Simple controller for Pro-Tools M-powered - which way to go?

[Dunewar]

Hello people,

This is my first post here, and my first attempt to build a midibox. My aim is to build a mixing controller for pro-tools M-powered. Ergonomics are more important than features in my book, and I don't like menu's and double functions for buttons/sliders etc...

I would like faders, mute/solo/REC buttons, pan control and send controls (minimum 2), and transport buttons. that is the minimum, anything above that is nice.

My first question is this : can I build a MB64 to control Pro-tools or does it have to be a MB LC? Seems like PT is very picky about controlling it?

I don't like swapping banks over and over, so I'd prefer 16 faders in front of me instead of 8. I was thinking non-motorized for several reasons : this is my first time doing this, so I might want to start simple, and of course cost. I rarely use more then 16 channels (never have, come to think of it) in pro-tools. Of course, it would have to be 16 + 1 master fader. The idea is to work on a mix from beginning to finish in one go with a nice big desk-like work surface in front of me.

When looking at more advanced functions, the following intrigue me : knobs for controlling EQ-plugin parameters per channel (or switchable per channel) and a scrub wheel. Am I missing any obvious points?

Anymore hints and tips for a beginner (other then read through the entire forum...)?

[cimo]

hi dunewar

welcome to uCapps and the forum

it seems like you have a more clear view of what you want than me and my neverending development of multitasking brainstorming trash collected projects so just go ahead !! you have my blessing

simone

don t really know about PT so i can t help with that

[Rowan]

Welcome aboard  :D

Unforunatly your options are rather limited, as digidesign are very closed in what control surfaces they support. Currently digi only officially support their own controllers, though unofficially a few 3rd party controllers are supported.

I haven't checked out what controllers are supported in PT M-Powered, but I will assume that it's the same as PTLE. Off the top of my head I would say that you have 2 choices.

a/ Build a MBLC but load the MBMM (emulation on the CM Labs Motor Mix) Firmware. I have done very basic test with this firmware loaded onto a Core with a 40x2 LCD connected with PT TDM 6.4.1 and the display worked as expected.

b/ Chose the JL Cooper CS-10 as the controller option and program a MB64 to emulate it. The manual has the Sys-Ex data structure on page 30

http://www.jlcooper.com/pages/CS10.html#

a/ is the best option and b/ is the cheaper option.

as for the master fader you are out of luck as far as I know. Nither controller supports a master fader.

Last years someone had apperently written a firmware emulating the Mackie HUI but he seems to have disappeared from the forum and he never relased his source code, Bummer! An HUI emulation would the best solution. To be perfectly honest, unless you really want to build a controller, go buy a Behringer BCF2000 or one of the few remaining Tascam US2400's (If you can find one that is. discontinued due to ROHS) as they both have perfectly good HUI emulations.

Hope that helps.

Rowan

[Dunewar]

Hey Rowan,

Actually I'm looking forward to building the thing myself, so I don't really want to get a tascam or Behringer.

As far as the HUI goes : is there any way a good programmer could program this? I'm not familiar with programming a chip, but i'm pretty good at programming and learning programming languages, plus I like a challenge. I just went through the source code for the MB LC, and it doesn't look too complicated. Or am I dreaming?

Is there any info on the mackie HUI protocol?

As for the JLcooper emulation, is it possible to have more then 8 faders? The midi implementation chart only shows 8 (and room for 8 in the CC's), but apparently an expander is available so it should work with more then 8 channels?

[Screaming_Rabbit]

The idea is to work on a mix from beginning to finish in one go with a nice big desk-like work surface in front of me

... and when you do a mistake, you start from the beginning again?  :-\

Forget using an automation with no motor faders... this is stoneage. - You will regret it later. Why don't you buy motor faders but just don't implement the motor fader function. When your box is working fine, you can enhance your box with the MBHPMF at a later time?

Sorry, but I can't give you more information about SlowTools and HUI protocol. I just read once, that the MotorMix emulation works just fine... just go for it. Search the forum for MotorMix and if you're having problems on your way, you'll get plenty of help here.

Greats, Roger

[Rowan]

Dunewar,

I'm pleased you're up for the challenge, and trust me it will be exactly that. You'll end up spending twice as much on the parts alone. I'm not trying to discourage you, but beware if you're up for it you'll lose all touch with reality ;)

Back to the point at hand.

The HUI protocol has never been publicy released as far as I know. If you want to create an emulation of it you will have to reverse engineer it by getting a controller that supports it an spend a lot of time working out the data structure. It's really not a job for the faint hearted! Do you see the catch 22?

Pro Tools can support up to up to 4 x 8 channel controllers (discounting the Icon system) so the CS-10 route would be the simplest way to go. Each controller needs it's own midi port.

