Any good STM2448 external midi controller?

[jetmoon]

Hi there
Anybody here using an external midi controller for faders and knobs of the wonderful stm2448?
Thanks
Ste

[chriskorff]

Hi there,

I was using a B*hringer BCF2000 for this, and it did the job very well - with the major drawback that banks on the BCF would only recall themselves to whatever state they were physically set to, regardless of any changes I'd made with the mouse while not 'in' that bank...

For example:

I'd have faders 1-8 on bank one of the BCF, and 9-16 on bank two. Lovely. Let's say I want faders 1-8 at zero, and 9-16 at full (just for example). This I can do happily with the BCF, without ever touching a mouse. However, if I was in bank two (controlling faders 9-16), and I decided to tweak fader 1 on the STM with my mouse, then when I'd flip back to bank one on the BCF, the faders would all jump back to zero, ignoring the change to channel 1 that I'd made with the mouse.

I never got around this (though it may be possible to?), so in the end I got stuck into XTC mode and discovered that Mackie HUI Emulation works an absolute treat in Sonar, and haven't looked back in terms of controller usage (though I still use SFP mode sometimes).

Cheers,

Chris

[edit]

Hopefully this thread will take people's minds off the frankly thankless discussion on summing. (Just no-one mention rounding errors!)

[pollux]

AFAIK, the only mixer in scope that provides feedback for a Mackie control (or a BCF in Mackie emulation mode) is Wolf's mixer, but it's very heavy DSP consumming (like 10 DSPs or more when all midi functions are turned on).

[Tau]

Wolf's mixer works very well with Mackie emulations - been using my SAC with that for a long time now. It's true about the DSP usage, especially when you activate the MIDI feedback - it takes up a lot of resources...

Mackie mode requires a different MIDI channel for each mixer channel, and the STM don't support that. You can use any MIDI controller to set the faders in the STM (though limited to MIDI's 8-bit, 128-step resolution), but it doesn't provide any feedback, so what Chris tells is also true. The only way it's doable is if the number of channels matches the number of faders / knobs on the controller, and you don't use it to control anything else and never use the mouse to change levels - else, when changing banks or so, you'll lose the software/hardware integration and possibly ruin a good mix by having to reset the faders every time you want to tweak the levels a little bit.

That said, the SAC can be used in Mackie mode to control both Wolf's mixer and your sequencer app's as well, courtesy of a small program called SAC route. You press a button on the controller and you can switch between up to 6 different pieces of software, the settings for each being mirrored in the state of the faders instantly.

Just my 2 cents...


T

[nightscope]

Hopefully this thread will take people's minds off the frankly thankless discussion on summing.

Yup.

And focus attention on the woeful state of Scope's automation. Which has to be addressed in V5. Right?

Any bog standard controller will do for Scope mixers. 119 CC's is wot you get and that's about it. Spacef's mixers will handle 2 x 119 CC's via 2 midi channels. Scope's automation presets are riddled with recall bugs. Which has to be fixed soon. Right?

I use Bitstream 3X for Scope. BCF2000 in MCU mode for Samplitude. Und a little Nocturn for VST control in the host. The Nocturn is the dog's danglies, best 60 quid spent in 2008.

ns

[Mike Goodwin]

I have owned my scope system for about a year now but have not gotten so much into mixing with it until now. I have been using it more for synths and basic studio routing. But over the last month I have started working with the 2448 and am digging it very much. I find it very surprising that a system that has obviously put so much into the design of there main mixer has completely left out Mackie Control. I know I have nothing to complain about as many people here have been dealing with this for years. I would hope that version 5 of Scope deals with this as well because it looks like I will be doing many more mixes with the scope environment.

[garyb]

mackie control came out later.

after mackie control came out, there WERE plans to implement it, but then came the first insolvency which eliminated the programmers(who now own the company, hurray!). hopefully, a protocol like that is implemented soon.

that said, i've never really needed full automation like that. a mouse is more than fine for most purposes. it only takes a minute to assign my pc-1600 to a few faders or switches when i'm doing something more complicated that requires several controls to be quickly accessed or several things controlled at the same time...if i had a bigger commercial studio, however, the lack of a complete control surface like mackie control, or similar would be the only reason i might pass on Scope.

[Mike Goodwin]

mackie control came out later.

after mackie control came out, there WERE plans to implement it, but then came the first insolvency which eliminated the programmers(who now own the company, hurray!). hopefully, a protocol like that is implemented soon.

that said, i've never really needed full automation like that. a mouse is more than fine for most purposes. it only takes a minute to assign my pc-1600 to a few faders or switches when i'm doing something more complicated that requires several controls to be quickly accessed or several things controlled at the same time...if i had a bigger commercial studio, however, the lack of a complete control surface like mackie control, or similar would be the only reason i might pass on Scope.

