Bc2000 (for the BCF2000 & BCR2000)

Hi everyone,

I've greatly enjoyed the enormous debate that has raged during the
last few days in this group about pressuring Behringer to provide
implementation information and upgrades to the BC hardware and software.

As I see it, the issues can be categorized as follows:

1. Hardware: better faders, buttons, etc.
This would basically amount to NEW devices. Definitely an interesting
and relevant subject, but (as I think someone has already pointed out)
this is a side issue in terms of the BCFs and BCRs we've already spent
our money on.

2. Firmware:

a. Bugs: Royce and I have found quite a few bugs in the BC language
protocol. Of course Behringer should fix these bugs, but I'm afraid
we'd have to reverse-engineer the existing firmware and write our own
version. Very difficult and laborious, but I'd be willing to participate.

b. Improvements, i.e. new, "cool" features.
We'd DEFINITELY have to write our own firmware to get this realized.

3. The USB drivers (for Windows):
Both 1.1.1.1 and 1.2.1.3 are buggy in certain respects. Again, it's
shameful that Behringer didn't fix these a long time ago. However,
since my current technical knowledge of USB drivers is virtually zero,
I'm at a loss here what we could do about it, apart from pressuring
Behringer.
I've written a short report on several differences I've found between
the different USB driver versions (e.g. concerning MIDI device names);
I'll be publishing this report soon.

4. BC Edit.
This is definitely the greatest stumbling block concerning the BCF and
BCR right now: BC Edit is buggy concerning the latest Java RE, and it
only uses part of the BCF/BCR's potential.
The BC Manager program that I'm writing should be able to alleviate
these problems. It will allow the use of (as far as I know) ALL the
BCF/BCR's capabilities, in a user-friendly environment. Hopefully I'll
be able to publish a first version of the program before the end of
the month.

5. The MIDI implementation.
Behringer have been very unforthcoming in this respect; basically they
haven't published ANYTHING.
While developing BC Manager, I've been forced to analyze the BCF/BCR's
MIDI implementation in great detail. I've written down my findings in
a document describing (as far as I know) all aspects of the BCF/BCR's
MIDI implementation (except the BCF's emulation modes). This includes
detailed descriptions of the SysEx messages to which the BCF and BCR
respond, in particular the syntax of BCL (the language used in the
script lines embedded in SysEx messages), and also the precise MIDI
messages sent by the BC when the user moves a control (button,
encoder, fader). The document is currently about 85 pages long; it's
perhaps 90% complete - I'm hoping to publish it by the end of the
month as well.

Mark.

WE ALL LOVE YOU Mark! thanks for your hard work!

Wow Mark,

I'd like to congratulate you and all the others for your enthousiasm and
your efforts. This is really great work and I hope it has a happy ending. I
am myself sorry for my knowledge in programming is totally unexistant (I am
a sound engineer), because I would love to be able to help you guys, but
anything you might think I could be helpful at, you are welcome to tell me.
At least I hope I can help as a tester!!

 

So, keep up the good work, and please anyone else in the group capable of
helping out, I invite you to join the gang!!

:-)

 

Cheers

Elea

 

 

  _____  

De: bc2000@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bc2000@yahoogroups.com] En nombre de Mark
van den Berg
Enviado el: viernes, 10 de agosto de 2007 8:58
Para: bc2000@yahoogroups.com
Asunto: [bc2000] Pressuring Behringer - BC Manager - MIDI implementation

 

Hi everyone,

I've greatly enjoyed the enormous debate that has raged during the
last few days in this group about pressuring Behringer to provide
implementation information and upgrades to the BC hardware and software.

As I see it, the issues can be categorized as follows:

1. Hardware: better faders, buttons, etc.
This would basically amount to NEW devices. Definitely an interesting
and relevant subject, but (as I think someone has already pointed out)
this is a side issue in terms of the BCFs and BCRs we've already spent
our money on.

