Only one Midi channel to automate Big mixer?
I want to automate my Big mixer with Logic audio for windows.But is it true you can only automate Pulsars Big mixer on ONE midi channel and not 16 or 32? This is what I make of what's written in the manual. It would mean that you can never fully automate the bigmixer because there are more controllers on the Big mixer than control numbers to assign(128). I must be overlooking something I hope, but what?
-
PabloFasan
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2001 4:00 pm
Exactly my dear.
The full MIDI upgrade includding the following features was promised to the users from the first release of Pulsar ver 1.0.
For a detailed information this is what they promise to do and never has been implemented:
1) Full implementation of ALL MIDI messages for allow to use them for any purpose.
2) The possibility of to integrate External MIDI hardware, like multiport MIDI interfaces in a Pulsar project.
Never was implemented.
3) To convert the Big Mixer in a multichannel/multiport device allowing to use the MIDI protocol in a more standard and logical way.
4) To allow other audio gear to be integrated in Pulsar enviroment, this would be really useful with professional AD/DA converters of other marks.
5) The fact that the most important Pulsar devices are protected with CW secret keys (Big Mixer includded), so it's impossible to an independent developer to try to do the enhacements by himself.
6) The fact that the Scope developers have a limited version of CW's SDK system that, as I know has a maximum available of arround 1500 operations .
A device like Big Mixer or Scope SP Mixer probably will require to have much more operations for to develope equivalent complex devices.
7) The fact that some important Scope atoms are not available for the developers, ie:
How does the ST xxxx manage the MIDI for to get multitimbral capabilities is a secret.
How does the Dynamixer for alow to increase or reduce the number of available channels is a secret.
How does the SM166 manage the 5:1 pan is a secret, CW never gived to the developers the virtual x:y virtual joystick atom that allows this function.
So the sort of GNU icense that they promise in the first days is really an illusion.
Insted of to create a new A16 with 24/96-88.2 capabilities AN THE SAME FINE AUDIO QUALITY, they released Luna & Luna II, NO comments about features and audio quality.
Simply for to have an idea compare both with an A16 and tell me what do you think.
A program that allow the users to change the plugin registration from one board to other instead of to have the plugins slaved to a piece of hardware.
Your surprise is equivalent with the mix of frustration and lose of interest, that not only the experienced users, otherwise many developers have about Pulsar systems.
All this points with the exeption of a new A16 where promised in public posts and private e-mails.
9) For ending, the problem is not that Pulsar is a bad idea, the bad idea is the lack of respect that CW have with the users, mainly with professionals that were the first people that have supported them and promoted Pulsar/Scope system.
You will ask yourself why I don't sell my two boards and forget CW forever, is a good question.
I don't do it because I can't.
I have all my studio based in CW's system and to change for other mark involves a cost that is impossible in this moment for me.
But for those that could do it, I strongly recommend to change you boards for a Roland VS-2480, for arround u$s3500- you will have near everything what you need, includding the possibility of continue working with Pulsar or any other board you want.
It does not depen of Microsoft fancies or of to have expensive computers and never fails never hangs and the audio quality and FX are impressive.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PabloFasan on 2001-07-22 14:17 ]</font>
The full MIDI upgrade includding the following features was promised to the users from the first release of Pulsar ver 1.0.
For a detailed information this is what they promise to do and never has been implemented:
1) Full implementation of ALL MIDI messages for allow to use them for any purpose.
2) The possibility of to integrate External MIDI hardware, like multiport MIDI interfaces in a Pulsar project.
Never was implemented.
3) To convert the Big Mixer in a multichannel/multiport device allowing to use the MIDI protocol in a more standard and logical way.
4) To allow other audio gear to be integrated in Pulsar enviroment, this would be really useful with professional AD/DA converters of other marks.
5) The fact that the most important Pulsar devices are protected with CW secret keys (Big Mixer includded), so it's impossible to an independent developer to try to do the enhacements by himself.
6) The fact that the Scope developers have a limited version of CW's SDK system that, as I know has a maximum available of arround 1500 operations .
A device like Big Mixer or Scope SP Mixer probably will require to have much more operations for to develope equivalent complex devices.
7) The fact that some important Scope atoms are not available for the developers, ie:
How does the ST xxxx manage the MIDI for to get multitimbral capabilities is a secret.
How does the Dynamixer for alow to increase or reduce the number of available channels is a secret.
How does the SM166 manage the 5:1 pan is a secret, CW never gived to the developers the virtual x:y virtual joystick atom that allows this function.
So the sort of GNU icense that they promise in the first days is really an illusion.
Insted of to create a new A16 with 24/96-88.2 capabilities AN THE SAME FINE AUDIO QUALITY, they released Luna & Luna II, NO comments about features and audio quality.
Simply for to have an idea compare both with an A16 and tell me what do you think.
A program that allow the users to change the plugin registration from one board to other instead of to have the plugins slaved to a piece of hardware.Your surprise is equivalent with the mix of frustration and lose of interest, that not only the experienced users, otherwise many developers have about Pulsar systems.
All this points with the exeption of a new A16 where promised in public posts and private e-mails.
9) For ending, the problem is not that Pulsar is a bad idea, the bad idea is the lack of respect that CW have with the users, mainly with professionals that were the first people that have supported them and promoted Pulsar/Scope system.
You will ask yourself why I don't sell my two boards and forget CW forever, is a good question.
I don't do it because I can't.
I have all my studio based in CW's system and to change for other mark involves a cost that is impossible in this moment for me.
But for those that could do it, I strongly recommend to change you boards for a Roland VS-2480, for arround u$s3500- you will have near everything what you need, includding the possibility of continue working with Pulsar or any other board you want.
It does not depen of Microsoft fancies or of to have expensive computers and never fails never hangs and the audio quality and FX are impressive.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PabloFasan on 2001-07-22 14:17 ]</font>