Behringer BCF2000 MIDI control surface

Someone on the CakewalkProAudio Yahoo! Group has said that Sonar is unable to send out data to the BCF2000 (or presumably any other control surface) so that its motorised faders respond to change in the software. He says that Sonar can only receive such data.

Is that correct?

Ah, I see. That makes the motorised faders purely theoretical for Sonar users then, so it would be rather pointless buying the Behringer in the hope of seeing that function in action.

Is Sonar alone in having such limitations?

The idea that Sonar does not support motorized fader is about as wrong as anything could be.

Thanks John. I was suspicious about this information when I read it, hence my asking here too.

Perhaps someone who has used the BCF2000 could clarify the position about the compatibility of this unit's motorised faders with Sonar?

Its funny how such misinformation gets put out. CW was one of the very first to embrace the notion of a control surface. and had their own. I wonder why such things get said.

Best
John

Yes, it is funny how such myths circulate. The contributor to this forum's Yahoo! Group equivalent actually wrote: "One downside with it [the BCF2000] is that Sonar 6's ACT implementation only receives MIDI control, it doesn't send it back out. In other words, I can use my BCF2000 to control Sonar, but not visa-versa (when I move the faders in Sonar, Sonar doesn't send any MIDI cc messages so the faders on the BCF2000 don't move)."

Now the BCF2000 is one of the control surfaces I'm considering buying at the moment and the motorised faders are its main attraction, apart from the price. I wonder what it is that the above misinformed user has been doing wrong though.

I too am looking for a nice control surface...and am torn between the bcf2000 and the mackie mcu. i REALLY want the mackie...but i might go with the bcf2000 for now because its so cheap.

anyway, i found a review on the musiciansfriend web site from someone who bought the bcf2000 and it address's the sonar to control surface issue.

"I bought this board for use with Sonar 6. However, using the default 'bc' mode, I was only able to get 'half duplex', meaning when I made a change on the board it changed on the screen, but if i made a change on the screen, it did NOT make the change on the board.

I found that the board will work with Sonar 6 (and I tested on sonar 4 as well) in Mackie Emulation mode, but you must install the newer firmware and drivers (all available on behringer's website). I learned this the hard way. This would have taken 30 minutes to install but it took 15 hours instead because i am stubborn and dont read instructions.

After setting it up this way, I am happy. It works. It does what it should.

There are two things I realized after buying this board. You do not know which tracks are selected on the board. if you have 12 tracks, the board's '1-8' could actually be '4-12'. And yes, you can adjust the volumes, but you still have to look up at your screen to see the levels. I never realized that could be a bit annoying."

Posted by wrongprotocol from dix hills, NY on Nov 6, 2006

Thanks for the tip, dantejuice.

I think the MCU is probably the control surface to which all of us would aspire if money were no object. Unfortunately, it is though, so some of us have to make do with the cheaper option, especially if we're experimenting and want to restrict our initial outlay.

I had a BCF2000 and I loved it, but then it was time to move on to better things. I purchases the MCU and it's crazy cool.. The MCU older model is hard to find and the newer one has just a few newer features that do not warrant the purchases of the unit for 999.99 from me.

Here are two MCUs for 599 & 699. http://www.zzounds.com/item--MACCONTROLUNI Get them before they are sold.

Have you seen the new Alesis controller ~> http://www.midi-store.com/Alesis-Master-Control-p-16885.html


Peace

ORIGINAL: dantesjuice

You do not know which tracks are selected on the board. if you have 12 tracks, the board's '1-8' could actually be '4-12'.

I just got one of the original Mackie MCU's on a close-out deal and I think the scribble strips are one of the coolest things about it, really. No question what track is what, especially when shifting back and forth between track and aux (bus) mode. I can't imagine how useful a control surface of eight faders would be without the scribble strip...

And man it's fun to watch the faders do their dance, when you fire it up and they calibrate themselves!

ORIGINAL: John

Someone on the CakewalkProAudio Yahoo! Group has said that Sonar is unable to send out data to the BCF2000 (or presumably any other control surface) so that its motorised faders respond to change in the software. He says that Sonar can only receive such data. Is that correct?

I have no idea about the BCF2000. The idea that Sonar does not support motorized fader is about as wrong as anything could be. Pro Audio supported the Peavy Motormix Sonar supports the Mackie Control/ Uni as well as a bunch of others. The support for moving faders is nothing new to CW, Sonar.

Best
John

I think it was a posting I had posted that comradec is referring to:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/bc2000/message/457


In my posting I think I stated that it was ACT which is one-directional and only has one-way communication with the BCF2000. I recently posted another message:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cakewalkproaudio/message/9417

...which describes in a bit more detail what I've discovered and what seems to work and what doesn't.

I'm a new Sonar 6 user and a new BCF2000 owner, so there might be something that I've missed, but from what I've discovered it looks like there are two options when using Sonar 6 with a BCF2000:

A) Set the BCF2000 into Mackie emulation mode, and create a controller definition for a Mackie controller in Sonar
B) Keep the BCF2000 in non-emulation mode and use ACT.

I'd prefer to use ACT because:
1. ACT allows one to control the parameters in other windows (using ACT learn) and from what I've seen, using a Mackie controller doesn't do this.
2. Going in and out of emulation mode on the BCF2000 is a bit of a pain.
3. Using a custom BCF2000 patch along with ACT seems like it's more customizable.

...but the downside is that ACT only communicates one way (controller-to-Sonar).

If there's a way to user ACT with a BCF2000, and have the communication be two-way, I'd love to know how to do it.

Thanks,

Jeff