2. Firmware:

a. Bugs: Royce and I have found quite a few bugs in the BC language
protocol. Of course Behringer should fix these bugs, but I'm afraid
we'd have to reverse-engineer the existing firmware and write our own
version. Very difficult and laborious, but I'd be willing to participate.

b. Improvements, i.e. new, "cool" features.
We'd DEFINITELY have to write our own firmware to get this realized.

3. The USB drivers (for Windows):
Both 1.1.1.1 and 1.2.1.3 are buggy in certain respects. Again, it's
shameful that Behringer didn't fix these a long time ago. However,
since my current technical knowledge of USB drivers is virtually zero,
I'm at a loss here what we could do about it, apart from pressuring
Behringer.
I've written a short report on several differences I've found between
the different USB driver versions (e.g. concerning MIDI device names);
I'll be publishing this report soon.

4. BC Edit.
This is definitely the greatest stumbling block concerning the BCF and
BCR right now: BC Edit is buggy concerning the latest Java RE, and it
only uses part of the BCF/BCR's potential.
The BC Manager program that I'm writing should be able to alleviate
these problems. It will allow the use of (as far as I know) ALL the
BCF/BCR's capabilities, in a user-friendly environment. Hopefully I'll
be able to publish a first version of the program before the end of
the month.

5. The MIDI implementation.
Behringer have been very unforthcoming in this respect; basically they
haven't published ANYTHING.
While developing BC Manager, I've been forced to analyze the BCF/BCR's
MIDI implementation in great detail. I've written down my findings in
a document describing (as far as I know) all aspects of the BCF/BCR's
MIDI implementation (except the BCF's emulation modes). This includes
detailed descriptions of the SysEx messages to which the BCF and BCR
respond, in particular the syntax of BCL (the language used in the
script lines embedded in SysEx messages), and also the precise MIDI
messages sent by the BC when the user moves a control (button,
encoder, fader). The document is currently about 85 pages long; it's
perhaps 90% complete - I'm hoping to publish it by the end of the
month as well.

Mark.

Hi !

Mark van den Berg <markwinvdb@...> a \ufffdcrit:

> As I see it, the issues can be categorized as follows:
>
> 1. Hardware: better faders, buttons, etc.
> This would basically amount to NEW devices. Definitely an interesting
> and relevant subject, but (as I think someone has already pointed out)
> this is a side issue in terms of the BCFs and BCRs we've already spent
> our money on.

Yes, this is a totally different story. Of course, I was thinking about 
improving the already existing hardware. I am not sure lots of "already" 
users would spend more money into another - even an improved one - device.

> 2. Firmware:
>
> a. Bugs: Royce and I have found quite a few bugs in the BC language
> protocol. Of course Behringer should fix these bugs, but I'm afraid
> we'd have to reverse-engineer the existing firmware and write our own
> version. Very difficult and laborious, but I'd be willing to
> participate.
>
> b. Improvements, i.e. new, "cool" features.
> We'd DEFINITELY have to write our own firmware to get this realized.

Yes, probably.

As a Cubase user, I wish Behringer had used the Steinberg Remote SDK to 
create a native Cubase mode. To understand what I mean, just look at what 
Frontier did for their Tranzport and Alphatrack.

> 5. The MIDI implementation.
> Behringer have been very unforthcoming in this respect; basically they
> haven't published ANYTHING.
> While developing BC Manager, I've been forced to analyze the BCF/BCR's
> MIDI implementation in great detail. I've written down my findings in
> a document describing (as far as I know) all aspects of the BCF/BCR's
> MIDI implementation (except the BCF's emulation modes). This includes
> detailed descriptions of the SysEx messages to which the BCF and BCR
> respond, in particular the syntax of BCL (the language used in the
> script lines embedded in SysEx messages), and also the precise MIDI
> messages sent by the BC when the user moves a control (button,
> encoder, fader). The document is currently about 85 pages long; it's
> perhaps 90% complete - I'm hoping to publish it by the end of the
> month as well.

This is an enormous amount of work, just for the community. Respect to that 
!

Again, if any testing is required - and the integrity of the hardware is not 
at risk - I'll be happy to help.

Cheers.
J\ufffdr\ufffdme.