Bc2000 (for the BCF2000 & BCR2000)

--- In bc2000@yahoogroups.com, "beulahvintage" <cowtowne@...> wrote:
> is the BCR2000 better for live-tweaking of the Volume/EQ parameters?

> Maybe the tutorial items at youtube.com make it look more complex than 
> it is. And now i have a BCF2000 box still unopened..
> 
> SHOULD I GET THE BCR2000 INSTEAD?
> 
> i would like to make a simple live mix from two CD's with just 4 
> tracks/channels, and apply some parametric EQ, and echo. During a 
> playback of the song, i would like to push some modifications onto it by 
> tweaking some of the midi levels (such as volume, L/R panning, echo).
> 
> it sounds like the motor-faders on the BCF will resist being modified 
> during playback.
> Does that mean each take is starting from scratch?

I see no reason to prefer the BCR in this respect.

I've just tried to perform your tweaking procedure in Sonar X1 with the BCF in Mackie mode ("McSo" to be precise).
Basically, it worked:

The BCF's faders themselves don't resist being modified during playback of previously recorded automation data - and Sonar applies your movements correctly, and doesn't try to immediately pull the fader back again.

However, at each control change in the pre-recorded automation data, Sonar (naturally) instructs the fader to go to the recorded position.
So if you try to move a fader manually at such a moment, the fader does "resist".
This is always a problem in playing and recording automation data simultaneously.

The BCF and BCR's encoders (rotational knobs) aren't really better than the BCF's faders in this respect:
Whereas the encoders don't physically resist during a conflict, their internal values still jump to any pre-recorded values, and (unlike in the case of the faders) this happens "behind your back", so in a sense this may be even worse, because it's confusing.

Hope this helps,
Mark.