Behringer BCF2000


    Jun 26 2006 | 10:40 pm
    Is anybody using the Behringer BCF2000 with Max? I've seen it around for $200, and that's obscenely cheap for flying faders. I'm looking to partially replace my Peavey PC-1600x, and really liked the flexibility of its programming. (though I know the BCF2000 probably won't come close on that account) I've been reading mostly positive reviews, but if it doesn't play well with Max, that's a deal-breaker.
    Ideally, I'd like to create some sort of tabbed interface. Click a button, and the settings for module N come up on the faders. (looks like something for matrixctl and router) Anybody already done this?
    Peter McCulloch

    • Jun 27 2006 | 2:01 am
      On Jun 26, 2006, at 6:40 PM, Peter McCulloch wrote:
      > Is anybody using the Behringer BCF2000 with Max? I've seen it around > for $200, and that's obscenely cheap for flying faders. I'm looking > to partially replace my Peavey PC-1600x, and really liked the > flexibility of its programming. (though I know the BCF2000 probably > won't come close on that account) I've been reading mostly positive > reviews, but if it doesn't play well with Max, that's a deal-breaker. > > Ideally, I'd like to create some sort of tabbed interface. Click a > button, and the settings for module N come up on the faders. (looks > like something for matrixctl and router) Anybody already done this?
      hi peter i use the bcf2000 all the time in my live performances, and it has the ability to do what you want i believe. while i haven't used it with max yet, i do use it frequently with ableton live and there is true two-way communication going on: move a fader in live and the fader on the bcf moves and visa versa. i believe someone has already written an abstraction (?) or an external for the bcf: http:// www.maxobjects.com/? v=objects&id_objet=2966&requested=bcf&operateur=AND&id_plateforme=0 from the jasch objects it seems. i find the bcf to be easy to program, both with software that has good "learn" capabilities like live, and within the bcf itself. once you work past the useless manual it becomes very intuitive. i spread myself over three banks of faders, and multiple knob banks, and the moving fader/led ring combo is a godsend for keeping track of what's going on. i have dragged this thing across the country and over the roads of nyc and it's never hiccoughed. my only complaint is that when i change banks it makes a distinctly audible whirrr as the faders update, so if you work with quiet stuff like i do it's a factor. luckily it is relatively quiet, you would only notice it in dead silence. but as the performer you might find yourself wincing occasionally. ;-) drop me a note if you come up with an interesting interface - i'd love to see it. cheers bruce
      bruce tovsky www.skeletonhome.com
      "Sometimes the appropriate response to reality is to go insane." Philip K. Dick
    • Jun 27 2006 | 3:46 am
      i own a bcr2000 and i use it with live as well...it is an amazing unit for 200 bucks mainly because you can run mackie emulation easily on it...you can run mackie emulation with other controller types, but the bcf/bcr is among the few that has the advantage of endless encoders/motorized faders......that way you get complete recall......i really mean complete.....there is no knob jumping anywhere...in my host that is...
      they have mackie maps for cubase, logic.......but you can build your own mackie interface with this unit easily....they have a code chart..
      plus i use it with max all the time...in max i dont think there is a specific advantage of using a bcf or bcr unless you have some kind of recall object......
    • Jun 27 2006 | 3:52 am
      come to think of it..i think it wouldn't be that hard to recall values to the bcr.......i'll try it when i get some time.....let me know if your making any progress.
    • Jun 27 2006 | 4:11 am
      I also use the BCF2000 in performance with MAX and it's surprisly robust and reliable for a Behringer product! Precise faders and encoders too. I usally never suggest behringer products but for this one! It is highly worth its price in my opinion.
