Bc2000 (for the BCF2000 & BCR2000)

Hi !

Here is a list of the possible improvements that I sent to their dev team. 
Lots of them are for Cubase, but could be extended to other apps, of course 
;o)

I am sure it would not take that long to implement.

***************************************************
29/07/05

Hello david !

Hoping you're well

I guess the programmers at Behringer could have a look in there
http://www.frontierdesign.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=128 for information.

Can BCF users expect such a support ? Steinberg's support for Mackie control
is not the best, so I guess everyone is waiting for this "plugin" from you.

Cheers.
J\ufffdr\ufffdme.
******************************************************
05/05/05
Hello David !

Happy to see that there is some movement on the website with new drivers and
new OS for the BCF/BCR.

I have a little question/suggestion about the Mackie Emulation mode for the
BCF (the current emulation as it is) :

When you disable the motorfaders, the non-motorized mode is "move" mode,
that is to say that when you move the fader, there is a jump on the virtual
fader going directly onto the hardware fader's value. In the BCF native
mode, there are three modes : motorized, move (the jump mode) and pick up.
The pick up mode is very handy because the virtual fader will not move until
the real fader reaches its current value.

Do you think it would be possible to modify the Mackie emulation mode (and
also the other modes, actually) so that when you disable the motors, the
default non-motorized mode is "pick up" and not "move". It is VERY important
when you want to modify an already existing automation. It is not possible
to do it with the motors on, because there are no touch sensors, and once
the motors are inactive, if the default mode is "move", modifying an
automation is very difficult.

Could you please transmit this to your R and D, as being top priority for
future enhancements ?

This had not bothered me that much until I started to mix tunes, and it
became very obvious then, and we got some messages from users having
difficulties to modify their automations. I then thought about that

Thank you very much.

J\ufffdr\ufffdme.
********************************************************
11/05/05
Hello David !

The remote control SDK from Behringer is released and available for remote
manufacturers. I guess this is the oportunity to implement a native support
for the BCF 2000 in Cubase, the way it is in Reason 3 (the support is
smashing).

I think this is very big news, indeed !

Please have a look at this thread that I initiated, and at the answer from
Christian Dettner (from Steinberg).
http://forum.cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=111676#111676

Apparently, Behringer just have to ask for it directly from Steinberg.

Thank you very much for giving some of your time.

Regards.
J\ufffdr\ufffdme.
************************************************************
12/04/05
Hello David !

After a few more months using the BCF 2000 in Mackie mode with Cubase SX (2
and 3) and also after gathering information and wishes from users here in
France and on forums, here is a list of improvements that Behringer "should"
bring to the BCF 2000

-------------------------------------- 
1) about the BCFView utility :

- possibility to resize it
- possibility to change colours
- indication of the hardware lane numbers (1 to 8) below track names
appearing in the BCFViewer. Here's an example :

Track Names : Guitar Bass Violin Saxo Piano Harmon Drum Singer
Lane Names :     1        2       3        4       5        6          7 
8

[this has been modified by myself, now it is implemented]

- status LEDs for Solo, Mute and Record, appearing next to the lane number
(red S, yellow M, red R)
- indication of Flip mode
- indication of Motor off

Basically, what users want would look like what is available there (but only
for Mac and not free of charge) http://www.opuslocus.com/lcxview/
I guess the BCFView utility can be somewhat modified to feature the same
things and maybe more.

Also, we NEED a Name/Value switching mode (available from a button on the
BCF. To me, this is a vital feature !

--------------------------------------------------- 
2) on the BCF itself :

- remove the Revert function because it does not work with Cubase (it does
not have any effect......it is exactly the same with the real Mackie
controler, so it is a Cubase problem).
- remove the Sendfx (global) mode, because it is useless with SX 2 onwards
(and would not be of any use with Cubase VST or SX 1 as they do not support
Mackie control). there is no more VSt FX rack, replaced by FX tracks, 
working like any other track.
- assign the removed functions to more useful functions of Cubase SX, such
as :

* NAME/VALUE* button allowing to switch from parameter names to parameter
values in the LCD display.

- I found out that when you push the encoders or the buttons, they simply
send Note On messages ranging from 0 to 69.
The encoders, when pushed, send Note On messages from 32 to 39, BUT, as
opposed to the 1 lane buttons, the Shift layers have no effect on them. The
encoders always send these messages, BUT according to the mode you are
using, it seems that Cubase receives different orders. In PAN mode, it
receives the Monitor On command, IN EQ mode it receives EQ general bypass,
in Track Send mode it receives Send FX general bypass. But, in INSERT mode,
it receives nothing.

So, for the encoders, here's what could (and "should") be done :

The shift layers should have an effect so that they can send Note On
messages from 70 to 77 (first Shift layer) and from 78 to 85 (second Shift
layer).

Why ? I discovered that it is possible to use the Generic Remote scripts in
Cubase SX at the same time as the Mackie scripts, so that we can assign
these messages to other functions (like the opening/closing of FX windows) !
It is completely independent from the Mackie protocol

ONLY ONE PROBLEM : the "no-shift" layer always corresponds to Note ON from
32 to 39. Once you have created a Generic Remote script where you have
assigned the encoders (three layers), if you go to another mode (PAN for
instance), the encoders have two functions : the Mackie one + the one you
have set in the GR. There must be a solution to this problem, for sure,
because I can't find how going into another mode changes the behaviour of
Cubase whereas it receives the same message !

- use the unassigned buttons. Some buttons have never been assigned to
anything, that's a pity, really. We could have a Solo Defeat button, for
instance.

------------------------------------------------------ 
3) Master Mode :

Users (and I) are asking for the following feature : when you go to MASTER
mode, the last Fader should be automatically assigned to the Master fader.
Even better, the faders should be automatically assigned to the available
Output Busses created in Cubase (with a maximum of 8, of course). Killer for
multichannel mixing !

------------------------------------------------------------- 
I sincerely hope this will be taken into account by your R and D department.
I think these devices are realy good, but the development seems to have been
completely stopped since December. A lot of things can be improved on the
side of the devices, for sure.

Please, send this to your R and D dept, will you ? If they need any
feedback or explanation for anything, please do not hesitate to give them my
e-mail address.

Thank you very much.

regards.
J\ufffdr\ufffdme.
****************************************************************

Cheers.
J\ufffdr\ufffdme.
http://www.espace-cubase.org

mczyzynski <mczyzynski@...> a \ufffdcrit:

> Well you may be right, but...
>
> Like any firm they have clearly re-couped their cost of R&D, PR etc
> etc manyfold, so Behringer will be reluctant to develop this further
> as they will want to commit their resources to new products.
>
> Lobbying them is all well and good, but they have a history of
> producing cheap and cheerful products that are poorly supported.
>
> I had exactly the same issue when my MX8000A broke down, no support
> in the UK and the only thing I could do was to get the mixer back to
> Behringer in Germany for repair.
>
> Needless to say I didn't bother and eventually found someone in the
> UK who was able to fix it.
>
> Unlike NI, who when I managed to snap a knob off my Kore, were more
> than happy to send me a replacement part FOC!
>
> It may be better to request that behringer update the BCF/BCR series
> by perhaps adding an LCD, master fader, better transport controls etc
>
> it would clearly increase the cost of the product, but prolly not by
> much, atleast it would still be cheaper than a Mackie Control Pro or
> similar.