AH! It would make sense that it would not be in there then. I do not use a Mackie control but I do use a Alphatrack from frontier design group constantly. So how do you go about keeping track of all your automations? I have been making separate tracks for them but it is not ideal.

[garyb]

automations?

i'm not sure exactly what you mean.
if you mean mutes and fader changes and such, i usually do that in the sequencer, since the sequencer is so well suited to that. if, for example, i want an aux opened and closed for a reverb of delay effect, i'd use the aux and track automation in cubase and then send the aux into Scope, probably through a Scope or hardware reverb or delay, but mixed in Scope for sure.

if you mean which faders on the controller are controlling what on the Scope mixer, then what i do there is choose what i need to have hands on in the mix and put a strip of tape on the controller, right click on the fader, knob or switch that will be controlled, move the fader on the box, and save the setting. i then write on the tape what the fader on the box controls. i don't need to do this very often.

most mixes are pretty static, and the mouse is handy and most effective. if the mix isn't so static, it's best to edit the object in the arrange window in the sequencer to account for those volume changes, sometimes automation is needed, but usually for volume changes from an inconsistent performance or for a solo, it's best to edit the track or even, in the case of a solo, just add a new track for the solo. for a dubstyle mix, however, i might wish to record a performance involving mutes and volume or aux level changes. for this i'll want a number of things within reach, that can be touched and manipulated at once. still, my pc-1600 is more than enough for this job as i really can't deal with more than about 16 parameters, any more(and 16 is probably too many)and the performance becomes unfocused. it literally takes 5 minutes to set up what i need to set up, once i know what i want to do.

i would LOVE a dedicated hardware controller and indeed, it's really the only thing the Scope platform truly lacks. mackie control, or a similar protocol would be GREAT and would surely fit the bill, but it's more about convienience than the lack of it is crippling. bigger studios would feel much more tempted to buy and Scope would be a serious PT/HD killer(David style) with the implementation of a quality universal control protocol that the controller would know upon connection.

[katano]

well,

the automation stuff is also a problem for me. as i do all the mixing in scope mixers, automation (i.e. channel volume) should be done at the same place in processing, means in scope mixer. if you automate the stuff in your sequencer, you'll loose the ability to use a gate, compressor in scope, because they are volume dependent (i.e. for channel volume).

this is why i try to avoid any automation and keep it simple.

[FrancisHarmany]

I've setup a midi-dashboard inside FLStudio to have easy midi control with feedback.

I use BCR & BCF. The dashboard has 48 faders, 32 for BCR & 16 for BCF. The Dashboard
sliders send out the same midi CC's as the BCR & BCF.

The dashboard-midi signals goto:
- SCOPE
- BCR & BCF

Now, in scope, I use the modular-midi-router (alfonso's I think). The modular-midi-router can
change the input midi channel. I do this to send the midi-dashboard CC's back into FLStudio
on a differnt midi channel. (I hope people can follow this)

Why on a differnt channel ? Because otherwise I get a feedback loop.

Why feed back into FLStudio ? So I can automate the midi-dashboard, and use the CC's that
generates to automate other stuff inside FLSTUDIO.

But it works. If I do automation on this midi-dashboard I can record it. I can use the signal
on midi channel 1 inside SCOPE, and on midi channel 2 inside FLSTUDIO. With feedback!!
Its, perhaps, an ugly workaround. But it works for me! And the feedback is really cool

Sooooo when I load FLSTUDIO project, the midi-dashboard sends out all its values! This makes
the BCF & BCR & SCOPE & FLSTUDIO knobs jump into place.

Perhaps a little vague this post. Hope it comes across.

EDIT: I just added the MB4-II mixer into the mix. I route midi out of this mixer to
FLStudio as well. The mixer uses midi channel 1 for surface control. Now if I move
a slider on the MB4-II mixer this is what happens:
mb4 sends midi to -> flstudio, flstudio dashboard receives new value and sends it to -> the bcr&bcf.

So now I can:
- move fader in flstudio; mixer slider moves, hardware slider moves
- move fader on hardware; dashboard slider moves, mixer slider moves
- move fader on mixer; dashboard slider moves, hardware slider moves

Its pretty cool, brand new, way of controlling scope for me
(and I have yet to add all the bcr&bcf push buttons to this setup! 32 more controllers!)

I don't know how this will work out. But I am glad this post inspired me to finish this

[nightscope]

i would LOVE a dedicated hardware controller and indeed, it's really the only thing the Scope platform truly lacks.

I have convinced myself, perhaps wrongly, that one of the primary reasons for the delay of V5/Xite is the SC guys are cramming in a comprehensive automation package. Wishful thinking maybe.

