Drum Engine + Bassline Engine = Groovebox???

[Jaicen]

This is really a question for TK I guess.

Given that MBSID V2 supports a sequencer engine for Bass 'n' beats, would it be unreasonable to create a control surface to access the parameters more easily??

I was thinking that a small octave keyboard (as in TB-303) and a button matrix could be used to program loops pretty easily.

In terms of the drum programming, I was thinking a matrix of 4x16 LED's could be used with 4  instrument buttons, and sixteen step buttons. Top that off with some encoders for Env, Cutoff etc...

Now, would it be possible to achieve this with two SID's and a couple of cores?

[TK.]

Some of you might remember following entry in the wishlist:

-----------------------------------------------------------

MBSID Control Extension: as discussed in http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=5680.0, but I think that I will overwork the concept so that it is also useful for the other subsystems.

This control extension is something like a "breakout box", which is dedicated for easy editing of bass- and drumline sequences. For the MBSID-Lead and MBSID-Multi subsystem it could be used as simple keyboard, for mutes/solo or for quick patch changes. We will see. I propably won't start with this extension before next year - first I want to see MBSID V2 completely working.

-----------------------------------------------------------

My statements are still valid, but I'm still not sure about the best solution which fits for all needs.

E.g., what I don't like on your proposal is, that a 4x16 LED matrix is not sufficient. Just think about all the possible setups. There is a 8 track drum sequencer, which controls 16 instruments. Accordingly, the LED matrix should consist of 16x16 LEDs - but are the increased frontpanel costs really reasonable?

And what about the remaining 3 SIDs which can run the same, or any other engine? How should they be handled? Thats really difficult to decide.

E.g., the for basslines and drum engines which are running in parallel it would be important that sequences can be switched back and forth without using an "instrument" button - means: all sequences directly accessible. Like demonstrated in bassline demo #3 where I'm using a common MIDI keyboard for this. In addition, it's possible to control sound parameters with key velocity, which might be a strong requirement for a control extension - if it should  replace the already working MIDI keyboard solution (?) - as well.

Another idea: if an additional PIC is used to control the extension, it could be connected to MBSID via CAN interface and act as additional bus master. This would not only allow to access MBSID, but also other MIDIboxes, like for example MB-808?

And to give you more insight into my secret plans ( ;-) ): one of the next things I want to evaluate is MIDI-over-IP, since it's natively supported by MacOSX, and not only useful for sending MIDI control data, but also to handle the OSC protocol (useful for windows users as well, e.g. Reaktor supports OSC). So, the control extension could provide an ethernet option as well. And this would make it to a real universal solution, which is worth the DIY effort.

Best Regards, Thorsten.

[AndrewMartens]

E.g., what I don't like on your proposal is, that a 4x16 LED matrix is not sufficient. Just think about all the possible setups. There is a 8 track drum sequencer, which controls 16 instruments. Accordingly, the LED matrix should consist of 16x16 LEDs - but are the increased frontpanel costs really reasonable?

This project isn't really on my radar, but I thought of one possible alternative to keeping panel sizes down:  bi-colour LEDs.  One instrument on a shared 'track' of LEDs would be green, the other red.  It wouldn't help with DOUT or wiring complexity, but would keep the panel a bit smaller.

And to give you more insight into my secret plans ( ;-) ): one of the next things I want to evaluate is MIDI-over-IP, since it's natively supported by MacOSX, and not only useful for sending MIDI control data, but also to handle the OSC protocol (useful for windows users as well, e.g. Reaktor supports OSC). So, the control extension could provide an ethernet option as well. And this would make it to a real universal solution, which is worth the DIY effort.

Awesome idea!  Just promise me that you'll find some good (free) Windows drivers for MIDI-over-IP :-)  Are you thinking of the ENC28J60, or of one of the PICs that has a built-in MAC for Ethernet (which iirc there is one or more out by now)?  I remember looking at the ENC28J60 a while back for a different project, and one issue I had with it is that essentially the PIC is a slave of the 'J60 when it comes to accepting packets on the SPI bus.  There are a number of nice features, though - the 'J60 has a lot of capabilities for pattern-matching and filtering in the packet, which should make it a lot easier to reduce the amount of traffic that the PIC has to deal with.

[TK.]

This project isn't really on my radar, but I thought of one possible alternative to keeping panel sizes down:  bi-colour LEDs.  One instrument on a shared 'track' of LEDs would be green, the other red.  It wouldn't help with DOUT or wiring complexity, but would keep the panel a bit smaller.

thats a good idea, because it also matches with the sequencer concept. If both LEDs lit (green and red), one of the instruments would be played accented.

I already built a 4x16 duo-LED/button matrix, but I must say that I would never do the same wiring effort again. A PCB based solution is a strong requirement.

Are you thinking of the ENC28J60, or of one of the PICs that has a built-in MAC for Ethernet (which iirc there is one or more out by now)?

Yes, ENC28J60 - Seppoman made some good experiences with this chip.

Best Regards, Thorsten.