highpow3rpc

midibox 64e 22encoder, 84switches, 64pots Need help

26 posts in this topic

Ok i am a total noob and would like help customizing midibox 64e software to be mapped to 22 encoders, 84 switches and 64pots

if any one would be able to help, or explain how to edit the files for this i would be very appreciative

thanks all and by far one of the best online communities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if any one would be able to help, or explain how to edit the files for this i would be very appreciative

As I understand it, you can't do that on one core.... You'd need to use two separate 8 bit cores, and link them to get that many inputs working with Midibox 64E.

CORE 1 (using Midibox 64E)

With 2 DINX4 Boards

22 encoders (would use up 44 Digital Inputs)

Leaving 20 Digital inputs For 20 Switches

CORE 2 (using Midibox 64)

With 2 DINX4 Boards

And 2 AINX4 Boards

64 switches (uses up the 64 Digital Inputs) (total switches now at 84)

64 pots (uses up the 64 analog inputs)

The two cores linked by enabling the midibox link in the software, to the end user it would behave as a single system.

I'm sure somebody else can give you more detail on that. But I recommend that you go read and digest the documentation. It will answer 99% of your questions.

Best Regards,

Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

Edited by Fozzy The Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, you can't do that on one core.... You'd need to use two separate 8 bit cores, and link them to get that many inputs working with Midibox 64E.

CORE 1 (using Midibox 64E)

With 2 DINX4 Boards

22 encoders (would use up 44 Digital Inputs)

Leaving 20 Digital inputs For 20 Switches

CORE 2 (using Midibox 64)

With 2 DINX4 Boards

And 2 AINX4 Boards

64 switches (uses up the 64 Digital Inputs) (total switches now at 84)

64 pots (uses up the 64 analog inputs)

The two cores linked by enabling the midibox link in the software, to the end user it would behave as a single system.

I'm sure somebody else can give you more detail on that. But I recommend that you go read and digest the documentation. It will answer 99% of your questions.

Best Regards,

Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

In my reading it says that the midibox 64e supports upto 64 potentiometers in the newest firmware (2 ains) and if i am only using 22 rotary encoders that would be 44 inputs used on the dins, but if i am using 4 din's there is still 128-44= 84 leftover din pins, so wouldn't this still be possible with the single core

Kind regards Highpow3rpc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if i am using 4 din's there is still 128-44= 84 leftover din pins, so wouldn't this still be possible with the single core

It might need TK to clarify this for us..... But from what I understand of the system, On Midibox64E Pots and faders are mapped to the "encoder" entries 64-128. Which then limits the available DIN inputs. This appears to be a software limitation in 64E rather than a hardware one. It looks like it was implemented as a compatibility measure.

You could however be right as I also read: "optionally up to 64 pots or up to 8 motorfaders can be connected in addition to the rotary encoders"

The FAQ is also a little unclear on the limits of what can be connected and work simultaneously.

TK.... If you're reading this could you clarify this for us please??

Best Regards,

Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

Edited by Fozzy The Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have remembered that an encoder uses 2 din pins? so if you use pin 0 then the encoder also takes the pin next highest. so on a dinx4 board you can only have 16 encoders, remembering that the first shift register is for the menu buttons, however these can be made available for encoder or button use should you require.

so the mb64e can have a max of 64 encoders on the max link of 4 dinx4 boards to one core. then you can have 64 pots or faders (non motorised faders) linked to the ainx4 boards.

personally the use of the first sr1 for the menu functions with an lcd is so helpful in programming everything, as the editor will take time to get used to, also using the menu and lcd you can acertain each encoder, pot, fader, button number and then edit it correctly in the editor.

when linked to the editor, if you use midi learn it does not change the button number in the editor to the correct one that being inputted, you would have to change the button number manually in the editor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has considered the two pin thing. 22 * 2 + 84 = 128. Doable on one core. Not necessarily with the mb64e app though (dunno, never worked with it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has considered the two pin thing. 22 * 2 + 84 = 128. Doable on one core. Not necessarily with the mb64e app though (dunno, never worked with it)

nILS this is exactly my understanding :), should i have put this in the software oriented forum ? basically i would like to re write the app for this purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes and no :) It's going to be a HUI but if the thread moves more towards the programming aspect, I'll move it ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm the idea was more to get insight/help in programming this think it might head that way pretty soon or hope for it to, would you be please be able to move this sorry for the inconvenience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i haz posted nonsense...

Edited by phunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
basically i would like to re write the app for this purpose.

OK, but you may not need to re-write the app to support what you want to do.... It may actually support it natively. Not spent enough time pushing the limits of what it can handle to be 100% sure either way here.

Persoannly I suspect it might well fall over trying to do it but, we really need TK to answer this one and tell us if it's actually possible to do what you want with the 64E App as it is.

There's not a lot of point in re-writing it if can already cope with the demand as it stands.

Best Regards,

Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, but you may not need to re-write the app to support what you want to do.... It may actually support it natively. Not spent enough time pushing the limits of what it can handle to be 100% sure either way here.

Persoannly I suspect it might well fall over trying to do it but, we really need TK to answer this one and tell us if it's actually possible to do what you want with the 64E App as it is.

