Controllers and 14bit...

can P5 receive 14bit resolution from an external midi-controller?

Check out the pitchbend implementation [Wheel]. You won't get 16,384 values, you get more like 48-value increments. That's approximately 2.7 times higher resolution than a standard 8-bit controller or aftertouch message. The rest of P5's supported messages, though, are 128 value 'lo-res'.

Yet one more reason to keep version 1.5 in the DAW.. The pitchbend values in that seem to favor 18-value jumps (except +/-8 values around zero PB) , yielding ~2.7 times higher resolution than even 2.01. They probably dropped the resolution to speed up performance, and act as a MIDI filter on the pitchbend messages.

"Go ahead; drop the resolution! Nobody's using it anyway, and I doubt that they'll even notice!" -overheard at Dunkin' Donuts/Boston .

uhhhhhhh...what version and how much..... I can deal and i can wheel....but i don't work with crackers.
sell me your P5 birthright, suckah!!!!!

ORIGINAL: wrench45us
i'll have to make a note if I ever design a host to accept midi messages at minimum resolution of 0-512 or +/- 256

You don't have to...pro-software accepts nrpn-controller with up to 16000 steps...

i'm just glad there are new users that are willing to point these things out and let us know that P5 does not meet their criteria as a professional host.

i for one would feel more intimidated if I was working with professional tools and now I feel pretty much as free as ever to continue doing what I do. Really takes the pressure off.

i should have said relatively new to this forum

and frankly I wouldn't know 'professional' if it was biting my butt and hanging off my elbow -- hence the reliance on your good judgment and a few other who have recently brought these critical flaws that prevent this host from qualifying

ORIGINAL: cb8rwh

I apologise if this is deemed too blunt.

If you don't like it, don't use it.

Are there defined rules layed out by an all seeing power explaining what a host must have to qualify as 'PRO'

Thanks for pointing out P5's limitations, now just go and make music with whatever PRO host you like!!!

cheers

rich

I didn't say that I don't like it. I gave my money for it + a controller - and now it doesn't work. This has to work like other software does too.

And for you, my little fanboy: censored!

Here is the answer from Cakewalk Technical Support:

"Project5 will control the motorized faders on the BCF2000 but you will need to setup the Remote Control option and select the proper MIDI data to trigger the BCF2000."

I can trigger the bcf2000? Show me how cakewalk

Huves if you have the time i would appreciate a list of all music software's and vsti that you are aware of that accept 14 bit control. i'm doing research on this. thanks in advance.

ORIGINAL: pwal
the bcf2000's a pro controller now, is it?

Why not? it can send every sort of midi message, the bcf can be used in Mackie-Control-Emulation mode. Do you think when something is inexpensive it could not be used in a professional way? I tested the device with several hardware synths and some other outboard equipment, no problems so far, the devices know what the bcf had to say and give answers^^
i tested the bcf with reason demo - the controller implementation here is a killer-feature!
i think that the bcf/bca can be used in a professional way, they are open and fully programmable, they will fit in every setup (if you do some adjustments on them) except P5, the diva would't even answer^^

huves, if you want to tell someone to kiss your butt, there's no need to post it in german. if you're not comfortable saying something in the language the recipient might understand, why say it?

it's good to hear a fresh perspective though. it reminds people on the forum that there are other ways to use our tools and that some of those other ways work well and some need improvement. we want p5 to get better even though a lot of us have already decided that p5 is what we like to use. cakewalk has a habit of checking the forums and actually integrating features that people ask for a lot. there was recently a big discussion about the limits of MIDI on this forum that touched on some of the problems of 7 bit vs. 14 bit. if there is a big demand for 14 bit (or at least higher than 7 bit) external MIDI, it will probably show up in an update of p5.

Did you just call me a Fanboy?? heheh - like it!!!!

I am just the same as you matey - I bought P5.

Hope you find the solution to your problem, and while you are at it look for a less arrogant personality.

