control!

i’m just getting back on list after some time away, and i’m just now
seeing the thread (non-MIDI fader box) which says the sliders have
10bit ACDs. i’m going to go home and see if these knobs now give use
the extra 4 bits :)

best,
jonathan


Viewing 34 posts - 1 through 34 (of 34 total)