Bc2000 (for the BCF2000 & BCR2000) group photo

Yahoo Groups archive

Bc2000 (for the BCF2000 & BCR2000)

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:16 UTC

Thread

Drivers available in the Files area of the group

Drivers available in the Files area of the group

2007-08-07 by Ceedjay chez Free

Hi !

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.

Is there really any point in onstalling them as long as my system is 
perfectly running with version 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).

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

Re:Drivers available in the Files area of the group

2007-08-07 by Steve Meiers

I suspect that the development department is only a few people and that they contract out a lot of the work. Behringer almost never revisits their code, with the exception of the FCB1010, but even then, very reluctantly. I own a Behringer FCB1010, BCF2000, DDX3216 and some others. All have minimal response to user suggestions for improvement.

With the FCB, there is a great Yahoo group with a few programmers who actually made some great improvements, as in this group, too. It's only because of these folks that I haven't given up on Behringer products entirely and the fact that the bang-for-the-buck is usually unbeatable, despite product support shortcomings - and an optimism that I can somehow make it work for my needs. But the learning curve for some of these products is very intense. I'm not a programmer either, but I am an electronics technician and a technical writer. I document network appliances for specialized internet servers and think that I can read and understand technical information, but I would like to see LOT more application examples for these products.

But it is extremely obvious that these products could be SO MUCH MORE than Behringer allows if only a little more software support were forthcoming from the manufacturer and the interfaced device and software - which should be in everyone's interest.

The DDX for example is such a killer mixer, and if Behringer would only devote a programmer to interfacing it (and the BCx2000 line as well) to recording software, they would be the obvious choice for anyone getting started in DAW or MIDI control. What a waste of good products on a lack of simple software interfacing. They don't even need to write tons of code, simple make better interfaces from existing products. The software companies should be cooperating with Behringer too, but apparently Behringer isn't lobbying them to do so.

I could rag on this one for hours.

Steve M

Some of these companies have amazingly short sighted business plans and activities.

Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.

Re:Drivers available in the Files area of the group

2007-08-08 by jeromesennecon

Hi Steve.

Maybe it is time to start lobbying them so that they develop this 
device further. I guess there are enough people here to pressure 
Behringer.

There are also lots of people who could "counter-advertise" the 
product. And I am fairly sure Behringer would not like it.

I got one of the first prototypes of the BCF2000 in April 2004 and 
got "in love" with the concept as soon as I got it. After that, I 
have been in touch with the PR managers (Torsten Notzke and David 
Lim) and dev department. At the time, they were listening to us and 
were very "commercial". But, about 18 months ago, a new PR manager 
arrived and since then, they stopped talking to me, probably tired 
of my questions pertaining the further dev of the device. I wrote 
two huge reviews of the product for big French websites (in 
September 2004 and in August 2005) and became some sort of BCF2000 
guru among the community in France (wrote lots of tutorials, tips 
and tricks, modified the BCFViewer...), and...before I knew it, I 
had become a "prescriptor" (sorry, I don't know if the term exists 
in english. It means that through what I did, the sales increased 
dramatically). So much so that I was offered a free BCF 2000 by 
Behringer when the final release was available.

But, now that the product is a hit (and it is) and the BCFs have 
been flying off the shelves, they don't give a toss anymore about 
what users would like. When I see how Frontier Designs developed 
their Alphatrack and TranZport software, I keep thinking that the 
BCF 2000 could be even better than what it currently is.

I guess if all this mailing list pressures Behringer, we may get 
some responses. They don't know this mailing list. The first thing 
would be to let them know it and ask them to participate. It would 
be positive for them as well as for users. If they don't want to, 
then it means that they don't give a s**t about their customers once 
they have given their money.

