MidiBox64/E Digital+Analog controls?

[iceberg]

Ok, originaly I was going to try to build a MBseq, but I decided to use an external sequencer for now and just build a MidiBox controler. I'm wondering with the MidiBox63e design can you have analog inputs such as pots, or in my case LFO's to control parameters along with the digital encoders, and does this have an effect on the number of digital inputs? This is being built as a dedicated  controller for an MC-303.

[TK.]

Hi Iceberg,

the MB64E bank consists of 128 MIDI parameter values and 64 digital button states.

It's possible to use up to 64 analog inputs, they are just mapped into the upper MIDI parameter range (65..128)

So, for a single LFO, just select "unmuxed" mode and "1 pot" in main.asm, in this case the LFO will control the 65th MIDI parameter of a bank

The number of buttons won't be reduced (analog sources are NOT connected to the DIN module!)

Best Regards, Thorsten.

[iceberg]

Ok, that is what I thought but wanted to be sure. Here was the original  before the thoguth of LFOs to control things:

5 voices each with 8 push button encoders so that they could 16 parameters per voice thats esentialy that is 24 digital inputs for each voice times 5  is 120 digital inputs, then the 8 main buttons makes the full 128. Then I wanted to have a strip of 16 or 32 LFOs  that could be assigned to override any of the 80 encoders. What do you think of the feasability of this? I have not yet decided on the LFOs to use yet so if this is a feasable controller  idea I am open to suggestions on LFO modules .

For the main pannel I was thinking of going plain  with guide pins so I cna use vinyl overlays  so that if I decide to reconfigure things i dont need a new fron pannel, just a new vinyl. 

I have not had time to show the layout that I had in mind as I spent 3 days working on a car.

Please let me know if anyone has suggestions or advice.

Thanks for the help so far.

[TK.]

Then I wanted to have a strip of 16 or 32 LFOs  that could be assigned to override any of the 80 encoders. What do you think of the feasability of this?

This is not a feasible setup - MIDI is the main bottleneck here, because the transfer of a single MIDI event (e.g. CC) takes ca. 1 mS. This already limits the max. transfer rate for the waveform of a single LFO a lot. For a sine wave I would say that at least 16 sample points are required for adequate results (we are not talking about the Nyquist theorems here), this limits the max. frequency to 62.5 Hz. Once you've more than one LFO, the results won't be much enjoyable anymore...

I think that this obsoletes the other questions... ;-)

Best Regards, Thorsten.

[iceberg]

Ok, I understand that. What then is the difference  in using an LFO and me just turning the knob back and forth at a continuous rate?

Is there a solution to this?

I am asuming you see what I want to do at this point, basicaly automate fading back and forth w/o a computer and motofaders.

[eufex]

Just for clarification ( I may be being stupid here but I asked this in another thread and was informed it was not possible). Can MIDIBOX 64E handle 4Dins, 4Douts and 2Ains - i.e. the full MIDIBOX 64E spec + 64 analogue inputs.

Thanks.

[shmuu102]

i am curious to know if it can handle just a couple of ain's: lets say 32 encoders,64 buttons and 4 pots..???

[illogik]

Just for clarification ( I may be being stupid here but I asked this in another thread and was informed it was not possible). Can MIDIBOX 64E handle 4Dins, 4Douts and 2Ains - i.e. the full MIDIBOX 64E spec + 64 analogue inputs.

Thanks.

Insert Quote

i am curious to know if it can handle just a couple of ain's: lets say 32 encoders,64 buttons and 4 pots..

guys, if you could at least read the this whole thread;

it's funny  :( if there would be some more reading/searching the forum the forum wouldn't get so big so it would be easier reading/searching the forum etc.

marcel

[istephen]

Ok, I understand that. What then is the difference  in using an LFO and me just turning the knob back and forth at a continuous rate?

The difference is how FAST you can wiggle it ;-)

By hand you can wiggle a couple of pots back and forth couple of times per second (2pots x 2 wiggles = 4 wps).

With an LFO you're potentially doing that hundreds or thousands of times per second, and you could apply this to LOTS of inputs simulaniously.

It's been sugguested that the system can handle about 60 wiggles per second (1 wiggle per second = 1 Hz in tech speak). Provided you're total amount of wiggles doesn't exceed that it should be OK, so you could wiggle 6 pots 10 times per second, to 60 pots once per second. You'd probably want to err on the low side, as it would totally mess with  the timing of any other midi data going over the same cable (or better yet run one cable just for this data if possible).

I think the confusion is in the term LFO - in synth terms an LFO could easily generate too much data, but a V(ery)LFO would be fine.

Ian

[eufex]

guys, if you could at least read the this whole thread;

it's funny  :( if there would be some more reading/searching the forum the forum wouldn't get so big so it would be easier reading/searching the forum etc.

marcel

illogic. I'm so very sorry that I've offended you. The fact of the matter is that this IS a forum and like any other forum isn't a definitive collection of information and  contains plenty of information that is not totally correct. I've done plenty of seraching and plenty of reading believe you me. There isn't a definitive answer that I've been able to find. I was told in another thread that you can't mix pots with 64E easily without custom coding. Thorsten says different (and this must be correct). I was just clarifying what the spec is when mixing DINS and AINS.

By the way your link doesn't work  :P

[illogik]

hi, you didn't offend me at all so don't be sorry, and it is good to double-check, but...

