Tactile control Apreciation/Opinions please.

[Liquid EDGE]

Finally got the new studio up and it's great fun making music again.

Got the stienberg cc121 to help with controlling cubase.

and i really must say it is a great help to just getting on with making music, you feel more free and in control than with just using a mouse (ofcourse everything can be done with a mouse) it really has made creating tunes with cubase much more of a joy, for me anyhows.

Because of this i wish to expand that tactile control to the Xite-1 Sonic | Core Scope system i have, mainly the including high quality mixers, which cubase gets routed through.



Basically want to control 24 channels with a fader or faders.
Now the conclusion seem's to be the BCF2000 by behringer(which has 8 motorized faders), It costs about £150. but i'm so suspect of it's quality and indurence, but at the same time can't strectch to something like the Mackie control. Also, all thats wanted is faders and pan pots and mute and solo buttons, don't need a master section. Was thinking about a couple of the 1fader boxes (one in perticular is the one made by frontier) but am not sure if it will do what i want to do (flick it through 24 channels), plus don't need the master section on them.




Any opinions on controllers? are behringer really that bad when it comes to durability?

anybody used one?

[dawman]

Well if you want to read up on the success of the Behringers.
Start with the SpaceF mixers that have already made templates.
http://www.spacef-devices.com/index.php?
option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=3&task=view.download&catid=7&cid=26
This is just an example that shows how he has supported the Behringer line for a long time. THis mixer is from way back when.
Then in case you want to delve into Modular synthesis to create effects, mixers or synths look at BC Modular.
http://forums.planetz.com/viewtopic.php ... 48&start=0

[Neutron]

I just looked that thing up, (cc121) very nice for cubase users, but seems a bit expensive. maybe they should do a bundle with cubase.

as for the behringer i have been using the BCF and BCR with scope for ages, BCF is great for mixers, and BCR for synths and effects. I got the bcf used on ebay for $100 or something and i had to do software update. one thing about that is i had to roll back my version of java to get it to communicate properly, i dont know if they fixed that yet. all in all the software side of things is pretty crappy, i just use them as hardware.

and if it breaks i have some LED rings which would cost more than $100 to buy anyways

[Liquid EDGE]

Thanks for the replies.

@ Nuetron - With one bcf2000 attached to the stm2448. Can it be set up to control all of the channels, and when switching banks on the bcf2000, (ch1-8) (ch9-16) (ch17-24) Do the Faders move into place matching where they actually are on the stm2448?

[Neutron]

I never actually used it that way, I used it in mackie mode with cubase, and use a MIDI track which sent CC mixer levels data on to scope,

things may be different with xite now, once everything is working again i will try it. (had to almost completely change everything taking out scope computer/cards and putting the xite in, and its nowhere near finished)

[valis]

I have a bcf2000, I bought it because it was cheap and I expected to use it for a summer's worth of gigs & drop it. I've still got it and it's holding up fine (1-2 dodgy buttons I have to mash on at times but it's been to the desert and had stuff spilled on it...)

[dante]

Liquid, this is precisely why I got the BCR2000 instead of the BCF2000... The BCR has exactly 24 main knobs ( 3 rows of 8 ), so none of this section switching required. And the 24 x knob LED positions always match the STM fader positions as when the Scope project loads the STM, it also sends all the knob positions to the BCR. Then if I move knob on BCR, the STM fader moves with it and vice versa. Then I use the other top row of knobs for foldback, main bus output level etc etc. But there are some bus levels on the STM which cant be mapped to MIDI which is why others look to the SpaceF mixers....

Either way 24 knobs beat 8 faders I reckon....and with the rotaty LED's you dont need to worry about mechanical motor failure/maintenance....and therefore probably even survive the desert gigs and liquid sessions...

[Liquid EDGE]

Liquid, this is precisely why I got the BCR2000 instead of the BCF2000... The BCR has exactly 24 main knobs ( 3 rows of 8 ), so none of this section switching required. And the 24 x knob LED positions always match the STM fader positions as when the Scope project loads the STM, it also sends all the knob positions to the BCR. Then if I move knob on BCR, the STM fader moves with it and vice versa. Then I use the other top row of knobs for foldback, main bus output level etc etc. But there are some bus levels on the STM which cant be mapped to MIDI which is why others look to the SpaceF mixers....

Either way 24 knobs beat 8 faders I reckon....and with the rotaty LED's you dont need to worry about mechanical motor failure/maintenance....and therefore probably even survive the desert gigs and liquid sessions...

That is food for thought actually, probably the best input i've had from someone, thanks for the opinion. Practically i suppose it's the best answer, it's just that motorized faders are and would be cool. It's either that or 3 bcf2000's.

[dante]

I know what you mean. I hesitated at the fact that they were knobs and not faders. Faders are a more graphical like representation of the relative levels until I realised :

1) The rotating LED's are quite good.
2) The fact is you already have that graphical representation on your screen anyway with the STM, so why need it duplicated when a second or third monitor is cheaper than an extra 16 motorized faders. All 24 STM channels PLUS the master section fit nicely across my main 21 inch ( or thereabouts ) monitor and Cubase sits on the other.

The Downside. Having to print damn templates for the knobs. So far Ive been too lazy but I gotta get round to that. Ultimately there would be small programmable alphanumeric LED's ( 5 characters would do ) below each knob.....now THAT would be cool...

[nightscope]

The BCF handles bank switching with the Scope mixers. The BCF faders, pots and buttons syncronize with the bank switch. Scope midi pres contain 120 CC's each. 24 channels = 3 x BCF presets, switchable with the BCF arrows. Each BCF preset might contain 8 X faders, 8 X pans, 8 X mutes, 8 X solos, 8 X aux sends. Or not. Advantage of the BCF over the BCR is faders is faders, pans is pans and mutes is mutes. Simples.