Cheers.
Jérôme.
http://www.espace-cubase.org

--- In bc2000@yahoogroups.com, Steve Meiers <tekrytor@...> wrote:
>
> I suspect that the development department is only a few people and 
that they contract out a lot of the work. Behringer almost never 
revisits their code, with the exception of the FCB1010, but even 
then, very reluctantly. I own a Behringer FCB1010, BCF2000, DDX3216 
and some others. All have minimal response to user suggestions for 
improvement. 
> 
> With the FCB, there is a great Yahoo group with a few programmers 
who actually made some great improvements, as in this group, too. 
It's only because of these folks that I haven't given up on 
Behringer products entirely and the fact that the bang-for-the-buck 
is usually unbeatable, despite product support shortcomings -  and 
an optimism that I can somehow make it work for my needs. But the 
learning curve for some of these products is very intense. I'm not a 
programmer either, but I am an electronics technician and a 
technical writer. I document network appliances for specialized 
internet servers and think that I can read and understand technical 
information, but I would like to see LOT more application examples 
for these products.
> 
> But it is extremely obvious that these products could be SO MUCH 
MORE than Behringer allows if only a little more software support 
were forthcoming from the manufacturer and the interfaced device and 
software - which should be in everyone's interest.
> 
> The DDX for example is such a killer mixer, and if Behringer would 
only devote a programmer to interfacing it (and the BCx2000 line as 
well) to recording software, they would be the obvious choice for 
anyone getting started in DAW or MIDI control. What a waste of good 
products on a lack of simple software interfacing. They don't even 
need to write tons of code, simple make better interfaces from 
existing products. The software companies should be cooperating with 
Behringer too, but apparently Behringer isn't lobbying them to do 
so. 
> 
> I could rag on this one for hours.
> 
> Steve M
> 
> Some of these companies have amazingly short sighted business 
plans and activities.

Re:Drivers available in the Files area of the group

2007-08-08 by mczyzynski

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.



--- In bc2000@yahoogroups.com, "jeromesennecon" <cubaseisbest@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hi Steve.
> 
> Maybe it is time to start lobbying them so that they develop this 
> device further. I guess there are enough people here to pressure 
> Behringer.
> 
> There are also lots of people who could "counter-advertise" the 
> product. And I am fairly sure Behringer would not like it.
> 
> I got one of the first prototypes of the BCF2000 in April 2004 and 
> got "in love" with the concept as soon as I got it. After that, I 
> have been in touch with the PR managers (Torsten Notzke and David 
> Lim) and dev department. At the time, they were listening to us 
and 
> were very "commercial". But, about 18 months ago, a new PR manager 
> arrived and since then, they stopped talking to me, probably tired 
> of my questions pertaining the further dev of the device. I wrote 
> two huge reviews of the product for big French websites (in 
> September 2004 and in August 2005) and became some sort of BCF2000 
> guru among the community in France (wrote lots of tutorials, tips 
> and tricks, modified the BCFViewer...), and...before I knew it, I 
> had become a "prescriptor" (sorry, I don't know if the term exists 
> in english. It means that through what I did, the sales increased 
> dramatically). So much so that I was offered a free BCF 2000 by 
> Behringer when the final release was available.
> 
> But, now that the product is a hit (and it is) and the BCFs have 
> been flying off the shelves, they don't give a toss anymore about 
> what users would like. When I see how Frontier Designs developed 
> their Alphatrack and TranZport software, I keep thinking that the 
> BCF 2000 could be even better than what it currently is.
> 
> I guess if all this mailing list pressures Behringer, we may get 
> some responses. They don't know this mailing list. The first thing 
> would be to let them know it and ask them to participate. It would 
> be positive for them as well as for users. If they don't want to, 
> then it means that they don't give a s**t about their customers 
once 
> they have given their money.
> 
> Cheers.
> Jérôme.
> http://www.espace-cubase.org
> 
> --- In bc2000@yahoogroups.com, Steve Meiers <tekrytor@> wrote:
> >
> > I suspect that the development department is only a few people 
and 
> that they contract out a lot of the work. Behringer almost never 
> revisits their code, with the exception of the FCB1010, but even 
> then, very reluctantly. I own a Behringer FCB1010, BCF2000, 
DDX3216 
> and some others. All have minimal response to user suggestions for 
> improvement. 
> > 
> > With the FCB, there is a great Yahoo group with a few 
programmers 
> who actually made some great improvements, as in this group, too. 
> It's only because of these folks that I haven't given up on 
> Behringer products entirely and the fact that the bang-for-the-
buck 
> is usually unbeatable, despite product support shortcomings -  and 
> an optimism that I can somehow make it work for my needs. But the 
> learning curve for some of these products is very intense. I'm not 
a 
> programmer either, but I am an electronics technician and a 
> technical writer. I document network appliances for specialized 
> internet servers and think that I can read and understand 
technical 
> information, but I would like to see LOT more application examples 
> for these products.
> > 
> > But it is extremely obvious that these products could be SO MUCH 
> MORE than Behringer allows if only a little more software support 
> were forthcoming from the manufacturer and the interfaced device 
and 
> software - which should be in everyone's interest.
> > 
> > The DDX for example is such a killer mixer, and if Behringer 
would 
> only devote a programmer to interfacing it (and the BCx2000 line 
as 
> well) to recording software, they would be the obvious choice for 
> anyone getting started in DAW or MIDI control. What a waste of 
good 
> products on a lack of simple software interfacing. They don't even 
> need to write tons of code, simple make better interfaces from 
> existing products. The software companies should be cooperating 
with 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Behringer too, but apparently Behringer isn't lobbying them to do 
> so. 
> > 
> > I could rag on this one for hours.
> > 
> > Steve M
> > 
> > Some of these companies have amazingly short sighted business 
> plans and activities.
>