      The fader mouvement when your recall a preset is indeed noisy, but not much than any other simmilar products I guess.
      pc
      On 6/26/06, papermesh wrote: > > i own a bcr2000 and i use it with live as well...it is an amazing unit for 200 bucks mainly because you can run mackie emulation easily on it...you can run mackie emulation with other controller types, but the bcf/bcr is among the few that has the advantage of endless encoders/motorized faders......that way you get complete recall......i really mean complete.....there is no knob jumping anywhere...in my host that is... > > > they have mackie maps for cubase, logic.......but you can build your own mackie interface with this unit easily....they have a code chart.. > > > plus i use it with max all the time...in max i dont think there is a specific advantage of using a bcf or bcr unless you have some kind of recall object...... >
    • Jun 27 2006 | 5:20 am
      On Jun 27, 2006, at 12:11 AM, P C wrote:
      > The fader mouvement when your recall a preset is indeed noisy, but not > much than any other simmilar products I guess.
      i totally agree. it's certainly quieter than pro control. i have even asked friends if they could hear it and no one could. a minor problem, inconsequential in context. cheers bruce
      bruce tovsky www.skeletonhome.com
      "Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Douglas Adams
    • Jun 27 2006 | 9:32 am
      Can you move the faders using MIDI Messages from Max? (e.g. send 80 to ctlout 7; does the fader set itself?) Basically, I just want to make sure that you can set and move the values of faders from within Max, not just storing presets at the box. I had heard that it was very good with Ableton, Cubase, etc., just wanted to find out if that was done via MIDI, or something else. (that is, is it agnostic as to its data input?) For me, not working well with Max or other applications is a definite deal-breaker. (I'm looking at you, Greedy-design)
      Peter McCulloch
    • Jun 27 2006 | 9:32 am
      P.S. Thanks for the feedback so far
      Peter McCulloch
    • Jun 27 2006 | 11:47 am
      Anyone has used these faders with 14 bit resolution? I know it is possible with this model, but I don't know know to set it up.
      2006/6/27, Peter McCulloch : > P.S. Thanks for the feedback so far > > Peter McCulloch > >
    • Jun 27 2006 | 11:59 am
      >On Jun 26, 2006, at 6:40 PM, Peter McCulloch wrote: > >>Is anybody using the Behringer BCF2000 with Max? I've seen it around >>for $200, and that's obscenely cheap for flying faders. I'm looking >>to partially replace my Peavey PC-1600x, and really liked the >>flexibility of its programming. (though I know the BCF2000 probably >>won't come close on that account) I've been reading mostly positive
      Peter - just curious - why are you looking to replace your PC-1600x? Although I've not kept up with all the different devices out there now, I've yet to come upon one as you suggest that was as flexible and all-inclusive in its programming ability...
      The LCD recently died on mine, but I was able to replace it myself after some investigation quite easily...
      Dan -- Dan Nigrin Defective Records 202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X http://www.defectiverecords.com http://www.jackosx.com
    • Jun 27 2006 | 5:53 pm
    • Jun 28 2006 | 4:23 am
      I use mine in Logic Control mode. In this mode the faders transmit/ receive pitchbend data, so accessing the full resolution in max is as simple as using xbendin/xbendout. The resolution of the faders is actually 10 bit, which is still quite nice. Overall, I think the device is quite flexible, especially for the price.
      Greg
    • Jun 28 2006 | 11:16 pm
      The PC-1600x is good for a lot of things, but the flying faders are really great (well, at least in my theoretical estimation) for when you need to control several groups of parameters. It allows you to see the current values before acting on them, and I think that's a big advantage. 16 flying faders...well, that would be something, and if the old Yamaha digital mixers weren't so damn heavy, this would be a different discussion, but I'm trying to put together a lightweight setup that's backpackable on the subway, yet gives me substantial flexibility in control routing.
      I would agree that the PC-1600x has a lot of great features, such as the mode where you can move the fader, and send the value only with the button, and the ability for arbitrarily long button commands in hex is very cool, but for me, I don't need specific midi commands as much as an interface that is flexible, and provides visual feedback as to the current settings of various parameters. I'd actually looked into some of the projects posted at uCapps.de, but finding flying faders for any reasonable price is quite difficult. (well, at least after all the NYU ITP people cleaned out the online selection last spring) At +$10 a fader, it's probably most cost effective to buy rather than build.
      Anywho, there's the thought process here...
