PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

I have been reading about this with great interest lately.

I absolutely hate the GUI's on all of these sequencer apps. but realise that this was a logical approach.

Mackie control seems to allow one to select the features needed and put them on a surface which is perfect for me. The whole thing about pulling off control live is great w/ USB controllers and keyboards, but I wish to start recording w/ Cubase and mastering w/ Scope. I have some serious recording tools and need to get Cubase 4.0 working. This will help me become interested.

So if I use Wolf's mixer and this new Mackie surface, will I see the channels names as described on his mixer, appear on the controls as well? For Example Pro-Wave, B2003, and all proper names of ASIO 2 modules outputs.

Sorry I am so lame in understanding these tools, but it looks as though the Production Company will be springing for the cost of this, so if I like the way it works, I can buy my own later.

Also, since 8 channels is the basic starter kit, why would one need more channels if you could dump 8 tracks at a time, and bounce them to say a drum / percussion recording of 8 tracks bounced down to one stereo track, and then add those as groups when doing the master? I don't see the reason for having to have more than the basic unit, and one additional 8 track extension at most. Are there advantages that I am unaware of by having say 24 or 32 channels? It is digital afterall, I do understand this wouldn't apply to multi-track tape.

Any explanations will be appreciated.

So if I use Wolf's mixer and this new Mackie surface, will I see the channels names as described on his mixer, appear on the controls as well? For Example Pro-Wave, B2003, and all proper names of ASIO 2 modules outputs.

Unfortunately not, these LCDs are driven by SysEx and Scope can't do SysEx.

Are there advantages that I am unaware of by having say 24 or 32 channels?

- more controls at once and therefor less need to switch banks
- impressing the customer (the disco mode is fun)
- if your chair has rolls, it's fun to slide along and occasionally hit some button
- replacement unit for the P+G faders (they are not the best)

My Mackie Extender is sitting in a corner though ...

cheers,
Wolfgang

I already can do many things w/ my KS88's, but they are mapped for the AUX's of the mixer, and synth amd effects parameters on the other.

The 16 faders are useful as a manual over ride of a scene or mix, and the foot pedals are just the icing on the cake.

I could see the use of one of these, especially since I have stickers all over my KS88's and do not wish to re map them.

But what's the big deal w/ the Mackie thing. Why is it such a popular protocol?

Workflow must be the answer, as I hate using a mouse and never use it much once my DAWg's are started.

I suppose my Doepfer Pocket Fader could do the same thing.

So my spare could be mapped out for Cubase just like Scope probably. Does Cubase allow easy editing like Scope does with the right click ?

I guess these are just uneeded then. Makes me wonder why Allen & Heath would go to the trouble of making the iLive at all.

I need something that's for sure. Maybe I can just re map my spare 88 for recording. It seems to be very Scope friendly, but I have yet to use it with Cubase 4.

worth mentionning to all bcr users
http://www.lexplastics.co.uk/index.html

even wothier, price is written 99 but it is in fact 19£.

the plastic is good quality, solid and flexible at the same time. much better than paper or post-its (it won't break or transform into dust as easily).

That sure looks easier than the barbaric way I have been doing it.

What's the big difference between Mackie control and plain old MIDI anyway.

I have heard something about workflow is easier, and Mackie resets via Sys Ex.

What say you Brotha' Man Mehdi?

Sharc has made something to make working w/ the BCR's easier also.

I do not wish to stir up any trouble on which is betterm just easier for a dumb ass like me that hates the GUI's on the sequencer apps.

Sure it beats the miniature LCD;'s on my hardware sequencers but DAMN, there's too many pages. Nothing simple about it at all.

scope4live wrote: What's the big difference between Mackie control and plain old MIDI anyway.

I have heard something about workflow is easier, and Mackie resets via Sys Ex.

What say you Brotha' Man Mehdi?

I say that the only thing that is missing on the BCR are the LCDs to put a name for the control.
I do not know the mackie but I personally need the usb midi + midi interface + 2 midi out channels
I've heard that some people have a hard time making it work without logic switched on, but i do not know, may be this depends on the version of the mackie control (i think there is one which is more universal but i don't know in fact - ome people told me the contrary but i am not sure they really know what they are using).