Re: [bc2000] Re:Drivers available in the Files area of the group

2007-08-08 by Ceedjay chez Free

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:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 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.

Re: [bc2000] Re:Drivers available in the Files area of the group

2007-08-08 by Jeff B

I'm up for having everyone write in and pressure Behringer, but It's been my experience that "pressure campains" don't have any effect.
Jeff

----- Original Message ----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: jeromesennecon
To: bc2000@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2007 1:35:46 AM
Subject: [bc2000] Re:Drivers available in the Files area of the group

Hi Steve.

Maybe it is time to start lobbying them so that they develop this
device further. I guess there are enough people here to pressure
Behringer.

There are also lots of people who could "counter-advertise" the
product. And I am fairly sure Behringer would not like it.

I got one of the first prototypes of the BCF2000 in April 2004 and
got "in love" with the concept as soon as I got it. After that, I
have been in touch with the PR managers (Torsten Notzke and David
Lim) and dev department. At the time, they were listening to us and
were very "commercial" . But, about 18 months ago, a new PR manager
arrived and since then, they stopped talking to me, probably tired
of my questions pertaining the further dev of the device. I wrote
two huge reviews of the product for big French websites (in
September 2004 and in August 2005) and became some sort of BCF2000
guru among the community in France (wrote lots of tutorials, tips
and tricks, modified the BCFViewer... ), and...before I knew it, I
had become a "prescriptor" (sorry, I don't know if the term exists
in english. It means that through what I did, the sales increased
dramatically) . So much so that I was offered a free BCF 2000 by
Behringer when the final release was available.

But, now that the product is a hit (and it is) and the BCFs have
been flying off the shelves, they don't give a toss anymore about
what users would like. When I see how Frontier Designs developed
their Alphatrack and TranZport software, I keep thinking that the
BCF 2000 could be even better than what it currently is.

I guess if all this mailing list pressures Behringer, we may get
some responses. They don't know this mailing list. The first thing
would be to let them know it and ask them to participate. It would
be positive for them as well as for users. If they don't want to,
then it means that they don't give a s**t about their customers once
they have given their money.