Rich

pro-software accepts nrpn-controller with up to 16000 steps

Let's clear up a few misconceptions. Project5 does indeed support 16,384 NRPN parameter numbers. Both the MSB [CC#99] and LSB [CC#98] are recorded into pattern automation and in the Arrange Pane curves. The value of that selected parameter [resulting from the combining of the two byte-halves] is recorded as CC#6; the MSB of the Data Entry control. Project5 ignores the LSB of Data Entry [CC#38], as do most other software applications and most hardware. That's just where the developers' general attitude towards the MIDI spec is at today.

There's not enough demand to implement the double-precision controllers as spelled out in the original MIDI spec. Not in CC#s 1-31; and the complimentary LSBs at 33-63, and not in RPNs/NRPNs. The only common exceptions are found in Bank Select [MSB=CC#0; LSB=CC#32], and in the Pitch Bend Command Set message. Both are recorded in Project5: the Bank Select in some undecipherable implementation [to me], and Pitch Bend in a slightly truncated [MIDI-flitered] manner as stated above.

I find it very forward-thinking of Behringer to include high-resolution controllers in their affordable control surfaces. Not sure that makes it pro-quality, but it's definitely admirable at a $200 US price point. Now all you need to do is buy Pro Tools to make use of it. I agree that things "should" be moving towards a higher-resolution standard than 7 bits provide, but I don't see many hopeful signs around pointing in that direction. Please: someone prove me wrong with some concrete examples; I've got the credit card laying on the desk at the ready.

A lot of this lo-res problems appear to loom large under the microscope, but in real-world mixes with masking in place and psychoacoustic considerations, much of that concern is mitigated. Hey, I want more than 128 values as well, but I'm being realistic. You might get some zippering noise on a filter cutoff control scenario, but if the VSTi supports it, give up a pitchbend message on just one of the 16 MIDI channels. Problem solved. Something like the Alesis Ion uses 12-bit physical controllers for just this situation, but they're more useful with internal routing than they are in a software app.

Sure, there are volume nuances to be lost in a mixdown session, but many final mastering techniques or compression/dithering schemes smooth them over, too. I'm not disagreeing with your needs, Huves, but I'm trying to show a different side to the story.

P5 is nice but far away from a pro-software if you get deeper in it!

I don't think that too many people take the time to determine exactly how deep Project5 and its included synths really are. I have, and I certainly haven't reached the bottom yet. Venturing into previously unexplored territory takes a certain DIY spirit, and the willingness to push the boundaries forward with some unconventional techniques. You just can't sit back and wait for a feature to land in your lap; you've got to make it happen.

As an aside, I totally agree with the need for a control surface implementation; even a Generic Control Surface that you can program yourself. The groundwork for bi-directional communication has already been laid in Sonar, and it's a matter of coding that in a manner than compliments Project5. Control surface support seems like a natural evolutionary step for P5 to me.

it confirmed what i suspected viv a vis P5, midi implemetaion and general practice

Here's another take on the current State of the [MIDI] Union. The relatively newer additions that top off the General MIDI spec [Yamaha's XG and Roland's GS] follow the status quo. In NRPN implementation, for example), GM makes no mention of NRPN. In GS [General Synthesis], the use of NRPN is optional, but "recommended". It details 13 specific NRPN locations ["registered" non-registered?]. In XG, the number is 19, and that's an integral part of the spec.

But in both of those manufacturer-specific standards, the LSB [CC#38] is ignored, as it is in P5, effectively making the NRPNs into 7-bit controller messages. Not that any of us here limit ourselves to a GM-type of handcuff accessory, but the trend speaks volumes.

it makes a greater difference. it is the same debate over 16 bit audio and 24 bit audio some can hear the difference some can't at first. latter on when it becomes a standard find someone who can not hear the difference. it is a human quality not a theoretical one (can't separate the human system from the analyzed system). h e double hockey sticks to 7 bit midi control. :-) ignoring the lsb that is a ridiculous absurd practice that needs to be exposed to the world. that is all it takes. manufactures claim there is no demand. there is no demand because not many consumers realize the lsb is being ignored. start a campaign to enlighten the consumer and the manufacture will build it . i guarantee it.