Yes it is newer. I said that in my last message above.

Yes we have updated the SDK since what was published.

 
We have made changes to the control surface interfaces to allow access to the new compressor and saturation modules as well as to the SONAR code which responds to the surface messages.
There are only 2 ways to access the prochannel (or even the older per track eq for that matter) via a control surface:
 
1. Use the ACT control surface and learn the controls with your control surface. We have act presets for a few keyboards (A-PRO, ...) that are set up to do this automatically but for other surfaces you would have to manually "ACT learn" each control. Note that for the ACT method you have to set ACT focus to each module from SONAR by clicking the module or any knob within it. There is no way to navigate the individual modules from the surface itself.
 
2. Modify or write a new control surface dll that directly controls the built in pro channel modules. The original surface sdk does not have the new interfaces to do this since it only has the types defined for the old eq. For this we need to publish the new interfaces which I said we have plans for once we have some time. The main relevant definition change from the surface side for this is the enum below from controlsurface.h. If you want to try accessing it from your surface in the interim you may be able to get by with just changing that one definition in your header file (and of course adding support to actually communicate with the prochannel modules using it)
 
enum SONAR_MIXER_FILTER
    { MIX_FILTER_EQ = 0,
 MIX_FILTER_COMP = ( MIX_FILTER_EQ + 1 ) ,
 MIX_FILTER_GATE = ( MIX_FILTER_COMP + 1 ) ,
 MIX_FILTER_SAT = ( MIX_FILTER_GATE + 1 )
    }  SONAR_MIXER_FILTER;
There are no other supported mechanisms to talk to a built in module. If you were relying on MIDI CC's it was an undocumented mechanism that was never intended to work that way.
 

stratman70

frankandfree

Ryan Munnis [Cakewalk]
The VS-700 and ProChannel are highly compatible. Regarding the mappings, I have already addressed this concern in a separate thread if you would like to take a look at my post. The controls really are not scrambled at all and the workflow behind it was well thought out. You can find this post and more information here.

I am not a Product Manager nor a Developer, but I have assisted countless users with the VS-700 and SONAR 8.0, 8.5 and SONAR X1. There is one thing I can assure you, not because I work at Cakewalk, but because I use the VS-700 everyday... the ProChannel mappings work very well with the VS-700. This new implementation is a big part of SONAR X1b and a lot of work, in-house, went into it's development.

Just to clarify what's meant by "scrambled":



Not that it tips the world over, but seeing the Pro Channel having three rows/four columns of knobs (labeled Freq, Q and Level) and the VS700 Channel Strip Control Section having three rows/four columns of knobs (labeled Freq, Q and Level as well) I like some others think here happened an ooops while developing the gui of Pro channel and a nice chance to have a really nice, perfect match of the two interfaces passed by.

I really don't understand why Cakewalk can't just say "Ooops, sorry this went a bit wrong, we got to live with it now". It would sound so much more likeable than telling us someone actually decided to do it this way for unknown reasons (as some other mod did) or telling us about the lot of work that went into the development - which for sure is true, I don't think anyone denies that.

I don't user any controller but even I have to say "that is pretty , well weird. That's intended?

It looks like the right feature is mapped to the corresponding button, whats the problem?

I am one of the "complainers" about this VS 700 thing with X1b in this forum... I am not making "a lot of noise" only debating the "becauses" behind CW choices...

Everyone who feedbacks me said they don't look to the screen to tweak EQs... Only to console display... They even claim that having a single monitor improves work flow than having two... (very weird for me, I love to have two)

Well, I believe they are been sincere and I am trying to change my ways just for curiosity...

I'd tryed ACT also but have some confusions with it since everytime I hit [EQ] to switch between comp/eq/sat, ACT is disabling (I believe this is the way it works).

Some times I feel tempted to solve things with the old and simple mouse...

Peace.

Noel, does that mean that the Mackie Control dll will be updated eventually?

UnderTow

Ryan Munnis [Cakewalk
]


Hi bitman,

The VS-700 and ProChannel are highly compatible. Regarding the mappings, I have already addressed this concern in a separate thread if you would like to take a look at my post.

Just stating that things are as planned despite clear complaints from users is not addressing anything. Addressing the issue means fixing it.

Considering the price of the VS-700, Cakewalk should have taken it's layout into account when designing the ProChannel and anyway the layout on the VS-700 makes more sense IMO. Level at the top, Freq in the middle and Q at the bottom (a bit like the order used on a real SSL  ). Having to take your eyes off the screen and look at the Control Surface is a guaranteed sign of bad integration.

Addressing the issue would mean re-ordering the controls on the ProChannel or at the very least release a special version of the ProChannel for the VS-700.

The controls really are not scrambled at all and the workflow behind it was well thought out. You can find this post and more information here.

If this is what Cakewalk consider well thought out...   You can state that it is well thought out but it doesn't make it true. Well thought out would mean "Hey we have this very expensive control surface, let's make our GUI reflect the order of the control surface and hey, it happens to coincide wit the order on the hardware we are imitating anyway".

In other words, the order on the ProChannel is random at best and that never equates to "well thought out".

I use the VS-700 everyday... the ProChannel mappings work very well with the VS-700. This new implementation is a big part of SONAR X1b and a lot of work, in-house, went into it's development.

Are you suggesting that having the ProChannel controls in the same order as on the VS-700 would be less good? Because you can not say that it works "very well" when there is a clear and rather unambiguous improvement possible. The only thing you can reasonably say is that you get by despite this blunder made when originally designing the ProChannel and X1.

This type of post where Cakewalk insists on being right despite users complaining and, well, anyone can see that they are wrong, does really not give much hope for the future of Sonar at all...