Cheers.
Jérôme.
http://www.espace- cubase.org

--- In bc2000@yahoogroups. com, Steve Meiers wrote:
>
> I suspect that the development department is only a few people and
that they contract out a lot of the work. Behringer almost never
revisits their code, with the exception of the FCB1010, but even
then, very reluctantly. I own a Behringer FCB1010, BCF2000, DDX3216
and some others. All have minimal response to user suggestions for
improvement.
>
> With the FCB, there is a great Yahoo group with a few programmers
who actually made some great improvements, as in this group, too.
It's only because of these folks that I haven't given up on
Behringer products entirely and the fact that the bang-for-the- buck
is usually unbeatable, despite product support shortcomings - and
an optimism that I can somehow make it work for my needs. But the
learning curve for some of these products is very intense. I'm not a
programmer either, but I am an electronics technician and a
technical writer. I document network appliances for specialized
internet servers and think that I can read and understand technical
information, but I would like to see LOT more application examples
for these products.
>
> But it is extremely obvious that these products could be SO MUCH
MORE than Behringer allows if only a little more software support
were forthcoming from the manufacturer and the interfaced device and
software - which should be in everyone's interest.
>
> The DDX for example is such a killer mixer, and if Behringer would
only devote a programmer to interfacing it (and the BCx2000 line as
well) to recording software, they would be the obvious choice for
anyone getting started in DAW or MIDI control. What a waste of good
products on a lack of simple software interfacing. They don't even
need to write tons of code, simple make better interfaces from
existing products. The software companies should be cooperating with
Behringer too, but apparently Behringer isn't lobbying them to do
so.
>
> I could rag on this one for hours.
>
> Steve M
>
> Some of these companies have amazingly short sighted business
plans and activities.



Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.

Re: Drivers available in the Files area of the group

2007-08-08 by Steve Meiers

Great discussion on Behringer cooperation and support.

J\ufffdr\ufffdme, you apparently hit a "sweet spot" in Behringer's marketing timeline. Congratulations! They probably owe you much more than an FCB for the sales you promoted for them. But the effort on their part is commendable.

Re: 500 plus member here
The FCB1010 Yahoo group has 10,000 members, no typo, that's 10 thousand members and still growing. Except for a few visits from Jim Savery, the US Marketing guy, they didn't do much. Occasional comments on how to get a firmware update, the product sucked big-time initially, they lurked but did not contribute. They watched good-natured software developers write FREE code that Behringer should have provided WITH the product, I'm talking about the editors for setting system parameters. They watched as the same very generous people reverse-engineered their code to fix the bugs that Behringer was ignoring. Never a PUBLIC thank you to these good folks. I and others openly suggested it would be nice of Behringer to recognize these people's efforts with at least simple kudos and amybe a T-shirt or "something". But NO!, Nichts, non, nada, nothing, nyet! And all that for 10,000 or more users in one mailing list. So I don't know if our devoted 500 has a chance or not.

I can tell you that if Behringer devoted a little effort to PR, hired a few of the active folks on these boards at least part time as go-betweens, ombudsmen, etc, and maintained an active and positive dialog with us users, then I would have a much easier time opening my wallet for their products in the future.

But as in the case of my DDX, where it and many other products were put onto the US market under allegedly false declarations to our saftey and trade commissions, that the products were UL approved, combined with a lack of effort to communicate with customers - it is hard to accept that they have genuine intentions. PERHAPS, they only have a communications problem? They are Germans and not everyone speaks each other's language. But some effort would be nice and I don't read about them doing anything but putting out cheap products with "German design". I won't badger the Chinese manufacturing as "cheap" because I think they do an excellent job considering the prices they must meet. Quality could be better. but communication from corporate could be of mcuh higher quality that the improvements to manufacturing, in my opinion.

If I were grading the manufacturing quality, I would give them a "C", the American school note for acceptable. If I were grading the corporate communication quality, I would give them an "F", the American school note for failing.

If Behringer were smart, they would act on what they read in these groups and not just lurk. I think most users would easily pay an extra 10% or even 20% for confidence. It can't be bought either, it has to be earned.

