Control surface for use with SCS

[Mike Daniell]

I am planning to provide SCS support for the CM Labs MotorMix 2 control surface, or DAW console. This will provide better real-time control of levels which will be particularly useful when live input is added (for SoundMan-Server versions of SCS). It will also provide better output level control for environments where the SCS outputs are fed directly to powered speakers instead of passing through an audio mixer.

I would like to know if you have used anything like this, and generally any comments on how you would like to see such a device used with SCS. My thanks to Charlie Richmond and Carl Underwood for suggesting this and for providing excellent input to the idea, but I'd like to hear from other users as well.

[Boswell]

Although I like the general idea, it might be better to to choose an interface that is more universally available. I can't find a dealer for CM Labs MotorMix 2 in the UK and the import prices seem very high, around £450 sterling for an interface to drive SCS, no way,

[charlier]

Although I like the general idea, it might be better to to choose an interface that is more universally available. I can't find a dealer for CM Labs MotorMix 2 in the UK and the import prices seem very high, around £450 sterling for an interface to drive SCS, no way,

I don't know of a cheaper unit with 8 moving faders but would very interested in anything you can suggest. Also, my understanding is that you can already use any sort of MIDI controller that sends volume messages now so you can use almost any controller without moving faders for control of up to 16 volume levels in SCS.

The major advantage to the MM2 is that you can daisy chain or even bolt together up to 16 of them to provide up to 128 moving faders in a live virtual console. Not cheap but more customisable and flexible than a digital console. Also, I'm sure Gary at CueOne can get MM2s for you very easily since we have a GUI that uses it now and certainly if we proceed with this we will make sure he covers this.

[Boswell]

Behringer BFC2000 anyone ??

[Mike Daniell]

The BCF2000 looks like a viable alternative, Boswell. I'll try to keep the interface fairly generic with device-specific options.

Edit: corrected model number.

[Boswell]

Mike,
or the BCR2000

I would agree with keeping fairly generic, you don't want to tie SCS down to one particular piece of hardware.

KISS as always

[Mike Daniell]

The BCR2000 also looks interesting. It doesn't have 8 motorised faders like the BCF2000, but instead has 24 rotary faders (or encoders as they call them) with LED rings.

An interesting comment I heard on the first video on the BCR2000 page of the Behringer site was that the Behringer motorised faders of the BCF2000 are cheap quality and tend to break. So if the Behringer pricing is more acceptable than CM Labs then maybe the BCR2000 would be a better unit. It's also considerably cheaper than the BCF2000. Personally, I still prefer the instant view you get of levels when using conventional slider faders, but equipment reliability is more important than choosing sliders rather than rotary controls.

[Boswell]

Mike,
most of the comments re the BCF relate to the motorised aspect of the fader (the motors can be disabled/turned off) ie being noisy, slamming into stops etc.
I've not seen anything saying that the faders themselves are unreliable. The software for the BCF and BCR seems almost identical and they in fact share a common user manual.
If you are using it to input fader control into SCS then possibly the motorised feed back is not important as long as you do not want SCS to control the faders!
I agree that a fader position is easier and quicker to assimilate and I would prefer them but either model would suit me.
I've already using a Roland Cakewalk UA101 USB with SCS and would like to get the 8 inputs into SCS as well.
I'm willing to get a BCF2000 or BCR2000 to play with/test as soon as the SCS Soundman version goes into test phase.
It's either that or talk to the wife!!

Keep up the good work

[Mike Daniell]

If you are using it to input fader control into SCS then possibly the motorised feed back is not important as long as you do not want SCS to control the faders!

Motorised control (or equivalent for the rotary controls with LED indicators) is very useful, especially for live inputs. The idea is that in SCS you would have a live input cue to activate one or more input channels, such as mic channels, and the cue would also set the initial fader levels for those channels. The operator should then only need to make minor adjustments as necessary to provide a live mix.

[barneyd]

That's a coincidence - I was just looking at the BCF2000 and thinking it would be good to be able to use it to control SCS.

That said, a generic interface is essential - you wouldn't want to try to support all the hardware out there now, much less what might come along in future. According to the blurb, you can use this device to control most types of DAW. From that I would guess that they all interface in a common way, probably using a standard set of MIDI messages. If not, BCF2000 looks pretty programable so as long as you have a well documented MIDI implementation, most surfaces should be able to work.

Probably the more interesting subject for this thread is how the operating methodology would work. In a DAW, it's easy, assign a fader (and maybe a rotary or two) to a channel and mix away. With SCS, it needs a bit of thought/debate as to what you want the control surface to do. So here's a starter for 10:

Buttons assigned to Go, All Stop, Prev/Next Cue, Pause All. (I guess some or all of this is available through the existing MIDI control of cues)

Faders preset to the level in the cue when it starts playing. Adjusting the fader is equivalent to moving the level fader on the cue with the mouse. That would make for easy adjustment of levels in rehersal (even if you ended up disconnecting the control surface in performance). Probably put pan on a rotary and assign a button for save changes.

Not sure how it works with multiple simultaneous cues. Additional cues on faders 2, 3... would be simple and very useful but might come unstuck when some of the cues stop. Possibly start at 1 again after silence (no cues playing).

Have an option to make one fader control the master.

In the editor, you could use a fader for level and rotaries for start and end times, loop start and end, fade in and out times and use the buttons below to store the new value of that particular parameter.


Could be an interesting debate, I'll follow this thread with interest.

[Eric Snodgrass]

Hasn't the MotorMix 2 been discontinued? If that is the case then it would seem to me to be counterproductive to start changing your product to support a discontinued item.
I agree with other posters here that it would be wiser to support some sort of generic control surface template, or at least a control surface still in production.

[charlier]

Hasn't the MotorMix 2 been discontinued? If that is the case then it would seem to me to be counterproductive to start changing your product to support a discontinued item.

Nope, not even close to discontinued. Not in wide distribution because there are lots of cheaper units now which are more popular perhaps but none that are as good as the MM2, which is still quite current. We have always been dealers for CMLabs.

[billritch]

I have an Akai APC 40 (http://www.akaipro.com/apc40) which I use for other things. I would love SCS to support and its little brother the APC 20 (http://www.akaipro.com/apc20).

It has lots of triggering pads as well as knobs and sliders for controlling volume, pan, and speed .