UnderTow

I've never stated neither Cakewalk's nor customers' views to be right or wrong. I also haven't acknowledged nor have I NOT acknowledged anything. Please try to take my position, Technical Support, into consideration before assuming or implying that I have any hidden agendas.

I'm simply stating that given the fact that the ProChannel EQ controls are mapped in the GUI in a different order then the encoders on the surface, I think the new implementation works quite well. I don't believe it is wrong of me to attempt to encourage VS-700 users to spend some time with the implementation and to direct them towards the document that discusses how it works in X1b.

There are a lot of controls in ProChannel and despite the rows not being in the order you guys shed light to, something wouldn't have matched up in the end anyway. Sonitus EQ and ProChannel EQ have 6 unique bands to adjust, but there are only 4 columns of encoders in the CHANNEL STRIP CONTROL section. Regardless of the fact that this section doesn't look like exactly Sonitus EQ, I've learned to control each band of the Sonitus EQ after a few minutes of using the surface, and I've learned to control the ProChannel EQ, Compressors and Tube Saturation from the surface pretty quickly as well.

I understand the complaints regarding this, but all of this frustration over 12 controls falls apart the moment you leave the EQ module or Page 1 of it's controls and the context of what you're controlling in SONAR changes.

In any case, I didn't decide to contribute to argue opinions nor misinform customers. I came in here to share that despite many assumptions and concerns over the layout, I believe that using the VS-700 with ProChannel is still very easy to control and encourage anyone with VS-700Cs to learn how it works.

I can definitely think of a variety of other commands on the VS-700 and on other hardware or software that are more difficult to memorize with the growing list of key bindings and gestures that have been burned into my brain.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]

Noel, does that mean that the Mackie Control dll will be updated eventually?

 
It could but don't hold me to it since I haven't heard of any schedule for it yet. :)

Thank you, you couldn't drop a few hints in the right ears by any chance? There'll be several of us on here who would appreciate it, very muchly. 

FastBikerBoy

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]

Noel, does that mean that the Mackie Control dll will be updated eventually?

It could but don't hold me to it since I haven't heard of any schedule for it yet. :)

Thank you, you couldn't drop a few hints in the right ears by any chance? There'll be several of us on here who would appreciate it, very muchly. 

Yessssss indeed!!

Oops, didn't notice there was a page two.  This thread really blew up.

So, is it possible now or are we waiting for something?
Sorry, I'm a music geek, not a computer geek.  What is SDK?

BlixYZ


I am not familiar with SDK.  Will someone explain what this all means to me?

Will the parameters be available to my Mackie C4?  If not in Sonar mode, then in basic midi mode?

I was excited to see the word "solved" in the thread title, but I guess I need someone to spell it out for me. :)

I might even be willing to get a bcr to use DEDICATED to the prochannel, if it would function well.

Thanks all.
 
 

SDK = Software Developers Kit - stuff the bit flippers use to write drivers and such.  That's about all I know about it.

Well bitman,

I don't know about anyone else, but if you are able program a solution, Iwould be happy to support your efforts with a donation. 

Why are the changes that Noel posted just a "holdyaover"?
Are you waiting for more information?  Or are you waiting for them to do or fix something?

FastBikerBoy

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]

Noel, does that mean that the Mackie Control dll will be updated eventually?

It could but don't hold me to it since I haven't heard of any schedule for it yet. :)

Thank you, you couldn't drop a few hints in the right ears by any chance? There'll be several of us on here who would appreciate it, very muchly. 
 
+10000!

OK, Happy Saturday.

I have broken through to the other side so to speak and have the BCR2000 controlling the PCEQ.

Before anyone asks for the plug in, know that there are many warts and compromises that I have just put up with while using this plug to control either the sonitas or 3rd party fx bin eqs all in the interest of getting back to the business of recording.

The main limitation is that since the bcr2000 has 4 controls per vertical strip and I can only think in terms of the old in-line mixer, I opted to only control the 4 band eq "gains" and left the Q and freq to the mouse. I generally preset the frequencies and Qs to responsible starting points and mixed that way.

Another is I never asked the bcr2000 to swap "pages" or personalities and now become an FX controller. Primarily because I didn't want to ever be spinning a knob thinking it's a LF gain pot when crap, it's the threshold. It's just the way I prefer to work. I would love to have more vertical pots on the bcr2000 but it is what it is for now.

Another limitation is I have for get 'er done sake, developed 3 dlls for the 3 bcr2000s I have. One for each unit that makes up the 8 tracks of a 24 track array. This is out of the need to just have it work in my studio.
Consequently, I just set each unit to a unique and specific midi channel to differentiate all the units. There is a better way but I didn't need to implemented as it was just for use in my studio.

You can see why I haven't released it into the wild.

As for the MCU:

I don't know much about it as it's too much money for some encoders.
The BCR2000 allows us to assign a specific CC value to each control.
A.J. Mayo's plug listens for those CC# and spins the appropriate sonar
element.

The MCU in AFAIK a different beast. I have for example looked at the BCF2000 output when faders are pushed under BCF2000 McSo Emulation. I'm not a midi wiz in the least but the output is not CC# as is in BC mode but might be Sysex?

I do know this about it. when you push fader1 on an McSo emu BCF, the midi stream is on channel 1. when you push fader2, the midi stream is on channel 2 and so on.

The BCF2000 and BCR2000s in BC mode are much less of a closed black box than the MCU.

Behringer gets some things very right.

Back to my code......

 

To think I looked at G#7 and saw uh, maybe sysex I dunno when it was a G#7. <facepalm>

Thanks.
I'm interested is such a chart also.

ron AT mtrecording DOT KOM

Thanks.