The quick and easy way for Behringer to earn confidence is to admit their previous shortcomings and jump into the water - start participating in these groups. They should publicly commend the people who contribute to their products success on these user groups and help users to use and further enhance their products and related applications with the generous feedback available on these forums. With excellent customer relations, they should be able to easily bump their sales 50%.

Reputation has killed many companies over the years. Fiat and Yugo were disasters in the US market because the companies earned bad reputations. These cars were sorely needed, gas prices were jumping and they had better mileage than any domestic brands. It costs a money and time to build a reputation, but it costs markets to loose it.

In the case of customer relations, silence is NOT golden.

Steve Meiers



Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.

Re: Drivers available in the Files area of the group

2007-08-09 by rpcfender

Hi Steve
--- In bc2000@yahoogroups.com, Steve Meiers <tekrytor@...> wrote:
> Re: 500 plus member here
> The FCB1010 Yahoo group has 10,000 members, no typo, that's 10
thousand members and still growing. Except for a few visits from Jim
Savery, the US Marketing guy, they didn't do much. Occasional comments
on how to get a firmware update, the product sucked big-time initially,
they lurked but did not contribute. They watched good-natured software
developers write FREE code that Behringer should have provided WITH the
product, I'm talking about the editors for setting system parameters.
They watched as the same very generous people reverse-engineered their
code to fix the bugs that Behringer was ignoring. Never a PUBLIC thank
you to these good folks. I and others openly suggested it would be nice
of Behringer to recognize these people's efforts with at least simple
kudos and amybe a T-shirt or "something". But NO!, Nichts, non, nada,
nothing, nyet! And all that for 10,000 or more users in one mailing
list. So I don't know if our devoted 500 has a chance or not.
>
As one of the assembler coders that altered (improved?) the FCB we were
lucky that Behringer 'leaked' the circuit and hardware details to the
group.
Since the recent litigation I assume that Behringer have tightened up on
disclosing their "secrets", but it does show you that you can be lucky.
You don't ask then you definitely won't get anything.
Note that although they are very aware of the illegal reverse
engineering and they know who the villains are they have chosen not to
pursue it. As you know in the US if you don't actively protect you
intellectual rights the courts are reluctant to in force them later on.
I wrote to them explaining about the modified FCB code when I was asking
for the sysex details of the BCR/BCF.
The letter was apparently circulated around Behringer and caused a few
heated moments. I gather the developers were very keen on an open source
stance, but the legal guys...
Still it is a great little machine that I  couldn't build for the price.

> I can tell you that if Behringer devoted a little effort to PR, hired
a few of the active folks on these boards at least part time as
go-betweens, ombudsmen, etc, and maintained an active and positive
dialog with us users, then I would have a much easier time opening my
wallet for their products in the future.

>
> Reputation has killed many companies over the years. Fiat and Yugo
were disasters in the US market because the companies earned bad
reputations. These cars were sorely needed, gas prices were jumping and
they had better mileage than any domestic brands. It costs a money and
time to build a reputation, but it costs markets to loose it.

The low end is the market Behringer have gone for, but they have done it
with some really great gear.  Upset a lot of manufacturers that were
forced to improve their low end stuff and lower their prices on the
better gear. Have you noticed that everyone now is bad mouthing
Behringer. This is a sure sign that they have got something right.

Don't get me wrong, Behringer have very bad manuals and are really bad
at the after sale stuff, but to get the hardware at the low price
something has to give and after sale service is VERY expensive to
supply. That is why so many distributors  get pissed off when you buy
the unit overseas or on Ebay and they get to supply the free after sale
stuff when you haven't paid them anything.

My wish they would at least make the info available. Perhaps we can push
for that.
"Give us the info and we'll expand it ourselves. This will create extra
value for the unit, increase its marketing life span and its reputation
and all for no cost to you."

Try something like that and see what happens.