But I simply don't see how SC could leave things the way they are at present. That is in the Cro-Magnum era. I'm kinda fond of the old 119 cc's method but it's a bit like flying a Swordfish into battle when the bandits have all got F-16's.



I can't see a flagship product coming out aimed at the pro/semi pro market without decent controller support. The suspense is killin' me.

Anyway, the day V5 comes out the fibre optics to this site will be smokin'.

ns

[dawman]

The Swordfish and Mosquito are perfect comparisons for Scope cards.
Old and very powerful for their day.
I think you're right about all of the hu-bub also.
As much as I like the idea of a BCF, and BCR being used, something more classic w/ meters would be really sweet.
I already know how powerful of an FOH/Monitor app. for live work Scope can be, and I am using cheapo plastic keyboards and devices that are purposely large for the sake of looking from a few feet away.
XITE-1 could easily be used as a live application, and a hardware surface would be awesome.
The beauty about that is that it could be used in Project studios, live, conventions, etc.
I am expecting a Chinese manufacturer to jump on this as their economy seems to be faring very well in the manufacturing sector, and let's face it, they have the cheapest labor on the planet. I have heard that they have taken the prison for profit idea that the US does by leasing out their prisoners for certain duties. Not to get off of topic too badly, but many of our Forest fires and levees are put out and re-enforced by hard working felons.

We shall see in 8 days at the NAMM show what's up.
I think we are all going to be very happy.
If not one could always take a gun and go into the next room and do the right thing.

[nightscope]

one could always take a gun and go into the next room and do the right thing.

Worse case scenario,

Planet Z members at 2009 NAMM dinner,

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uHo8kqdRp ... re=related

ns

[Mike Goodwin]

automations?
most mixes are pretty static, and the mouse is handy and most effective. if the mix isn't so static, it's best to edit the object in the arrange window in the sequencer to account for those volume changes, sometimes automation is needed, but usually for volume changes from an inconsistent performance or for a solo, it's best to edit the track or even, in the case of a solo, just add a new track for the solo. for a dubstyle mix, however, i might wish to record a performance involving mutes and volume or aux level changes. for this i'll want a number of things within reach, that can be touched and manipulated at once. still, my pc-1600 is more than enough for this job as i really can't deal with more than about 16 parameters, any more(and 16 is probably too many)and the performance becomes unfocused. it literally takes 5 minutes to set up what i need to set up, once i know what i want to do

My mixes are not static at all. The mix I am finishing right now has about thirty lanes of automation. Now don't get me wrong about half of that is for instruments but lets say about half are mixer changes. I produce electronic music and if the mix is not changing all the time people walk right off the dance floor I could never automate it all in one pass though! It is days of work to get just right. Gone are the days of myself and a partner running around behind a desk doing take after take for hours. Do not get me wrong that was a lot of fun but the result was not, and could never be as slick.

[garyb]

you can easily assign enough controller to do your mix and set up the assignments as a preset. if you record the midi stream to your sequencer, it will be automated.

[dawman]

Trying to stay on topic, but slightly to the left.

MikeG.

You should check this hardware unit out in case you are looking for something that is hard to come by. I used one for a couple years as a Lighting controller, note on/phrase sequencer, and TR808 / D50 emulator w/ 8 real time faders.
I'm sure you already have a comfortable set-up, but back in the early 90's this a DJ's dream.
It appears as though the extra percussion and Rhythm card is available, but seperate.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Roland-MV30-Studio- ... 7C294%3A50

Meanwhile back at the Ranch........

A nice surface.

Xie Xie.

[winger]

I use an old Yamaha promix-01. I use 2 of them and works well. I wish the 2448 could handle more that 1 midi channel so I could control more that 128 controls. Does anyone know of a way to control more?

[FrancisHarmany]

I use an old Yamaha promix-01. I use 2 of them and works well. I wish the 2448 could handle more that 1 midi channel so I could control more that 128 controls. Does anyone know of a way to control more?

I'm hoping Sonic Core Platform 5 will help with that

[Jah Servant]

well,

the automation stuff is also a problem for me. as i do all the mixing in scope mixers, automation (i.e. channel volume) should be done at the same place in processing, means in scope mixer. if you automate the stuff in your sequencer, you'll loose the ability to use a gate, compressor in scope, because they are volume dependent (i.e. for channel volume).

this is why i try to avoid any automation and keep it simple.

I agree, but I don't avoid automation, it's easy enough to send midi out from scope into cubase and record any channel changes, I have done dub mixes mostly in scope this way, also some mostly in cubase, and some mixed, just depends on what I want. It works great, sometimes I just open my scope midi track in cubase and manually draw in volume changes or effects sends on/off or whatever.