Bc2000 (for the BCF2000 & BCR2000)

>
> Google sent me here
> 
> http://www.knutsel.org/2010/09/14/behringer-bcr2000-2/
> 
> This guy seems to know his stuff... further down the page he recommends
> either mouser.com or maybe see if you can get hold of a broken BCR2000 for
> replacement parts.
> 
> Good luck, that sounds like a nasty injury :(
> 
> ~~~
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:36 AM, atmosfere_sonore <Andrea.Toni@...>wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > unfortunately yesterday my bcr2000 fell against a rack and
> > i have now the top right 3 encoders broken
> >
> > Anybody knows the exact type , so that i can buy
> > and fix them.
> >
> > I guess there are 2 types with click (the top row)
> > and without click (the lower 3 rows)
> >
> > Tnx in advance
> > Andrea
> >
> >  
> >
>

>
> From the thread in the DJ Techtools forum
> <http://forum.djtechtools.com/showthread.php?t=19052>  I guess it's the
> Alps EC12E24204A9 (for the normal, non-push encoders); I'm planning to
> do some repair work on my BCR2000 as well, since one encoder is much
> more wobbly than the rest, but I haven't opened the case yet. Please let
> us know what you found.
>   <asd>
> Cheers,
> 
> l00p
>

>
> 
> Tnx u 
> 
> unfortunately the 3 broken ones are all on the top row so they are with the push, for the time being i bought a second unit  
> but i still plan to fix the broken one 
> i will let u know when i open the thing 
> 
> Andrea
> 
>  
> --- In bc2000@yahoogroups.com, "gruethel00p" <gruethel00p@> wrote:
> >
> > From the thread in the DJ Techtools forum
> > <http://forum.djtechtools.com/showthread.php?t=19052>  I guess it's the
> > Alps EC12E24204A9 (for the normal, non-push encoders); I'm planning to
> > do some repair work on my BCR2000 as well, since one encoder is much
> > more wobbly than the rest, but I haven't opened the case yet. Please let
> > us know what you found.
> >   <asd>
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > l00p
> >
>

>
> 
> Tnx u 
> 
> unfortunately the 3 broken ones are all on the top row so they are with the push, for the time being i bought a second unit 
> but i still plan to fix the broken one 
> i will let u know when i open the thing 
> 
> Andrea
> 
> 
> --- In bc2000@yahoogroups.com, "gruethel00p" <gruethel00p@> wrote:
> >
> > From the thread in the DJ Techtools forum
> > <http://forum.djtechtools.com/showthread.php?t=19052>  I guess it's the
> > Alps EC12E24204A9 (for the normal, non-push encoders); I'm planning to
> > do some repair work on my BCR2000 as well, since one encoder is much
> > more wobbly than the rest, but I haven't opened the case yet. Please let
> > us know what you found.
> >   <asd>
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > l00p
> >
>

> The originals are made by Alps and it looks like a custom job. I don't know if they are 100 pulses per rotation or a more logical 128. Maybe Mark can tell us from the software.
> There are one or two replacements that I could suggest, but they are 12 and 24 pulses per rotation, some with detents, some without. (Bourns not Alps are closest to spec)
> http://uk.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Bourns/PEC12-4030F-S0012/?qs=9fn1gpisni6051o%2fX0kEtX34v3Vr9Lc0RXFApL%2fHUWo%3d
> I'm not sure exactly how these encoders work but you would be turning forever with those.
> Unless there is some multi channel software trick they use to make 12 or 24 pulses become the roughly 127 per rotation for the Midi data. I'm not knowledgeable enough to do more than speculate.

 From: Mark v.d. Berg <markwinvdb@...>
To: bc2000@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, 2 April 2012, 7:53
Subject: [bc2000] Re: -- encoders type ? --
 

  
Addendum:

With Resolution set to 96/turn, the encoder indeed outputs exactly 96 different values per rotation.
So e.g. for Control Change (Mode = "Absolute"), you get a sequence of 0, 1, 2 ... 96 during the first turn.

With Resolution set to 192/turn, the encoder STILL outputs only 96 different values per rotation.
E.g. the output for Control Change (Mode = "Absolute 14 bits") then becomes 0, 2, 4, ... 192 during the first turn.

So it seems that the encoders provide 96 hardware positions per rotation;
the BCF/BCR then calculates the output value (e.g. Control Change value) by multiplying the hardware position by Resolution and dividing by 96.

Mark.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Mark v.d. Berg <markwinvdb@...> wrote:
> So it seems that the encoders provide 96 hardware positions per rotation;
> the BCF/BCR then calculates the output value (e.g. Control Change value) by multiplying the hardware position by Resolution and dividing by 96.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Mark v.d. Berg <markwinvdb@...> wrote:
> So it seems that the encoders provide 96 hardware positions per rotation;
> the BCF/BCR then calculates the output value (e.g. Control Change value) by multiplying the hardware position by Resolution and dividing by 96.