Food for thought.

OT Screaming Rabbit - What DAW do you use? Nuendo? Pryamix?.......I'd be interested to know, as I've seen your PT bashing come up time and time again

Rowan

[Jidis]

apparently an expander is available so it should work with more then 8 channels?

Yes, the CS10/2 had 8-channel fader modules which went with it back in the pre-motorized days, so my guess is that the Cooper outputs whatever it normally does for banks 2 thru 4 (not sure what part of the message changes there).

George

[Screaming_Rabbit]

OT Screaming Rabbit - What DAW do you use? Nuendo? Pryamix?.......I'd be interested to know, as I've seen your PT bashing come up time and time again

... Sequoia, Fairlight and ProTools (why I'm using PT anyway, even when I hate it? - Because some employers make me to... money talks, bullshit walks  :P). - But please no discussion about this in this thread. Calling PT "SlowTools" is not really bashing at it... it's the way it's often called in the Pro world... even from colleagues who like PT.

Greats, Roger

[Dunewar]

Thank you screaming_rabbit for keeping the discussion out of this place.

I'm nowhere in a comparable situation, i'm an amateur working at home on my own ideas. The only thing that I record is my own band (and i'm pretty happy with the results i'm getting). I have no experience in other DAW's except for cubase SX2, and I didn't like it. But that's personal preference. Thanx for your insight on the design though.

Now for my idea : I first want to plan the entire design before I purchase or make anything. I could be persuaded to get motorised faders though, but isn't that very expensive when I want 16 faders? What exactly are the benefits of motorized faders over non-motorized. Obviously, when you open a file your faders are where they should be, at all times. Why isn't automation doable with non-motorised faders? When writing automation you are overruling the motorised part anyway, so only in playback does the motorised aspect work.

Regarding the motormix emulation : i'll look into all documentation I can find about the motormix. Is it expandable beyond 8 faders? Does anybody here have any experience with it?

Maybe I should cut back on faders, but I hate flipping through channels...

I realise that buying a second-hand motormix or HUI won't cost me that much more (if even), but I like having a custom controller, and I like the challenge of doing it myself. Indulge me  8)

[Dunewar]

I've done some research, and it's not entirely clear wether the motormix emulation works in ProTools. Some say it does, others say it doesn't....

I suppose only the motormix and LC emulations work with motorised faders? Does anybody know something about this?

I suppose a MB64 is easiest to make. I then have to configure it as a JLCooper CS10 emulation. I would probably have to use two mb64's linked together

But of course, you people have made me curious about moving faders. I have never used them so I don't know how important to my workflow they are. Would you be able to live without it?

I'm now looking at the motormix manual to see how handy an emulation of that might be. It would also be nice to include a set of generic encoders to control plugins from, on the same surface. I've looked at the source code, and reprogramming it to my needs doesn't look so difficult. The source code is incredibly tidy and well-kept, an example for all programmers out there!

How much harder is a motorised fader project compared to a regular MB64? I'm mainly worried about the power requirements, i'm not used to dealing with PSU projects.

Sorry for all the questions, i'm trying to understand how everything works, and that is kinda addictive. :P

[Screaming_Rabbit]

Regarding the motormix emulation : i'll look into all documentation I can find about the motormix. Is it expandable beyond 8 faders? Does anybody here have any experience with it?

... it's mostly not a matter of the controller but of your host program... this should work with SlowTools... ehm sorry... ProTools  ;D (couldn't resist  :-*)

I could be persuaded to get motorised faders though, but isn't that very expensive when I want 16 faders?

... expensive is a relative thing... check the linked sources on ucapps.de

Why isn't automation doable with non-motorised faders? When writing automation you are overruling the motorised part anyway, so only in playback does the motorised aspect work

.... you are mixing in automation mode. - You make a mistake and hit [stop]. - assumed you're levels (faders) are now all at unity gain (zero-position). - You jump back 20 sec. in your mix. - At this point, while you were mixing, all your faders were at -20dB position. - You hit [play] again and your automation sets the fader values to -20dB. - YOUR PROBLEM: Your (not motorized faders) all are still at 0dB position... see the problem?

Greets, Roger

[Dunewar]

Hey Roger,

That's actually a good point about the motorised faders and automation, I didn't think of that. I suppose it could be worked around by having the faders play 'catch', but then again it's still a hassle. So I suppose motorised faders are on the table for my design.

I did some more research on the motormix emulation, and on the cm labs website, they have a developers guide that has all the codes sent out and returned to the machine, so when something doesn't work, it should be easy to troubleshoot.

So motormix emulation it is, and motorised faders it is.

Has anybody done this emulation before?