RBIngraham wrote:
Unfortunately it was pretty much too little too late for me. By the time he did that AMP was almost into Beta (or maybe it already was in Beta? I forget now) so just as I was starting to tinker around with that template, I stopped using SAC.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I'm almost there. The whole reason I'm bringing this up in the SAC forum is to give him one last chance before I bail completely. I'm not expecting anything, but I'd give him the chance.
Yes I did try to sell him on the idea many times saying that it would allow folks like yourself to perhaps cobble some Frankenstein monster surface together. But we never talked about scribble strips.
And yet, the better control surfaces out there have them. So why wouldn't it be a good idea to support them?
Sorry this is just one of the few times I would actually agree with RML. There is not a solution that makes sense. And I still say that SAC isn't worth the money or the effort. Its' just not worth wasting tons of money on surfaces for. If you want to spend that money, just buy a desk that has all that built in and you'll be far better off and it will work out of the box.
The problem with a desk that "has it all built in" is that it doesn't quite do the things that SAC does that I want. The GLD comes close, but SAC's feature set is still way better. The Mackie control surfaces (MCU Pro, XT, and C4) provide exactly what I'd want to make SAC perfect for my use. Granted, I could buy an X32 for that price, but I'd definitely argue that SAC plus MCUPro + 3 XT + C4 would be a much better solution for me.
Yes I know you have all the hardware already.
Even if I didn't, I'd buy it. I suspect that there are many other SAC owners that would as well -- if the damn software just supported the devices.
But even if you take that money out of the equation and consider your personal time... waste of time...
I regret the money I've spent on the control surfaces for SAC over the years (only got my money's worth out of the MCU Pro), but I don't regret my time. It was an interesting hobbyist project. I'm still playing around with control surfaces (see my posts on the BCF-2000 over on the original forum) because I enjoy playing around with that kind of stuff.
And that assumes that he actually does create the template you really want, which is doubtful.
The template I really want is the SAC Remote API...
But it's pretty clear that is never going to happen.
Based on my experience hacking the Mackie MCU Pro template to work with multiple XT units, I'm sure I'd wind up disappointed with whatever template Bob L comes out with. But the mere fact that he would do something like that would suggest that there is hope for SAC's future development.
Bob's comeback to the "Release the SAC Remote API" request is always "It will change when a new version comes out...." I bit my tongue and held off on the remark of "Why does that matter, it's not like new versions are coming out all that often..."
I came to the conclusion long ago that you either you use SAC the way it is and conform to it's ways, or you should move on.
Certainly I feel that way too. I'm just giving Bob L the benefit of the doubt before moving on.
What is really amusing to me is that now there are those that when I told them the same thing years ago always took it as some personal attack (against them personally, as opposed to a critique of SAC) and now they basically say the same thing.
Well, I suppose you're talking about me here.
Certainly over the past three years my experiences with control surfaces and SAC have taught me that expecting anything to change is a misplaced expectation. I'm not expecting anything this round. Bob's stubbornness on the control surface issue has cost him a lot of sales and a lot of ill will from the audio community.
Yes, but how many surfaces out there actually communicate via Ethernet? Damn few and they are pretty pricey... going back to the why waste your money comment...
Here's how it would happen: I'd have a small PC (netbook or similar) read the Ethernet data in, translate it, and pass it to Mackie units via USB or MIDI.
As for USB MIDI, yes it is potentially faster but there are also plenty of USB MIDI interfaces that don't have enough hardware buffering and will choke on large amounts of data. Now those are ussually MIDI interfaces, not surfaces. But how much faith do you want to put in a cheap surface like a BCF to not choke on the data? Yeah those don't have scribble strips, but what out there does? Mackie and Behringer has a nicer surface now that follows the Mackie protocol I think.
One of the reasons I tore apart an old BCF-2000 was because I wanted to explore adding scribble strips to it. Something like this:
https://www.adafruit.com/products/661. The BCF-2000 and a set of displays could be easily controllable via a small SBC like an Arduino, Raspberry Pi, Netburner, or similar device.