All the best

Royce Craven

Re: [bc2000] Re: Drivers available in the Files area of the group

2007-08-09 by Ceedjay chez Free

Hi !
> "Give us the info and we'll expand it ourselves. This will create
> extra value for the unit, increase its marketing life span and its
> reputation and all for no cost to you."
>
> Try something like that and see what happens.

You hit the right stuff here. Yes, this is definitely the way I see the 
cooperation between users and Behringer.

When I took some time to modify the BCFViewer (it took me quite a while, 
because I cannot program and just used a ressource hacking program to modify 
graphical stuff, but God! it was long ;op), I sent them the file and told 
them they could put it online as a replacement for the original one (without 
even asking for recognition), but they never did and prefered leaving their 
original one.

Pertaining their "secret", I really think there sould not be any secret 
about how the BCx 2000 are built, because I am fairly sure that they sort of 
"copied" the MidiBox concept (maybe they even used a PIC18F 
microcontroller).

Anyway, let's wait for people to offer their improvements ideas and then 
we'll see what's possible.

Cheers for this interesting conversation.
J\ufffdr\ufffdme.
Mod/Admin at http://www.espace-cubase.org

Re:Drivers available in the Files area of the group

2007-08-09 by jeromesennecon

Hi !

Found the message from this person, while wandeing about in the 
posts !

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/bc2000/message/96

But, if you consider the enormous turnover in this company, the guy 
is probably not here anymore.

If Mister James Savery from Behringer (account deq2496) is still on 
this board, please wave your hands ;o)

Cheers.
Jérôme.

>
> Morning!
> 
> On 8/8/07, jeromesennecon <cubaseisbest@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Steve.
> >
> > Maybe it is time to start lobbying them so that they develop this
> > device further. I guess there are enough people here to pressure
> > Behringer.
> >
> 
> 
> I think this is a great idea. There are currently 510 members of 
this group
> - which I'd say was a considerable number.  Even if Behringer 
aren't
> intending to develop their BC devices any further, they could at 
least open
> up some of the development files so that those of us who can do a 
little
> programming don't have to reverse engineer anything. An open API 
might make
> all the difference. Also, I seem to remember that some time ago 
someone from
> Behringer did post to this list, but I can't find it now... maybe 
my memory
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> is failing me...
> 
> graham
>

Re: [bc2000] Re: Drivers available in the Files area of the group

2007-08-09 by DB

Ceedjay chez Free wrote:

> Pertaining their "secret", I really think there sould not be any secret
> about how the BCx 2000 are built, because I am fairly sure that they 
> sort of
> "copied" the MidiBox concept (maybe they even used a PIC18F
> microcontroller).

Well, I wish they would have copied it straight out.  At least then we 
could get Thor to add some changes to the code ;)   Love how the
support of the free version is a MILLION times better then the paid 
one...  Of course, Thor won't let me buy a Midibox, I have to build 
it... So here I am with a Behringer. I guess I should take an 
Electronics 101 class at a local Community College...


Dave

Re: Drivers available in the Files area of the group

2007-08-10 by Mark van den Berg

--- In bc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Ceedjay chez Free" <cubaseisbest@...>
wrote:
> 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?)

> Is there really any point in onstalling them as long as my system is 
> perfectly running with version 1.1.1.1 ?

Well, there might be, because 1.1.1.1 has at least one bug: in U-4 MIDI 
mode it assigns the wrong name ("OUT A") to the MIDI output device that 
actually goes to the MIDI OUT B socket. In 1.2.1.3 this bug is fixed: 
the same MIDI output device is correctly named "OUT B".

However, in the end I personally switched back to 1.1.1.1 because of the 
connection problem with 1.2.1.3 mentioned above, which is simply more 
severe than 1.1.1.1's naming bug.

> 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.

Mark.

Re: [bc2000] Re: Drivers available in the Files area of the group

2007-08-13 by Ceedjay chez Free

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.

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.