 From: Bruno <brunorc@...>
To: bc2000@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, 2 April 2012, 10:58
Subject: Re: [bc2000] Re: -- encoders type ? --
 

  
2012/4/2 Martin Ator <cyllall@...>
> Sounds like a custom order from Alps then. Not easy to source.  Damn you Behringeeeeeerrrrrrr......

Check Bourns. I found a replacement for my broken E-mu P2K data dial.
I recall they have also non-detent, pushable encoders in their offer.

Bruno

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Martin Ator <cyllall@...> wrote:
> Hello,
>          Yes it should work, but you would have to turn the encoder 5 or 6 times with a more common 24 pulse per revolution encoder, or change the resolution of the software?
>
> There is many a Tero in Finland. Do you have a Roland CMU-800?
>
> I built the Apple II interface for mine. The C64 was too complicated for my small brain but I may try again soon. My knowledge of logic is slowly improving. If it was you who originally tried to help me, then thanks.
> There's a CMU Yahoo group if you want to search for it.

>
> Some basics about the detents and pulses per revolution can be found here:
> 
> http://www.midibox.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=encoders
> 
> Ciao
> Peter
> 
> http://www.ullrich.at.tt
> http://go.to/datadial  (Synth addon â€" also using an encoder)
> 
> Von: bc2000@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bc2000@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von Martin Ator
> Gesendet: Montag, 02. April 2012 12:01
> An: bc2000@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: Re: [bc2000] Re: -- encoders type ? --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put a link in one post to a Bourns encoder that Mouser stocks. Its 24 pulse only. Maybe Bourns will offer a 96 pulse version from their site, but they usually want you to buy 1500 of them.
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Bruno <brunorc@...<mailto:brunorc@...>>
> To: bc2000@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bc2000@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 2 April 2012, 10:58
> Subject: Re: [bc2000] Re: -- encoders type ? --
> 
> 
> 2012/4/2 Martin Ator <cyllall@...<mailto:cyllall%40yahoo.com>>
> > Sounds like a custom order from Alps then. Not easy to source.  Damn you Behringeeeeeerrrrrrr......
> 
> Check Bourns. I found a replacement for my broken E-mu P2K data dial.
> I recall they have also non-detent, pushable encoders in their offer.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged and
> confidential and is for the exclusive use of the addressee. The person
> who receives this message and who is not the addressee, one of his
> employees or an agent entitled to hand it over to the addressee, is
> informed that he may not use, disclose or reproduce the contents
> thereof, and is kindly asked to notify the sender and delete the e-mail
> immediately.
>

-----Original Message-----
From: Tero Mäyränen
Sent: Apr 2, 2012 4:53 AM
To: bc2000@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bc2000] Re: -- encoders type ? --

�

Thanks, that's me, joined the group!

Yeah, 24 vs. 96 could be bad... Could be usable, if you use it for a
parameter that only needs small adjustments? :-)

Anyway, I thought all encoders worked the same way, but from the links
here it seems that's not the case.

--
tero

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Martin Ator <cyllall@...> wrote:
> Hello,
> �������� Yes it should work, but you would have to turn the encoder 5 or 6 times with a more common 24 pulse per revolution encoder, or change the resolution of the software?
>
> There is many a Tero in Finland. Do you have a Roland CMU-800?
>
> I built the Apple II interface for mine. The C64 was too complicated for my small brain but I may try again soon. My knowledge of logic is slowly improving. If it was you who originally tried to help me, then thanks.
> There's a CMU Yahoo group if you want to search for it.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Bob S. <tttsystems@...> wrote:
> However, i think you guys are off track on the pulses per revolution and I am tending to think the 24 or lower number
> is correct.  As a hardware and software designer, I would not let the pulse per revolution determine the number of
> items I would scroll through, only at the slow one click at a time pace.  I would calculate the time between pulses to
> determine how many numbers to scroll through, that is, the faster the user is turning the knob, the faster the
> scrolling data/value will increment or decrement.  This makes the pulses per revolution only important as a scaling
> factor for the scroll rate calculation....

-----Original Message-----
From: Tero Mäyränen
Sent: Apr 2, 2012 11:26 AM
To: bc2000@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bc2000] Re: -- encoders type ? --

�;

Hi!

You are of course right about the "acceleration" feature, it can even
be tweaked using those custom editors we have, right? So even with a
24 PPR encoder you wouldn't have to turn six whole rounds to get from
0 to 127...

But I'm pretty sure the originals have 96 pulses per revolution. Mark
an encoder with blu-tack and start turning really slowly, so the
acceleration doesn't kick in... 24 is about a quarter of a turn, 48 is
half way and 96 is full circle. (And it shows every value in between.)

--
tero

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Bob S. <tttsystems@...> wrote:
> However, i think you guys are off track on the pulses per revolution and I am tending to think the 24 or lower number
> is correct. As a hardware and software designer, I would not let the pulse per revolution determine the number of
> items I would scroll through, only at the slow one click at a time pace.� I would calculate the time between pulses to
> determine how many numbers to scroll through, that is, the faster the user is turning the knob, the faster the
> scrolling data/value will increment or decrement.� This makes the pulses per revolution only important as a scaling
> factor for the scroll rate calculation....