X1B - That does it. - SOLVED - Happiness again.

What does this mean then if they didn't do anything?

"We are aware that in SONAR X1a ProChannel control is very limited and this will be vastly improved in SONAR X1b."

Strange...

I'm sure they probably did something to improve ProChannel, just not what the OP is asking.

It's being steered?

FBB I edited out the unnecessary.

But I think the first mate in marketing is running around consoling the passengers.

 

hey bitman,

I can understand you being upset with Cakewalk, but at least you reverted back to Sonar 8.5.3 instead of leaving their product all together.

I too do not have everything working in Sonar X1 the way I want, especially after installing X1b, but I am going to tought it out because the process has gotten better.  I too have a Mackie Control Universal but I never got the chance to put it through its paces with X1 due to the crashes and error message I was always receiving.   If I can use the basic transport controls and a lot of function that I've always used, then I will be happy enough to use X1 until the next MAJOR release. 

Hang in there Bitman,  there is light at the end of the X series tunnel......

Peace

bitman


And over in the VS700 forum they are saying the controls are all scrambled.

Guys, nobody's checking this stuff. for all we know the coding and or testing is outsourced.

When I saw the leading space on the narrow strips I knew we were all in trouble.

I'm staying with 8.5.3. I have 7 bcx2000s running on per track eq.
Everything is where I expect it to be.

I'm really disenchanted.
But it was free to me .... now I know why.

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. 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.

In regards to your original post, I think perhaps the problem reporter was referring to the fact that ProChannel has been updated to work with ACT. It looks like the report was returned "AS INTENDED" because I'm not sure the way you are trying to implement controlling ProChannel with your BCX2000 was ever intended. It sounds like you're trying to control the BCX2000 with ProChannel's GUI rather than ProChannel's parameters with the commands that the BCX2000 is sending. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding but I'm not sure this was ever intended behavior in SONAR despite you getting it to work for your unique scenario.

Have you tried using the ACT MIDI Controller plug-in to learn ACT assignments for controlling ProChannel?

As a secondary controller, I have a Novation ReMOTE SL25 sitting my desk right now. There is no dedicated Control Surface Plug-in for this in SONAR so I usually use it with the ACT MIDI Controller plug-in. A while back, before Novation released their Automap software for this device, I wrote a Tech Tip regarding using the Novation with both the ACT MIDI Controller plug-in and the Cakewalk Generic Surface. If you're at all interesting you can find this article here.

In any case, I mention all of this because I've been using the same technique in the article above to control ProChannel from my Novation controller. The implementation isn't quite as eloquent as with the VS-700C, but I can get things to work just fine w/ ACT. Unfortunately, without a dedicated control surface plug-in for your hardware you might have to configure it to use the ACT MIDI Controller plug-in or the Cakewalk Generic Surface.

I don't have access to one, or seven BCX2000's so I can't say for sure how well this implementation would or would not work but I just wanted to share the suggestion.

Ryan Munnis [Cakewalk
]

bitman


And over in the VS700 forum they are saying the controls are all scrambled.

Guys, nobody's checking this stuff. for all we know the coding and or testing is outsourced.

When I saw the leading space on the narrow strips I knew we were all in trouble.

I'm staying with 8.5.3. I have 7 bcx2000s running on per track eq.
Everything is where I expect it to be.

I'm really disenchanted.
But it was free to me .... now I know why.

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. 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.

In regards to your original post, I think perhaps the problem reporter was referring to the fact that ProChannel has been updated to work with ACT. It looks like the report was returned "AS INTENDED" because I'm not sure the way you are trying to implement controlling ProChannel with your BCX2000 was ever intended. It sounds like you're trying to control the BCX2000 with ProChannel's GUI rather than ProChannel's parameters with the commands that the BCX2000 is sending. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding but I'm not sure this was ever intended behavior in SONAR despite you getting it to work for your unique scenario.

Have you tried using the ACT MIDI Controller plug-in to learn ACT assignments for controlling ProChannel?

As a secondary controller, I have a Novation ReMOTE SL25 sitting my desk right now. There is no dedicated Control Surface Plug-in for this in SONAR so I usually use it with the ACT MIDI Controller plug-in. A while back, before Novation released their Automap software for this device, I wrote a Tech Tip regarding using the Novation with both the ACT MIDI Controller plug-in and the Cakewalk Generic Surface. If you're at all interesting you can find this article here.

In any case, I mention all of this because I've been using the same technique in the article above to control ProChannel from my Novation controller. The implementation isn't quite as eloquent as with the VS-700C, but I can get things to work just fine w/ ACT. Unfortunately, without a dedicated control surface plug-in for your hardware you might have to configure it to use the ACT MIDI Controller plug-in or the Cakewalk Generic Surface.

I don't have access to one, or seven BCX2000's so I can't say for sure how well this implementation would or would not work but I just wanted to share the suggestion.