The BCF also works very well with Cubase as it has it's own dedicated built in Cubase MCU mode. Plug it in and it's automatically mapped to almost all Cubase's controls and ready to romp. Faders, pots, transport, EQ, inserts, sends, automation, VST's et al. On screen bcfview.exe gives display of any currently selected control parameters so you ain't wondering where you are and what the BCF is currently controlling.

I've had a BCF for longer than I can remember, six, seven years, maybe longer. Cost about 70 quid. Everything still working fine including the faders.

ns

[dante]

Makes me want to get a BCF as well now, the BCR for STM and the BCF for Cubase. Unfortunately, I dont really have the space...

[Liquid EDGE]

The BCF handles bank switching with the Scope mixers. The BCF faders, pots and buttons syncronize with the bank switch. Scope midi pres contain 120 CC's each. 24 channels = 3 x BCF presets, switchable with the BCF arrows. Each BCF preset might contain 8 X faders, 8 X pans, 8 X mutes, 8 X solos, 8 X aux sends. Or not. Advantage of the BCF over the BCR is faders is faders, pans is pans and mutes is mutes. Simples.

The BCF also works very well with Cubase as it has it's own dedicated built in Cubase MCU mode. Plug it in and it's automatically mapped to almost all Cubase's controls and ready to romp. Faders, pots, transport, EQ, inserts, sends, automation, VST's et al. On screen bcfview.exe gives display of any currently selected control parameters so you ain't wondering where you are and what the BCF is currently controlling.

I've had a BCF for longer than I can remember, six, seven years, maybe longer. Cost about 70 quid. Everything still working fine including the faders.

ns

when you say handles bank switching with the stm you do just mean switching banks on the bcf2000 and faders etc move into place to match the stm. or do you mean bank switching is done from the stm?

[Liquid EDGE]

.

[valis]

The BCF faders always remember your previous position for them even after the unit has been powered off (and the fader potentially moved while off etc.) This applies across banks as well.

So if you use a given preset ONLY for a given project's worth assignments, or a few presets for a given project etc things should always correlate. In fact you can also dump the fader positions for a preset into your sequencer preroll/postroll quite easily and have them sent to both the BCF & Scope on restart of a project.

Personally I actually have my BCF because I saw it as a bridge to other gear that I have gotten later. I do actually use it mostly for Scope these days, but I map things manually via Logic (or Max4Live) so that my controls go where I want. I tend to stick to just 1 'page' because I try to have my inconsequential automation moves written to the DAW leaving only a few expressive things 'live'. This isn't exactly the same as using it for mixing purposes but I see no reason it can't work for that just fine, even without HUI/Mackie/LC modes.

For a dedicated/specific setup for Scope mixing I would perhaps look at some of the mixers that Jimmy has touted over the years and get someone to help me build a ucaaps/midibox based rig.

[dante]

To me a bank switch would imply a double action (whether from STM or BCF). EG if my faders are currently controlling channels 1 - 8 but I wanted to change the level on channel 9, I would have to press a button on the BCF ( or STM ) to change the faders to control channels 9 - 16, then move the fader.

With the BCR this is a single action, rotate knob 9 without having to be aware of what 'bank' you were in before.

[valis]

I was simply pointing out that the faders method doesn't get 'desynchronized' with your project unless you start using the same BCF preset on another project or while your project is closed & the BCF on etc...

However I don't disagree with you, I use my BCF for a few fixed functions and don't really bother to change pages here, but I don't care much for using it as a Mackie/Logic controller and I have plenty of hardware controls at my fingertips these days.

[dante]

Yep, sure Valis get your point.

Liquid, see here also SpaceF doing some great development for the BCR / BCF, being able to map them to 128 'L Channels' .. if you have 8 faders you can transmit them on 16 MIDI channels ( 8 x 16 = 128 ) ...haven't quite got my head round it but shows life for the BCR/BCF beyond STM....

http://forums.planetz.com/viewtopic.php ... 32#p267632

[nightscope]

I use the SpaceF mixers. They can handle twice as many CC's as the Scopers. One lot for the desk controls and one for inserts.

Then there's this, 16 I/O ADAT channels. Seriously tempting.





ns

[garyb]

big tactile controllers are cool, but not very necessary. in fact, there are few situations where such a controller will even speed workflow....where they're needed, they're needed of course...

[nightscope]

big tactile controllers are cool, but not very necessary. in fact, there are few situations where such a controller will even speed workflow....where they're needed, they're needed of course...

I disagree, gazza, with the customary respect. If you want to get yer face out of a flamin' LCD for as long as is humanely possible then they are mandatory. If you want to limit RSI and chair rot as much as possible they are more than just cool. If you want easy and permanent connections to your outboard they are extremely handy. If you want to get out of the seat and mix standing up, with yer eyes closed whistlin' Dixie they ain't half bad. If you want to get an instant and complete overview of your channel eq's without opening a plethora of windows in a blizzard of clicks and mouse eek's and x's there's nothing better. If you prefer turning many knobs and shifting multiple faders at once....etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, yawn, yawn.

Of course nothing is absolutely neccessary to get something done. Main problem with me is I'm weary of clicking and clacking around. I been using computers since freakin' punchcards and now want me knobs back again with as little peering at a screen and huntin' around as is possible.

The A&H R16, and the yet to be released R24, look like they are made for Sonic Core products with the ADAT I/O's. Firewire, meh, who knows. Might even work!!

Anyway, just lookin', nothing wrong with that.

ns