      Peter McCulloch
      Peter - just curious - why are you looking to replace your PC-1600x? > Although I've not kept up with all the different devices out there > now, I've yet to come upon one as you suggest that was as flexible > and all-inclusive in its programming ability... > >
    • Jun 29 2006 | 2:36 am
      On Jun 28, 2006, at 7:16 PM, Peter McCulloch wrote:
      > would agree that the PC-1600x has a lot of great features, such as > the mode where you can move the fader, and send the value only with > the button, and the ability for arbitrarily long button commands in > hex is very cool, but for me, I don't need specific midi commands > as much as an interface that is flexible, and provides visual > feedback as to the current settings of various parameters. I'd > actually looked into some of the projects posted at uCapps.de, but > finding flying faders for any reasonable price is quite difficult. > (well, at least after all the NYU ITP people cleaned out the online > selection last spring) At +$10 a fader, it's probably most cost > effective to buy rather than build.
      peter my exact same reasons for going with the behringer. i also looked into the midibox forum as a possibility - and i am still thinking of a box of joysticks for my quad setup - but it was ridiculous when the behringer was under $200. and as i stated before, it has stood up to a fairly active year of abuse. it would be nice to have an lcd display, but the intuitive editing setup makes up for it a bit. cheers bruce
      bruce tovsky www.skeletonhome.com
      "Reality is whatever refuses to go away when I stop believing in it.." Philip K. Dick
    • Jun 29 2006 | 4:41 am
      I use the BCF 2000 quite a lot with Live and have used it just a little with MAX/MSP and my pluggo plugins.
      Works VERY well. It's not built like a tank, but I really love the lights around the dials.
      Yes - the BCF's faders will move if you send it MIDI from an outside source (like Max or live). Likewise the lights on the knobs of the BCR will change in response to MIDI.
      Yes - the 14bit MIDI faders and knobs work well. Note that on the faders, 14bit mode means you have to rotate the knob many, many times before you get from the min to max value. Faders on the BCR make a lot more sense for 14bit. I also notice some 'jitter' when the knobs on the BCR are just sitting idle in 14bit mode - that is, I see the occasional MIDI controller get sent to Max even when I am not touching the knob; the value with jitter between two values (122 and 123..for example).
      So far - I love it.
      I'm selling my (last) PC1600x now because I like the Behringer even better.
      Vance
    • Jun 29 2006 | 5:21 am
      Thanks all for the advice. If I come up with some interesting patches for the beast, I'll post them.
      Peter McCulloch
    • Jun 29 2006 | 8:38 am
      same here - reading all of these posts inspired me to buy the BCR. $129 for that many knobs? (and you can press them and use them as buttons, too?) my performances will never be the same. (hopefully)
      -evan
      On Jun 29, 2006, at 6:21 AM, Peter McCulloch wrote:
      > Thanks all for the advice. If I come up with some interesting > patches for the beast, I'll post them. > > Peter McCulloch
    • Jun 30 2006 | 12:35 am
      Quote: lists@lowfrequency.or wrote on Thu, 29 June 2006 20:38 ---------------------------------------------------- > same here - reading all of these posts inspired me to buy the > BCR. $129 for that many knobs? (and you can press them and use > them as buttons, too?)
      Only the top row supports encoder-push (and additional feedback formats).
      But the 4 "encoder-groups" effectively give you 4 banks of those, plus the 24 simpler encoders in the lower 3 rows, and 20 user-assignable buttons.
      None of the encoders support an "acceleration" factor when turned faster in relative mode, it's a simple +/- 1 increment/decrement message.
      On the face of it, the BCR is a good unit, but it's hampered by a somewhat limited MIDI implementation (and poor documentation of that).
      It also insists on force-updating its own button and encoder LEDs in the hardware, which means you need to jump through some additional hoops when sending feedback from Max.
      I've been told that there is a BCR "raw" mode where it's a completely dumb device, but of course no documentation for that is available, and emailing Behringer seems futile.
    • Jun 30 2006 | 1:11 am
      My experience with emailing Behringer was very positive: I asked some questions about the Java based editor and received a customer support reply within a few hours, and this person then responded to every one of my 5 follow-up emails within a few hours of posting each one. I was stunned. I've never gotten that sort of response from Digidesign, MOTU, or name-a-dozen-other-audio-sofware-companies.