There's not a lot of point in re-writing it if can already cope with the demand as it stands.

Best Regards,

Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

Fozzy i think that you may be right in the application being able to handle this, it just needs to be tweaked slightly in the configuration files, if then the app falls over i will post all progress in rewriting it.

Kind Regards Highpow3rpc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fozzy i think that you may be right in the application being able to handle this, it just needs to be tweaked slightly in the configuration files, if then the app falls over i will post all progress in rewriting it.

Kind Regards Highpow3rpc

Hey,

i meanwhile had the time to look into the files. It´s not hard to configure it. It´s harder to find the info :p

Download the latest application files (in this case mb64e_v2_2d) and have a look into setup_midibox16e.asm

it´s all documented in there. Change the setup_midibox64e.asm accordingly.

After that you have to compile the file and generate a new .hex that you can upload via mios.

Read the application development article in the wiki on how its done. http://www.midibox.org/dokuwiki/application_development

it´s n00b friendly...i just tried it :)

Edited by phunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@phunk thanks heaps for the help i will refer back to this when i am ready to upload it, I have a question for you all, who would be interested in smd Ain, Din and Dout boards for tssop packaged ic's, and would these preferably be designed as smd passive components or through hole ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you decide to go SMD go SMD all the way, otherwise you'll find yourself in via-hell and do not really save a lot of space. Use decent sized passive components (sth like 1206 or 0805 for the resistors).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
who would be interested in smd Ain, Din and Dout boards for tssop packaged ic's

YES!! You got my vote for those..... As long as the board price is the same or lower than the current boards available, then I'd say go for it! SMD components are way cheaper than the through hole variety. I'd also like to see them available as a DIN X8 module AIN X8 module and Dout X8 module as this seems to me to make much more sense than just having DIN X4's etc etc like we do now.

I also add my voice to the cry for all components to go SMD on them. No point in doing half a job on it. If you're going SMD then do it all. And I have to agree with nILS that you should look at 1206 or 0805 for the resistors, because it makes them easier to handle.

Best Regards,

Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

Edited by Fozzy The Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as the board price is the same or lower than the current boards available, then I'd say go for it

GLWT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GLWT.

I don't think it's unrealistic nILS....... Look at it this way, if he makes them DINX8 boards for example, then the cost of 2 smash DINX4 boards is over $14 USD + shipping. I'm pretty certain that a single DINX8 board for SMD's would come out at less than $14 USD per board, we are only talking about the etched board here not the components.

Best Regards,

Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES!! You got my vote for those..... As long as the board price is the same or lower than the current boards available, then I'd say go for it! SMD components are way cheaper than the through hole variety. I'd also like to see them available as a DIN X8 module AIN X8 module and Dout X8 module as this seems to me to make much more sense than just having DIN X4's etc etc like we do now.

I also add my voice to the cry for all components to go SMD on them. No point in doing half a job on it. If you're going SMD then do it all. And I have to agree with nILS that you should look at 1206 or 0805 for the resistors, because it makes them easier to handle.

Best Regards,

Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

Thats the thing my sources of pcb manufacturers pricing is fairly high, at the moment i will be just building this midibox on vero board

i will hopefully have a mock up board in the near future once the project is complete, kind regards Highpow3rpc, and would any one know

where the best pricing for electronics components in australia is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick eagle session says that with my very limited eagle and SMD skills a DINx4 would be doable in 2.7 x 1.2 inches. Smaller is possible but hard, mainly due to the fairly high amount of sockets. Maybe I should make set of all-smd standard modules and run a tiny tester-bulk order :thumbsup:

Oh and sorry for dragging this thread off-topic ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick eagle session says that with my very limited eagle and SMD skills a DINx4 would be doable in 2.7 x 1.2 inches. Smaller is possible but hard, mainly due to the fairly high amount of sockets. Maybe I should make set of all-smd standard modules and run a tiny tester-bulk order :thumbsup:

Oh and sorry for dragging this thread off-topic ;)

Hey nILS would it be possible for you to upload your schematic and board for us to have a look at, nah the thread isn't of topic still relates to the midibox64e and the bulk order doesn't sound like such a bad idea :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick eagle session says that with my very limited eagle and SMD skills a DINx4 would be doable in 2.7 x 1.2 inches.

Do you not think that it would be a good idea to look at doing them as a DINx8 design, given the much smaller footprint?? Then people could just stuff the components they need. Meaning that you could just have 2 boards for 64 inputs?? Wouldn't this be better than ending up with 4 very small boards that have to be linked up?

Best Regards,

Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you not think that it would be a good idea to look at doing them as a DINx8 design, given the much smaller footprint?? Then people could just stuff the components they need. Meaning that you could just have 2 boards for 64 inputs?? Wouldn't this be better than ending up with 4 very small boards that have to be linked up?

Best Regards,

Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

Hey Fozzy i was thinking maybe a dinx16 and an ainx8

Make it alot more compact and easier to integrate into mini builds

Kind regards Highpow3rpc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Fozzy i was thinking maybe a dinx16

Yeah!! all 64 inputs on one board wouldn't be a bad idea at all. and again people could then stuff as many chips on it as they actually need.

Best Regards,

Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now