There isn't a definitive answer that I've been able to find. I was told in another thread that you can't mix pots with 64E easily without custom coding. Thorsten says different (and this must be correct). I was just clarifying what the spec is when mixing DINS and AINS.

By the way your link doesn't work 

i'm just saying the answer to your question is a few posts up in this very thread you are reading now! (underlined but no link, a bit confusing, i agree ;)):

Hi Iceberg,

the MB64E bank consists of 128 MIDI parameter values and 64 digital button states.

It's possible to use up to 64 analog inputs, they are just mapped into the upper MIDI parameter range (65..128)

So, for a single LFO, just select "unmuxed" mode and "1 pot" in main.asm, in this case the LFO will control the 65th MIDI parameter of a bank

The number of buttons won't be reduced (analog sources are NOT connected to the DIN module!)

or am i missing the point?

marcel

[eufex]

Hi. Yes you are missing the point slightly. The point is that Thorsten says you can mix and match on 64E - something which was refuted before. He then explains about 64E being able to cope with 128 MIDI parameter values and 64 button states. A state is 1 or zero yes? Which must mean that 128 parameters +32 buttons can be accomodated. If 64 of the parameters are analogue, that leaves another 64 for digital + 32 buttons or minus 32 buttons? As far as I knew the MB64E spec was 128 Dins, which means that you can, if you want ,connect 128 buttons or (say) 64 buttons and 32 encoders.

You can see where the confusion is? Unless you have got a box up and running and have played around with the OS none of this is crystal clear.

Of course I could be talking out of my jacksie?

[TK.]

Is there somebody who wants to create a webbased java application which calculates possible configurations? ;-)

here some formulas:

max number of available digital inputs: 128

max number of digital inputs which can be used to trigger button functions (e.g. MIDI events or Special Functions): 64

number of digital inputs which can be used for menu navigation: 4

number of digital inputs which are allocated for encoders: 2 * number of encoders (max. 64 encoders = 128 pins)

max number of analog inputs: 64

number of 7-bit MIDI values which are stored within a bank, and which can be controlled via encoder or AINs: 128

number of 1-bit MIDI values which are stored within a bank, and which can be controlled via DINs: 64

max number of available digital outputs: 128

number of digital outputs which are controlled directly via button or via MIDI (same MIDI events like assigned to the 64 buttons): 64

max number of digital outputs which can be used for LEDrings: 32 for each group of 16 LEDrings, max: 64 LEDrings = 128 pins

number of digital outputs which can be used as software-based MIDI Tx/Rx indicator: 2 pins

anything missing?

Best Regards, Thorsten.

[raphael]

anything missing?

Analog outs?

Or is AOUT support part of the application and not a MIOS feature?

[iceberg]

Ok, since what I am wanting to do is automate some sweeps it might be feasable to use an lfo then correct? What Im thinking is a 4-6 second period or at the most  a 2 second period, thats .5hz at the most, but I was thinking of letting the lfo go from 0-4hz .

Any further input, anyone have a good inexspensive lfo design, since it's being used for sweeps not audio tone generation they dont need to be that high end.

[istephen]

Ok, since what I am wanting to do is automate some sweeps it might be feasable to use an lfo then correct?

Should be fine...

It's probably worth seeing if you can set up a test system to see if it performs to your needs.

It would be interesting to see a midi monitor which could measure the percent of bandwith used, and worst case latency (longest time since the input queue was empty), as this would tell you exactly how hard you were pushing the midi cable, and how much capacity was left.

Any further input, anyone have a good inexspensive lfo design, since it's being used for sweeps not audio tone generation they dont need to be that high end.

How about a midibox?

It's more programming than hardware, but you set up something far more controllable than an lfo. You could set up a sweep system which has three pots for start, end, and speed, along with a trigger button to start it. Better two trigger buttons - one for a one time sweep, and a second to start a sine wave (which keeps running until either button is pressed again). If you needed to you could output the result via an aout module (ie as a real lfo), or just send it directly via midi as a CC (which is where you want it to end up). Once you can generate it sending it via Aout or midi is pretty similar, so you could code it to handle both options.

You could integrate it into the existing software or you could more easily build it as a standalone system - a Midi-LFO box.

Ian

[illogik]

Hi, sounds interesting

how difficult is it to implement software lfo's and envelopes in a MBapp?

Any further input, anyone have a good inexspensive lfo design, since it's being used for sweeps not audio tone generation they dont need to be that high end.

And if you want hardware; i've built 2 of these and i love 'em (but i love lfo's in general):

http://www.musicfromouterspace.com/analogsynth/coolnewlfo.html

they got controls for rate/speed, waveshaper (from saw to triangle to ramp), hi/lo range switch, and 3 different waveform outputs. You can also insert a voltage divider at the output so you can control the amplitude of the wave.

cheers, marcel

[istephen]

how difficult is it to implement software lfo's and envelopes in a MBapp?

Check the thread: AM's digital/analog polysynth project

They're doing similar things but at audio frequencies which is much tougher.

Should be easy enough, but it's a bit out of my depth just yet (I'm still working at the design phases of my system). If you've got a box set up, it should be pretty easy to start experimenting, and get something running - certainly the entire project would be much simpler than the BIG apps (like SEQ or FM). Just start simple (like a simple speed sweep of fixed amplitude and rate), then start adding stuff.

Ian