Bc2000 (for the BCF2000 & BCR2000)

Hi.  New member here, so please forgive me if this issue has come up before.  I wasn't able to find it by searching the forum.

I have a Sequential Circuits Six-Trak that I've created a template for using BC Manager.  It's awesome, but I have one annoyance that I can't seem to find a work around for.

Most of the channels on the Six-Trak are calibrated to something other than 0-127.  (For example, the filter attack amount has 16 steps from 0-15.)  So when programming the Six-Trak locally the user enters in a value from 0-15, but when controlling it remotely the user sends values from 0-127 which the Six-Trak interprets as 0-15.  Make sense?

What I would like to do is have the BCR *display* a count from 0-15 while *sending* a value from 0-127.  This puts the numeric display in familiar territory for the user and should lower the precision of the knobs to the synth's limitations.

Thanks.

--- In bc2000@yahoogroups.com, "koifish3543" <koifish3543@...> wrote:
>
> Hi.  New member here, so please forgive me if this issue has come up before.  I wasn't able to find it by searching the forum.
> 
> I have a Sequential Circuits Six-Trak that I've created a template for using BC Manager.  It's awesome, but I have one annoyance that I can't seem to find a work around for.
> 
> Most of the channels on the Six-Trak are calibrated to something other than 0-127.  (For example, the filter attack amount has 16 steps from 0-15.)  So when programming the Six-Trak locally the user enters in a value from 0-15, but when controlling it remotely the user sends values from 0-127 which the Six-Trak interprets as 0-15.  Make sense?
> 
> What I would like to do is have the BCR *display* a count from 0-15 while *sending* a value from 0-127.  This puts the numeric display in familiar territory for the user and should lower the precision of the knobs to the synth's limitations.
> 
> Thanks.
>
Okay, I did some homework and this appears to be control resolution issue (i.e., different controls have different operating resolutions).  The Fine Tune control is a 5-bit control and a switch is a 1-bit control, etc.

I had hoped that if I switched over to sending sysex messages instead of cc messages, I could set the number of bits in the control and thus bring the BCR and the Six-Trak into the same numeric realm.  But that doesn't seem to be working.

For one thing, I'm not clear on what "Value" setting in BC Manage correlates to what bit resolution.  The value settings are listed as 
Value, Value: bits 0-6, Value: bit 0, etc.  I tried them all and none allowed me to synchronize the numbers.

Any suggestions?  I would think this would be a common issue.

Thanks.

Hi.

> Most of the channels on the Six-Trak are calibrated to something other than 0-127.  (For example, the filter attack amount has 16 steps from 0-15.)  So when programming the Six-Trak locally the user enters in a value from 0-15, but when controlling it remotely the user sends values from 0-127 which the Six-Trak interprets as 0-15.  Make sense?
> 
> What I would like to do is have the BCR *display* a count from 0-15 while *sending* a value from 0-127.  This puts the numeric display in familiar territory for the user and should lower the precision of the knobs to the synth's limitations.

The short answer is no.

The BC displays the value (val) of the encoder. 

There is no way to get val * 8 to be sent out. (that I know of. Let me know if you work one out.)

You can adjust the resolution of the encoder to put out just 16 messages - one message for each change

.resolution 96 is every message from 0 to 127
for your 16 values we need to jump 8 values at a time (128 /16)
so the resolution is 96 * 8

.resolution 768

Every time the display changes the value on the synth should be incremented.

You can use increment with a step size of 8 on a button to step though the 16 values as well.

Royce

> Okay, I did some homework and this appears to be control resolution issue (i.e., different controls have different operating resolutions).  The Fine Tune control is a 5-bit control and a switch is a 1-bit control, etc.
> 
> I had hoped that if I switched over to sending sysex messages instead of cc messages, I could set the number of bits in the control and thus bring the BCR and the Six-Trak into the same numeric realm.  But that doesn't seem to be working.
> 
> For one thing, I'm not clear on what "Value" setting in BC Manage correlates to what bit resolution.  The value settings are listed as 
> Value, Value: bits 0-6, Value: bit 0, etc.  I tried them all and none allowed me to synchronize the numbers.
> 

It is best to think that internally the BCR uses 16 bit but only goes up to the max for 14 bit Midi numbers. That is 2 bytes but only 7 bits long (bits 7 - 13 and bits 0 - 6 ).
14bit $0000 to $7F7F
16bit $0000 to $3FFF
That is in 14 bit midi numbers
$007E
$007F
$0100
$0102
$0103

The value is generated then the bit wise filters are applied.

the numbers in the val statement are for a 16 bit number
val = val0.6 = bits 0-6
val0 = bit 0 (val AND $0001)
val1.7 = bit7 and bits 1-6 (val AND $00FE) rolled right once into bits 0-6
val7.13 = bits 7-13 (val AND $7F00) rolled to bits 0-6
val0.3 = bit 0 - 3 (val AND $000F)
val4.7 = bit 0 - 3 (val AND $00F0) rolled to 0-6
val8.11 = bit 8 - 11 (val AND $0F00) rolled to 0-6
val12.13 = bit 12 - 13 (val AND $3000) rolled to 0-6

Because the BCR uses 16 bit internally we can exploit this to generate -ve number ranges 

eg -7 to 7
min = $80 - 7 max $80 + 7
min = 121 max = 135
default = 128  (this becomes 0 with val because the binary of 128 is 1000 0000 - bits 0 to 6 are all 0)


Royce

> There is no way to get val * 8 to be sent out. (that I know of. Let me
know if you work one out.)

That makes sense.  I guess it was a bit much to hope for.

> You can adjust the resolution of the encoder to put out just 16
messages - one message for each change
>
> .resolution 96 is every message from 0 to 127
> for your 16 values we need to jump 8 values at a time (128 /16)
> so the resolution is 96 * 8
>
> .resolution 768

Great information, though at 768 those knobs really zip.  In actual
practice I'm halving that number (which generates spurious values of
course) but it's much better than what I had.

I really appreciate the insights!

Thanks.