      Your results may (very) vary.
    • Jun 30 2006 | 5:54 am
      the bcr user's manual is the worst i've ever seen for any kinda of product....
      dont bother using the supplied bcedit program that comes with the bcr.....download a program called bcfredit by birdie...it's so much easier...
      if you do decide to use the supplied bcedit program....it wont work unless you have a specific version of java installed....search the live forums to get that version #
    • Jun 30 2006 | 8:49 am
      John Pitcairn wrote: > None of the encoders support an "acceleration" factor when turned > faster in relative mode, it's a simple +/- 1 increment/decrement > message.
      You can patch it in Max...
      > On the face of it, the BCR is a good unit, but it's hampered by a > somewhat limited MIDI implementation (and poor documentation of > that).
      Would be no problem as Max would take care of it anyway...
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Jul 02 2006 | 11:53 pm
      Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Fri, 30 June 2006 20:49 ---------------------------------------------------- > You can patch it in Max...
      Sure, and such a "generic relative aceleration" patch with suitable tweakable timing parameters proves useful for other encoder-controllers too, like the Novation Remote or Fostex VM200.
      But it's irritating that the BCF can presumably support encoder acceleration when the BCR doesn't while using the same encoders (OK, you can hack the preset sysex file somewhat, but beware checksum issues).
      I've even seen evidence of a "rogue" BCR unit that appears to support encoder acceleration...
    • Jul 03 2006 | 9:50 pm
      Am 03.07.2006 um 01:53 schrieb John Pitcairn:
      > > Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Fri, 30 June 2006 20:49 > ---------------------------------------------------- >> You can patch it in Max... > > Sure, and such a "generic relative aceleration" patch with suitable > tweakable timing parameters proves useful for other encoder- > controllers too, like the Novation Remote or Fostex VM200.
      -> the "acceleration" would be the first derivative (1.Ableitung) of the successing delta-values, right ? Would be great, if anybody could show a quick example how to patch that in max ... (-> the delta of the delta ?) ;-) -and where would the timing parameters sit ? (sorry, may sound stupid, but im just interested to know...)
      cheers. m
      > > But it's irritating that the BCF can presumably support encoder > acceleration when the BCR doesn't while using the same encoders > (OK, you can hack the preset sysex file somewhat, but beware > checksum issues). > > I've even seen evidence of a "rogue" BCR unit that appears to > support encoder acceleration... > >
    • Jul 03 2006 | 10:42 pm
      Something like this...
    • Jul 06 2006 | 11:14 am
      > -> the "acceleration" would be the first derivative (1.Ableitung) of > the successing delta-values, right ? > Would be great, if anybody could show a quick example how to patch > that in max ... (-> the delta of the delta ?) ;-) > -and where would the timing parameters sit ? (sorry, may sound stupid, > but im just interested to know...)
      You can check out my externals tl.delta, tl.delta2 and tl.velocity. Maybe they would be of use to you. You'll find them at:
      as part of tl.objects.
      Best, Trond
    • Jul 07 2006 | 11:44 am
      great. thx a lot for your answers!
      I havent looked at the BCFs behaviour according to fast movement, yet. However, I was using a BCF recently for a concert-patch (no manual around) and needed relative (incremental/decremental) controller values, so i was simply using a boolean comparison within max to convert the values to only increments/decrements of +1 or -1. But no acceleration...not in that sense.... I was using the fact that moving a dial very fast, wouldnt put out all midi-msges but would rather give out midi values according to its internal timing-resolution as a feature.
      -> I was using UART2, not USB, could this be a timing-bottleneck ? Somehow i catched myself often wondering: what is it, that defines the speed of MIDI-msges ? (protocol, bandwidth, ..) ?
      cheers. m
      Am 06.07.2006 um 13:14 schrieb Trond Lossius:
      >> -> the "acceleration" would be the first derivative (1.Ableitung) >> of the successing delta-values, right ? >> Would be great, if anybody could show a quick example how to patch >> that in max ... (-> the delta of the delta ?) ;-) >> -and where would the timing parameters sit ? (sorry, may sound >> stupid, but im just interested to know...) > > You can check out my externals tl.delta, tl.delta2 and tl.velocity. > Maybe they would be of use to you. You'll find them at: > > http://www.bek.no/~lossius/download > > as part of tl.objects. > > Best, > Trond > >
    • Jul 11 2006 | 11:00 pm
      Sorry for late response - I have been away and am behind on the Max list.
