Bc2000 (for the BCF2000 & BCR2000)

Hi  Mark !

>> Just discovered the group and I saw that there are drivers available
>> in the files area of the group. These drivers were obviously
>> programmed by someone from here because the version is 1.2.xx and
>> the "official" drivers from Behringer are 1.1.1.1.
>
> I may be wrong, but my understanding is that 1.2.1.3 was indeed
> programmed by Behringer themselves. My guess is that the reason why
> they haven't published it on their website is that 1.2.1.3 is even
> more buggy than 1.1.1.1: at least I ALWAYS have to rerun 1.2.1.3's
> bcr2000-driver-setup.exe after switching on my BCR via the USB
> connection. (Do other people have the same problem?)

So, it would be a leaked driver version ? I installed it and apparently I 
don't get this problem. I did not see any improvement nor decrease in perf. 
If any problem, I'll reverse to 1.1.1.1

>> Also, is there anyone here that would be able to modify the BCF2000
>> firmware according to suggestions ? I guess this would need
>> reverse-engineering, but, some time ago, I used to be in close touch
>> with Behringer dev depatment. I sent them numerous improvement
>> suggestions that were never implemented (especially into the Mackie
>> for Cubase emulation).
>
> As Royce has pointed out in this group, the BC firmware is buggy in
> that it sends a few BCL messages (embedded in SysEx messages) back
> incorrectly (concerning the ".tx" statements). And while developing my
> upcoming BC editor, I've found a few more bugs in the same vein. It
> would be great if these bugs could be fixed.
>
> So, on the assumption (alas a pretty safe one...) that Behringer are
> unwilling to upgrade the firmware, I've been trying to decrypt the
> firmware (i.e. the SysEx messages for vs. 1.07 and 1.10 for both the
> BCF and the BCR). I've come a long way in that, but I haven't cracked
> it completely yet, though. But of course after decryption of the
> data, we'd face the probably even more daunting task of the actual
> reverse engineering.
>
> I don't know, but maybe there are some parallels between the codes
> used in the FCB1010 and the BCs? (Royce mentions that Behringer
> "leaked" certain hardware details of the FCB1010, so it might help if
> we could lay our hands on that information, and on the reverse
> engineering done by the people who wrote the alternative firmware for
> the FCB1010.)
>
> In any case: given time and interest, I might indeed be willing to
> contribute to a reverse-engineering effort.

I can't program, but if there is some testing to do, I'll be happy to help 
as high as my knowledge allows.

Cheers.
J\ufffdr\ufffdme.