Act has limitations with the rotary control count. - No good
I have have plugs written in C++ that does this under 8.5

In this bad video I show 3 bcr2000s (24 tracks) responding to a staggered oscillating sine automation on 24 lanes
All responding to Sonitas per track eq under a custom CS plugin.

The bcf2000 faders are mackie control.

Why you don't just simply expose the controls of the prochannel in the same way that virtually all effects per channel or in the bin are is a travisty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ5k9ImcS0I

Why should we mouse around when the controls are right within our reach.

Thank you for your attention, I'm sorry for my angst.
But my studio is running and making money on 8.5 and so it will be until the prochannel is exposed.
That is all I want from X1.

By the way. If the control surface SDK needs updating or if I can download extensions to it to support the PC that would be great.

I posted a question in the developer forum waaay back befor x1a and the thread dropped like a stone.

The developer section was a desert place when I went over there. It didn't used to be that way.

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.

FastBikerBoy


I'm with bitman on this. The PC EQ is available via my MCU great. But ATM it's far easier for me to use the sonitus Compressor 'cos I can control that via the DYN mode on the MCU.

The parameters from the PC Compressor and Tube saturator are completely hidden to the MCU (and hence BCF).

Please just expose them as "A comapatible compressor" for the PC compressor and a regular plugin for the saturator. I'll adjust the mackie.ini file myself to use them and I'm sure bitman will then do whatever he does with his CS to help him.

Pretty please......

Ha ha - another Rose aye Karl :-)

I started a thread asking if anyone is using the MCU + C4.
No replies to the thread, but I see some pretty solid answers in threads like this one.

I was trying to forward plan and considering the MCU + C4 when I upgrade some more hardware.

I just can't fathom why the prochannel isn't fully exposed, it has to be a major requirement to control this via standard hardware.

The Mackie is standard hardware isn't it ?

I hope we will see some (quicker) updates to the prochannel, including this.

The other annoyance I find is visual feedback of parameters when you're changing them.
I float the CV on a secon monitor, and when you click on a prochannel control the tooltip which feeds back the value displays
on the other monitor.

I'll spend a bit more time working through X1b, there is a lot I like about it.
But there are still issues which could push me back to 8.5 again until the next update - I hope not.


Cheers - Cliff

Its not quite as simple as you make out to expose the prochannel like we do for plugins and we have no plans of doing so. The VS700 talks to the prochannel via updated interfaces using the our control surface SDK (as it does for the older built in eq). We have plans release an update in the future at which time other third party surface vendors who want to use the prochannel modules will be able to achieve the same functionality that is available to the VS700. This is the only way that the prochannel will be supported for surfaces.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]

Its not quite as simple as you make out to expose the prochannel like we do for plugins and we have no plans of doing so. The VS700 talks to the prochannel via updated interfaces using the our control surface SDK (as it does for the older built in eq). We have plans release an update in the future at which time other third party surface vendors who want to use the prochannel modules will be able to achieve the same functionality that is available to the VS700. This is the only way that the prochannel will be supported for surfaces.

Hi Noel,

thanks for clearing that up, though it's not really what I wanted to hear.

I'll be having a play with this to see what is possible, but for me it's just "not a go" trying to use the mouse for things like this.
I use the mouse to edit notes in the PRV, and control almost everything paramete wise with hardware.

In general I find mouse control of parameters awkward, clumsy, and difficult (for various reasons) compared to using real physical controls.

Is the control surface SDK available to the public ?.

Thanks again.

Cheers - Cliff

cliffr

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]

Its not quite as simple as you make out to expose the prochannel like we do for plugins and we have no plans of doing so. The VS700 talks to the prochannel via updated interfaces using the our control surface SDK (as it does for the older built in eq). We have plans release an update in the future at which time other third party surface vendors who want to use the prochannel modules will be able to achieve the same functionality that is available to the VS700. This is the only way that the prochannel will be supported for surfaces.

Hi Noel,

thanks for clearing that up, though it's not really what I wanted to hear.

I'll be having a play with this to see what is possible, but for me it's just "not a go" trying to use the mouse for things like this.
I use the mouse to edit notes in the PRV, and control almost everything paramete wise with hardware.

In general I find mouse control of parameters awkward, clumsy, and difficult (for various reasons) compared to using real physical controls.

Is the control surface SDK available to the public ?.

Thanks again.

Cheers - Cliff

  Absolutely . has been for years.

You can download it over here:

http://www.cakewalk.com/DevXchange/default.aspx

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]

No it has nothing to do with us "curtailing development". Any more conspiracy theories? :)
Yes we have updated the SDK since what was published. We haven't updated it more for lack of time than anything else.

If I understand you correctly, you are using a cs SDK that is newer than the latest that is currently available at the DevExchange which I believe is ControlSurfaceSDK2.zip?

Thank you btw Noel. It refreshing to here from someone who knows what I am speaking of. The developer forum is as good as dead.

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