      I posted a patch that illustrates this a while back - check the archives - it is very easy.
      Best
      L
      On 27 Jun 2006, at 10:32, Peter McCulloch wrote:
      > Can you move the faders using MIDI Messages from Max? (e.g. send > 80 to ctlout 7; does the fader set itself?) Basically, I just want > to make sure that you can set and move the values of faders from > within Max, not just storing presets at the box
      Lawrence Casserley - lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk Lawrence Electronic Operations - www.lcasserley.co.uk Colourscape Music Festivals - www.colourscape.org.uk
    • Jul 13 2006 | 5:48 am
      Marlon Schumacher wrote: > Somehow i catched myself often wondering: what is it, that defines the > speed of MIDI-msges ? (protocol, bandwidth, ..) ?
      protocol - 32kbaud, three bytes per message mostly, which translates roughly to 1 ms per message. If running status is used, its 2 bytes per message and thus a bit faster... There could be other bottlenecks, like the speed a synth can process events...
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Jul 13 2006 | 1:56 pm
      thx! So I guess the 32kbaud-limitation would apply also for virtual Midi- Cables.. (like IAC) ? cheers. m
      Am 13.07.2006 um 07:48 schrieb Stefan Tiedje:
      > Marlon Schumacher wrote: >> Somehow i catched myself often wondering: what is it, that >> defines the speed of MIDI-msges ? (protocol, bandwidth, ..) ? > > protocol - 32kbaud, three bytes per message mostly, which > translates roughly to 1 ms per message. If running status is used, > its 2 bytes per message and thus a bit faster... > There could be other bottlenecks, like the speed a synth can > process events... > > Stefan > > -- > Stefan Tiedje------------x------- > --_____-----------|-------------- > --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- > -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- > ----------()--------www.ccmix.com > >
    • Jul 13 2006 | 10:00 pm
      Marlon Schumacher wrote: > thx! > So I guess the 32kbaud-limitation would apply also for virtual Midi- > Cables.. (like IAC) ?
      No, I don't think so, you could check it with some midi router, send a thousand midievents with uzi and check when they are done. Also multichannel interfaces used faster speeds to the interface than Midi...
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Jul 14 2006 | 7:54 am
      > > Can you move the faders using MIDI Messages from Max? (e.g. send > > 80 to ctlout 7; does the fader set itself?) Basically, I just want > > to make sure that you can set and move the values of faders from > > within Max, not just storing presets at the box
      Yes, you can do all that from within Max. The Behringer stops accepting midi on a particular controller while you are moving the fader and for maybe a second afterwards.
      Stuart
    • Jul 14 2006 | 7:57 am
      Sorry.
      The point of that second point was that there are no feedback issues. If you move the fader, no receive. If you send a value from Max, no send from BCR.
      The whole thing is actually rather well thought out, even if most of us would change some feature here or there.
    • Jul 14 2006 | 8:11 am
      > The Behringer stops accepting midi on a particular controller while > you are moving the fader and for maybe a second afterwards.
      Preemption makes sense, but force-feedback faders would be really fun - do they exist?
    • Aug 02 2006 | 6:10 pm
      I finally got around to trying out all of the functions on the BCR2000, and it's really nice. The manual is pretty straightforward, and the unit feels light and plastic but is solid and responds well. All the LEDs are pretty slick-looking.
      Just wanted to say that the nrpn 14-bit rotaries work great with jasch's "bcf2000" object (http://www.jasch.ch/dl/default.htm), and the I really like the fact that you can set the range yourself on both in the bcf2000 object and on the BCR itself (so you don't have to turn the dial ~10 times to get to the max value).
      My Oxygen8 left a bit to be desired in terms of programmability and control (those plastic "velocity-sensitive" keys are CHEAP), but the BCR has really impressed me, especially at this price.