If I had to get a second surface control, it would either be a behringer or a bitstream (to change a bit). Not only a matter of price, but features. But again, i haven't tried the mackie. But in fact it would probably be something that does not exist yet...

I think the BCR's look to be a better solution.

If Scope can't do Sys Ex, I just don't see the need for it, especially if I am recording into Cubase, just to send back to Scope for mastering.

I am sold on the plastic overlays.

If LCD's are the only advantage, it seems like a big waste of cash just to have little LCD's w/ juxtaposed names on them.

Besides w/ the BC's you could have a 16 channel layout, and a knob extender for little cash out of pocket.

I still think I could do this w/ the KS88's. Maybe I could invent some plastic overlay's for those. You really wouldn't have to remove the knobs the way I do either.

yes the behringer has an "ear" on the logo. so it certainly sounds better. sound is a crucial factor for a midi controller....
(but both brands have a "dot "after the text, meaning that both are web 2.0 ready which is important nowadays.... to control cubase on your iphone ... )
Addiitonally, on behringer's, it is explicitely written that you just have to listen, whereas the mackie is suspiciously silent on the matter: you probably have to do much more than just listen... bad workflow

Further investigation is needed.

I think I might even check into custom overlays for the KS88's. I could use these effortlessly. I only need one for my live work per keyboard. I am pursuing this avenue. Motorised faders are a pain anyway. All show. I mean back in 1985 when I had my first automated rig running on a DMP7, it was awesome to see, but since it was rack mounted vertically, the strain after constant use made them slow down, and eventually stop working. Yeah, fuck this crap. I already have several controllers. I am going to make custom overlays instead of using

The Librarian holds 100's of recallable performances, and the 88 itself has 8. I just create and use the controllers on the fly, just 1 performance per gig.

It seems so simple also, you are already playing the keyboard when recording, why not have the controls right there?

I have contacted the above plastic overlay company and sent them the specs, and pics for the KS88's in hopes of having them build a similar design for theKS88's. They are cheap, and in abundance worldwide.

My Fingers Are Crossed.

But what's the big deal w/ the Mackie thing. Why is it such a popular protocol?

It's free (open source) & easy to implement for software & hardware devs. Even more it uses midi and not a proprietary format, making it physically compatible to any midi capable hardware/software out there (unlike USB). Add to that it's a lot of effort for each software dev to implement a new protocol for each new controler, which uses a proprietary protocol. This need is removed, when it comes with MC support.
Also these are big advantages for the end user as he's not restricted in his decisions (what is compatible with what).
Mackie is not the inventor of this protocol, btw.

I suppose my Doepfer Pocket Fader could do the same thing.

yes. It has no controler buttons though

stardust wrote:

spacef wrote:yes the behringer has an "ear" on the logo. so it certainly sounds better. sound is a crucial factor for a midi controller....
(but both brands have a "dot "after the text, meaning that both are web 2.0 ready which is important nowadays.... to control cubase on your iphone ... )
Addiitonally, on behringer's, it is explicitely written that you just have to listen, whereas the mackie is suspiciously silent on the matter: you probably have to do much more than just listen... bad workflow

haha .. great .. indeed !

The BCR plastics guy was kind enough to show me where to go to get my own overlays done for the 88's.

Just bought a SAC 2.2 on ebay.

Olive pointed it out to me, so I bid on it. It was in the wrong category, so I stole it for 270 USD shipped.

Looks like I have a nice toy to use w/ your mixer Wolf.

Was this a sore dick deal?

scope4live wrote:Was this a sore dick deal?

Indeed!! Very.

SAC-2.2 suggested retail price 1849.- $



ns

You're kidding me.

It has no sounds, and is plastic ??


Oh well. One's trash is another one's treasure, or he's a drug dealer selling hot gear from one of his junkies.

scope4live wrote:It has no sounds, and is plastic ??

http://www.radikaltechnologies.com/Prod ... 2_2_0.html

Turnkey in Londres sell 'em for 600 quid real money, new. That's $1200 pretend money. So you got approx $1000 to spend on getting a real sore dick.

Expansion = http://www.radikaltechnologies.com/Prod ... ac-8x.html

ns

scope4live wrote:he's a drug dealer selling hot gear from one of his junkies.

Did yah get his number?!!

ns

Yeah.

I told him to stick a couple of grams inside for a sample.