I still like the idea of building my own SAC-specific control surface to incorporate banks of faders plus wide view control support. Alas, that just isn't going to happen.
It's pretty clear that Bob's MIDI handling is pretty poor. If it was half way decent it wouldn't make the BCFs choke on it's own MIDI data when you do a timed scene recall fade. He had to thin the data way out to make it work. Which means he doesn't do things like making sure NRPN messages are kept together in the correct order. That's not simple to do of course, but if you're going to build a template for the BCFs that uses NRPN, then you should really take that into account. Given that, why would I want to put any faith in that properly managing the scribble strip data would be done any more smoothly?
The NRPN issue is easy enough to work around. Remember that PC in the middle between SAC and the control surfaces? It handles all that quite easily. I've written an Ethernet interface that patches into Windows (using drivers like MIDI-Ox) that solve the data transmission and synchronization problems SAC has. The big problem is data. Bob ships out everything, not just the data that has changed. If stuff gets backed up on a real MIDI interface (e.g., as happens on Mackie XT or similar units) SAC has real problems. But if you stick a computer in the middle, that largely goes away. Of course, with better programming (e.g., shipping only the values that have changed) SAC's problems would go away -- but that's probably expecting too much from Bob's programming skills, to be honest.
Well I hope you get what you want. But I certainly wouldn't hold my breath. I think it's a waste of time to even bother asking
Not expecting it. Not holding my breath. Just looking for the final excuse to jump ship when something better comes along (something better will have to include a decent reverb, btw).
let alone if were to implement what you're asking for and then putting in a bunch of personal time writing some middleware to make it all work.
Yeah, but that's the kind of stuff I enjoy doing as a hobby. So not a big deal for me. Still can't understand why Bob L isn't willing to do a little work that would allow several others to solve a lot of problems with his system, though. I guess he just can't acknowledge that there are problems (his latest post certainly suggests that).
I agree that SAC's market in the low cost digital mixer market is gone. It's even for something that works better like AMP. As I've said for years, SAC's market is the bang for the buck category and that's were it belongs. AMP is the same as well. If all you need is a decent, modest sized digital mixer to replace all the analog stuff that was in that category not all that long ago, there are just so many better options than a computer mixing system, unless you really just like to tinker with computers.
But these systems do still have advantages, such as they can scale up to huge channel counts (and AMP can scale up even more than SAC can) for a lot less money. And they can provide a lot more routing options than similar priced units.
IMO, the big advantage of SAC (and AMP?) in the sub-$5,000 area is:
1) Better quality sound (assuming the use of decent preamps),
2) Better routing options (as much as I hate to admit it, I'd pick SAC over the LS9 I'm using in the black box theater I manage),
3) Expandability,
4) Effects options,
5) SAC Remote with the host on the stage
The big drawbacks to SAC are:
1) User interface and ease of learning
2) Control surface support!
3) Dependence on Windows (especially older versions),
4) Rider compatibility (even X32s are getting respect in this department these days!)
5) Never living up to the promise, no expectations of new feature sets.
And at least in AMP's case it's a flexible architecture, flexible GUI with (what likely will be from what I understand) a publicly available command set for the audio engine, so you can roll your own GUI if really wanted to do so. I doubt many will want to do that, but what it does mean is that it has the potential to be easily controlled by other software and integrated into installed systems (think theme parks, museums, shit that runs 16 hours a day for years) where external control from "others" is a very important "feature". That's another beating the dead horse subject with SAC..... I know for a fact he opportunities to work with some industry leaders in these types of venues and projects, but of course it would have meant playing nice with others... OH well... At this point those companies have moved on and/or rolled their own.
Just as many of his long-time users are getting ready to jump ship.
Better options are coming along. Those who don't need all the great SAC factors are jumping to things like the A&H QU series. Price drops on the GLD line are certainly tempting to me (GLD does almost what the iLive does, and the iLive looks very good to me; if it weren't for the monitor situation, I'd have already bought a GLD). Of course, if AMP ever does become a real product, SAC will have some major competition that will likely destroy it. I can hardly wait for the "But AMP does this...." comments on Bob L's board.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde