ChromaTalk Archives: March 2014
- Black painted Chroma from Ebay (10 messages)
- Chroma Programmer (41)
- Yet another production run of Chroma Pressure Sensor Kits! (2)
- Data Entry buffer access via CC or Sysex in the CC+? (5)
- 1. MIDIQuest works great 2.Pressure for adding more vibrato ? (4)
Black painted Chroma from Ebay
David Clarke [21030085++] · Sat, 1 Mar 2014 12:44:24 -0400
Is the person that purchased the Chroma with the woodwork painted black a ChromaTalk list member?
[Item #191079850403]
I'm curious as to what (if any) serial number is listed inside the unit (since the rear-panel serial tag is absent)
A few selected pictures from the auction:
Chris Ryan [21030691] · Sat, 1 Mar 2014 08:47:57 -0800
I think that's foam goo, not black paint.
It's listed as "#4898." Which as we know makes no sense, as the serial numbers are in the form 210x0xxx.
Malte Rogacki [21010091] · Sat, 1 Mar 2014 17:50:51 +0100
That's their inventory number, not the serial number.
David Clarke [21030085++] · Sat, 1 Mar 2014 13:01:33 -0400
I think that's foam goo, not black paint.
I originally thought that too - but in reading the listing it says "...the original wood sides and trim were painted over in black. The good news is the paint is not sticking on the wood very well and the wood itself is pretty well preserved underneath. Once removed it will reveal a nice original wood finish..."
That's their inventory number, not the serial number.
Agreed.
David Hobson [21030506] · Sat, 1 Mar 2014 16:18:34 -0500
Well, I am going to put in my two cents worth here.
If you are going to sell stuff on Ebay; Detail the thing first for goodness sake!
I mean, seriously, I have seen some truly disgusting looking items up for sale with cobwebs and cigarette butts in the photo. The old adage is true: "You need money to make money." Some people do not have the money to fully restore a great vintage instrument, true, but the least they could do is prepare the doggone thing for the photo.
I know this is a very politically incorrect statement as well as opinionated, but I will stick to it by golly!!!
Reminds me of a short story: The Bohemians, by Steve Martin.
Doug Wellington [21030300] · Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:56:24 -0700
Just thought I'd say that I made a big purchase from Sleven at Techno Empire last year. I'm very happy with the transaction.
Doug
Paul DeRocco [21030230] · Sat, 1 Mar 2014 18:08:18 -0800
I originally thought that too - but in reading the listing it says "...the original wood sides and trim were painted over in black. The good news is the paint is not sticking on the wood very well and the wood itself is pretty well preserved underneath. Once removed it will reveal a nice original wood finish..."
That sounds like a euphemism for "foam goo". Which is probably easier to remove than paint.
David Clarke [21030085++] · Sun, 2 Mar 2014 09:56:59 -0400
... That sounds like a euphemism for "foam goo". Which is probably easier to remove than paint.
In this case though, I think it is paint. The foam residue generally stays 'furry' - and almost always ends up having a pattern on the side.
You also end up with some cases where the wood is clean and clear (where the foam didn't touch it).
In the case of the listing though, it really is only the wood that's covered in the 'black stuff' - and every exposed portion of wood is black. There's also one place where there's apparently a white sticker on top of the black:
Paul DeRocco [21030230] · Sun, 2 Mar 2014 10:26:59 -0800
Must have been owned by some goth band. What were they thinking? (I mean, about being in a goth band.)
min.struct · Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:56:19 +0100
well, the original ARP Chroma was full black (and with a halloween theme it suits)
Chroma Programmer
William Santana [21030244] · Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:54:55 -0800 (PST)
Hey all,
So I decided that I am going to build a programmer for my Chroma and have been talking with a friend about doing a run of them. I figured a batch of 10 would be a good place to start but ultimately, it would depend on how much inherent interest there is in the Chroma community.
To give an idea of what one would expect, I was thinking a form-factor of the rough equivalent of what a 61-note controller would stand like sitting atop the Chroma. It would take up the entire area of the flat surface on the top of the Chroma. The front panel of the programmer would be at the same angle as the angle of the Chroma's end cheeks. It would sit very low to the Chroma as opposed the very large, heads-up design of the Enabler. It would certainly be just as capable as the Enabler with all voice and control parameters for both channels on board.
I will be integrating a Sparkfun LCD display and using the CC+ support to drive it. The CC+ MIDI port will be installed inside the programmer so the only connection the programmer will have is to the CC+ port on the back of the Chroma. All CC+/Set Split functions will be printed on the front panel. Any redundant parameter data on the front panel will be trimmed away. All sweep waveforms will get a single-function select button for the quickest access. All continuous controller parameters will get analog potentiometers and all list parameters will get encoders. The "Patch" select parameter may also get single-function buttons but that may change.
My goal is to make something that is much more intuitive than the original ARP engineer's approach to voice structure layout. The colors and aesthetics will be very much in the same vein as the ARP image philosophy but with some more common sense layout like Oberheim and Moog.
I don't have a projected price as of yet but, I am thinking in the $2k range.
If anyone is interested please shoot me an email so I can get a figure on the demand.
Thanks,
William Santana.
Mirko Lüthge [21010245+] · Sun, 02 Mar 2014 22:39:07 +0100
Chroma programmers are always interesting. My favourite one is the Enabler, but it costs a lot of money and delayed time.
If I am not mistaking Chroma needs CC+ inside ? My both Chromas (Keyb and Exp) have CC+ built in. Send a pic when finished. Your description seems to be interesting in.
best wishes
David Hobson [21030506] · Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:09:22 -0500
Hello William,
I am very interested (hopefully not redacted) in your project! I believe a control surface is the way to go.
I hope you are successful in your endeavors. I will wait for replies from others if they are to be seen here...
Regards,
David.
Andrew Dalebrook [21010180] · Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:21:52 +0100
It could be interesting to look at the current run of 8x2 LRE (LED ring/ encoder) boards over at MIDIbox.
This would interface well with the Chroma and handles everything as CC/NRPN data through the MIDIbox_NG platform. Other buttons, LEDs or analogue pots could be integrated additionally, and ethernet and MIDI over USB are supported.
The rules were recently updated so one may sell up to 10 units per year without licence.
Andy
William Santana [21030244] · Mon, 3 Mar 2014 10:56:37 -0800 (PST)
I thought about something like that at first. Keeping component cost down as well as labor time would be crucial since there are no machines in the assembly process. Just populating one of these boards will add a considerable amount of time. However, I will run it by collaborator and see what they think. Making something like a Chroma programmer intuitive is really only offset by how affordable it can be produced. The majority of the component costs will be pots/encoders, processors and, believe it or not, the front panel itself. Keeping the front panel as streamlined as possible will mean keeping the number of holes drilled down to a minimum.
Doug Terrebonne [21030114] · Mon, 3 Mar 2014 15:11:40 -0800 (PST)
How about just hacking up a BCR-2000? I recently got a second BCR-2000 was thinking a 2 BCR setup in a Chroma style case seems like it would make a good setup...
David Hobson [21030506] · Mon, 3 Mar 2014 19:04:18 -0500
Doug!
A hearty amen to that.
I am using my BCR and it is a true joy.
Thanks to Chris Ryan [21030691] and the wonderful Rhodes Chroma site, David Clarke [21030085++], Sandro Sfregola [21010294], Luca Sasdelli, Matt Thomas [21010021] and all of the folks involved that have made this resource a reality.
I have no problem programming and performing quickly and easily with the BCR.
Now, I would say, if I had the money I would like to have something with larger potentiometers and wood that matched my curly maple. Regards.
Jesper Ödemark [21010135] · Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:42:37 +0100
Doug Terrebonne skrev 2014-03-04 00:11:
How about just hacking up a BCR-2000? I recently got a second BCR-2000 was thinking a 2 BCR setup in a Chroma style case seems like it would make a good setup...
Like I'm planning for my Doepfer Drehbank. Haven't got around to doing it yet though...
David Hobson [21030506] · Tue, 4 Mar 2014 08:06:44 -0500
Doug,
That sounds like a good idea. I do not have a problem with the switching of the channels, but the full set slayed out before me would be nice. Now, I do program but do not have extensive background in MIDI...would there be some sort of merge involved in the joining of two BCRs to avoid changing between the two channels (which is what I assume to be your reasoning and motive for your suggestion?)
Regards.
William Santana [21030244] · Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:59:15 -0800 (PST)
So here is the concept I am working on. It is not quite done yet but it is starting to look whole. if you don't see a feature, it is because I have not placed it yet.
William Santana [21030244] · Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:06:28 -0800 (PST)
You may have to scroll to the bottom of the page to see the file to view.
David Hobson [21030506] · Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:28:15 -0500
William,
I see the labeling of the parameters in the PDF to be intuitive, which is the most important thing for a Chroma controller. The ability to identify parameters with their respective controls is paramount to designing a control surface. So, it looks real nice...all of those printed LFO waveforms and listings of parameter designations not dissimilar to the Chroma "Parameter Chart." I think you are off to a good start.
Regards.
Eric W. Mattei [21030443+] · Tue, 04 Mar 2014 12:00:44 -0800
Hey William
Wow, that's looking really pretty!
Re: "...not dissimilar to the Chroma 'Parameter Chart.'"
If I may suggest:
I think you want to be sure to refer to the revised Parameter Chart on the site. There were glitches in the original that are corrected in the revision.
Cheers
Eric
David Hobson [21030506] · Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:56:48 -0500
Yes Eric, I agree.
The new Parameter chart is laminated and still hanging above one of my Chromas. It was the largest contribution to the creative process before I purchased the BCR 2000 and printed the overlays.
Regards.
Eric W. Mattei [21030443+] · Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:34:08 -0800
Good man!
William Santana [21030244] · 4 Mar 2014 17:40:01 -0800 (PST)
I have actually been referencing the param charts for the design of my programmer layout. I want the programmer to really look like it belongs to the Chroma. Cherry wood sides, front rail and such. I have 3 people interested so far. Who else?
Chris Borman [21030194+] · Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:13:10 -0500
William,
Was that .pdf graphic stuff yours? I’ve been down for awhile moving, divorcing and such... Just got my main PC back online yesterday. I’m doing a CPS run soon with all the interest I’ve received lately including you. We’ll more more about that.
Doug Terrebonne [21030114] · Tue, 4 Mar 2014 18:20:09 -0800 (PST)
That sounds like a good idea. I do not have a problem with the switching of the channels, but the full set slayed out before me would be nice. Now, I do program but do not have extensive background in MIDI...would there be some sort of merge involved in the joining of two BCRs to avoid changing between the two channels (which is what I assume to be your reasoning and motive for your suggestion?)
The BCR does merging internally so you just connect the first one into the second...
David Hobson [21030506] · Tue, 4 Mar 2014 22:16:26 -0500
Doug, are you sure? I mean, I will purchase another if that is so. But I am not sure how it would handle the template. I do not expect you to know all of the answers, but if you could help I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
David.
Doug Terrebonne [21030114] · Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:01:02 -0800 (PST)
Well according to this - Behringer BCR2000 - and the BCR manual which states that MIDI Out A merges the data from the MIDI In and the BCR it will. Just connect the MIDI Out (A or B) on BCR1 to the MIDI In of BCR2 and then the output of both BCRs will be at the MIDI Out A on BCR2 which you would connect to the Chroma's MIDI In.
I do see a potential problem though if you want both BCRs to display the updated param values when changing presets on the Chroma. It looks like you could get a MIDI loop situation. Is there a way to disable the Chroma's MIDI Out from merging it's own data with what comes in the MIDI In?
David Hobson [21030506] · Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:21:16 -0500
Doug,
Thank you for that information. This may be one of those game changing things in my insular world of synthesis. I will probably go ahead and purchase 3 more BCRs when I confirm everything.
Thank you for your time,
David.
David Clarke [21030085++] · Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:05:53 -0400
Using two BCR2000's at the same time
... Just connect the MIDI Out (A or B) on BCR1 to the MIDI In of BCR2 and then the output of both BCRs will be at the MIDI Out A on BCR2 which you would connect to the Chroma's MIDI In.
I do see a potential problem though if you want both BCRs to display the updated param values when changing presets on the Chroma. It looks like you could get a MIDI loop situation. Is there a way to disable the Chroma's MIDI Out from merging it's own data with what comes in the MIDI In?
You can certainly use the BCR2000's ability to merge to help combine the data from the two BCR2000's - but to have 100% equivalent behaviour for each BCR2000 - and to still have an ability see everything on an external sequencer/computer (and avoid a MIDI loop), then using a small external merger (e.g., MIDI Solutions Merger; Two Input MIDI Merger) would do the trick.
Specifically - the setup would be a slightly modifed version of the one shown here:
and would look like that in the attached:
With this setup, you can still use the BCR setup files currently on the site, without modification. You'd load the same file into both BCRs.
You could then have one BCR always control the "A" parameters, the other BCR always control the "B" parameters, without having to switch back and forth between programs on the BCR to see one or the other.
In this sort of setup, turning one or the other (or both) BCRs would have the affect of sending those knobs to the Chroma - as well as sending those same control messages up to the computer/sequencer for capture.
If you have the CC+ setup to automatically send out program information when you change patches, then with this setup both BCRs will be updated automatically to reflect the A/B parameters of the patch - just like you'd otherwise want/expect.
David C.
PS: You certainly wouldn't have to specifically use two, 2-port mergers. One merger with more than 2 ports would also take care of things.
PPS: While this configuration happens to use 2 BCRs with the same programming chained together, if you wanted to get fancy and free up some extra knobs, you could redefine the knob locations so that you didn't (for instance) duplicate the first 5 control parameters on each BCR (since those are common to A and B anyway).
David Hobson [21030506] · Wed, 5 Mar 2014 17:30:58 -0500
Using two BCR2000's at the same time
David,
Thank you for that valuable information!
Cheers,
David Hobson.
William Santana [21030244] · Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
Using two BCR2000's at the same time
So, since I cannot get enough support for the programmer concept that I offered, I am going the "2 x BCR2000" route for the foreseeable future. Being that as it may, I am considering possible layouts for the parameters.
Something I noticed while drawing my programmer layout is the way certain parameters that are continuous are laid out with their relative list parameters.
Logic tells me that, for the most part, continuous params take priority of list params therefore, the related list param should be behind it's continuous controller on a second page.
For example, a "MOD DEPTH" param could be quite intuitive if the related "MOD SELECT" param was on the same knob on the following page in the BCR2000.
This should also apply to the glissando feature being behind the "Glide" param.
Also, certain params are kind of out of sight which should be in standard reach. For example, the "Detune" is specifically detuning channel B, though it gets it's own place in the "Control" list along with the other global params.
I plan to arrange the params in a logical fashion where wave shape, pitch and glide are on one row, env 1 and 2 are on the second row and filter and amplifer params are on the third row. Sweep waves are still single-select like the Chromatrol. All globals and sweep params will be up top in a similar, 2 page fashion like elsewhere.
With 2 BCRs, it should be very fast to work with and maybe some additional housing to add labeling for some if not all param lists. Lke I said, intuitive is the key. Sometimes, giving all the list to the user to refer may actually prevent the user from memorizing anything so the short ones will probably be left to the user to figure out such as the sweep trigger type.
Ivan Hirländer · Sun, 16 Mar 2014 07:04:44 +0100
Using two BCR2000's at the same time
Hi William,
first thank you for your effort. My original idea was to combine two BCR2000 with BCF2000 because:
- 1. would really like to have all parameters for both channels directly accesible without need of switching pages.
- 2. BCF2000 should be ideal for envelopes
- 3. set of 2BCR+BCF2000 combined in row in one device with 2 wooden cheeks should look really nice on the top of the Chroma
- 4. buying them secondhand should be quite cheap.
cheers
William Santana [21030244] · Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Using two BCR2000's at the same time
There is certainly enouh room on top of the Chroma for 3 BC units. As handy as the BCR/BCFs are, the real question to the end user is how valuable is their available real estate and what it should be used for. Now I am curious how many CC+ Chroma users are using the display feature in the CC+.
David Hobson [21030506] · Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:25:38 -0400
Using two BCR2000's at the same time
Hello William.
I am very interested in the parameter layouts for the BCR's and would be willing to pay for the template's and the instructions to get everything working together.
I would probably leave the BCR's as they are in plastic...but would not be against sticking them together in the future. I may be willing to pay for instructions to do that as well...or even have the work done.
That being said, I would also pay for the plastic overlays for the BCR's so I could easily identify the parameters. I would never use the CC+ display feature as long as I had knobs with labels.
Let me know what your thinking is.
Thank you,
DGH.
David Clarke [21030085++] · Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:14:01 -0300
Using two BCR2000's at the same time
... I am curious how many CC+ Chroma users are using the display feature in the CC+.
William - I'd suggest that there are more people interested in using the Display than are actually using it, as there is a reasonable percentage of people who don't want to bother either with the cabling or with making a housing for the display.
... I would never use the CC+ display feature as long as I had knobs with labels...
David - from my personal experience I find that labelled knobs work very well for items that are 'amount' values (e.g., mod depth, frequency, etc.) and that buttons work great for things that tend to be on/off or binary selections (e.g., high pass/low pass, etc.)
When you get into items that are 'choices' though, such as Patch type, keyboard algorithm, mod select, etc. - a knob is a bit less obvious as it is not self-evident what items would be next on the list, etc. Some of this can be addressed by even more labels, showing the values - but if you're looking to make things less cryptic than how they appear on the paper version of the parameter chart, and a little more usuable than just having a bank of knobs - then the text needs to be reasonably lengthy and reasonably large. Going in that path tends to drive something as large as the Enabler, so that there's enough real estate to show all the parameters.
One thing I personally like about the CC+'s display option is that it gives you up to 4 lines of data - and so it can convey, in a relatively context sensitive way, particulars about a setting.
As an example - while there are 3 different 'mod depth' settings for Pitch - they don't necessarily all do the same thing. The Mod 1 depth is in terms of 1/16th semitone increments - the Mod 2 depth is in terms of 1/4 semitone increments - the Mod 3 depth is in terms of semitone increments. This information is in the manual, but it certainly isn't something that I'd remember off the top of my head. It is something you could handle via more text on an overlay - but that starts to get difficult to have everything you'd want. In the case of the Display - it tells you directly.
Another item that doesn't easily show up just with knobs is how parameters change, based on other parameters. For instance if your Glide Shape is 'Portamento', then the Glide Rate is a time from 10mS to 10s - but if Glide Shape is 'Glissando', then the Glide Rate is no longer a 'time' but instead is a number of steps/second. Again - the CC+ display tries to change what it shows based on the other settings that come into play.
The Display isn't the be-all and end-all, but I'd suggest it does certainly help with patch editing. It does also additionally provide some other benefits too - such as the ability to get information on a failed tune attempt.
David Hobson [21030506] · Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:58:12 -0400
Using two BCR2000's at the same time
Yes, I see what you mean. Well, as much info on the interface as possible and the CC+ display option...maybe? Either way, go for it man.
If you make it they will come.
DGH
William Santana [21030244] · Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
Using two BCR2000's at the same time
Ok, so I think a BCR housing kit might be the solution. Something that will house the MIDI port for the CC+. Since this is clearly an affordable alternative to a programmer then, maybe a hinged type of panel could be implemented as well. I personally like the idea of having 1 BCR for channel A and one BCR for channel B. Place the param list/display panel in between them and you start to get a workstation sort of feel going. Let me noodle with some ideas and I will get back to everyone.
William Santana [21030244] · Mon, 17 Mar 2014 22:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
Using two BCR2000's at the same time
I have disassembled a BCR to look at how it could be modified for re-purposing. After getting look at it, there a number of ways it could go. The top knob bank comes off in a module and could be easily re-situated at the bottom of the interface of a new housing which is where I would like to put it with a hinge running just above it for the 8 x 3 panels and display/params panel. The 8 x 3 panel has a plastic face and also exists as a module that could be easily reformatted into one panel that has the list params and LCD display on board. The CPU has the MIDI ports and USB panel mounted on the PCB so it also is a module that could be re-secured anywhere that would be most convenient.
So what I have come up with is approx. 8 simple pieces of either wood and or acrylic to create a housing based on a tearing a BCR down to it's module level, pre-asembly state then reassembling it into the housing construction.
I could come up with something simpler I suppose but it almost doesn't seem worth it unless there is a fair amount of integration to benefit from.
The construction pieces would be simple and could be made of colored acrylic like transparent blue or something like that to get a TRON look or whatever one fancies. Or just go for the wooden, Minimoog look.
Chris Smalt [21010280+] · Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:03:15 +0100
Using two BCR2000's at the same time
On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:42, William Santana wrote:
The top knob bank comes off in a module and could be easily re-situated at the bottom
That's where Behringer should have put it in the first place!
William Santana [21030244] · Thu, 27 Mar 2014 20:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Chroma Programmer latest revision
Check it out all.
If I decide to actually make this, I plan on using a Liquid Instruments DIY Builder Brain V2 CPU/I/O processor. Check out the layout and tell me what you think.
Ian Hamilton [21010150] · Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:51:46 +1100
Chroma Programmer latest revision
Looks great. Very interested in this project. Good luck.
Jesper Ödemark [21010135] · Fri, 28 Mar 2014 09:35:19 +0100
Chroma Programmer latest revision
Looks very "digital" to me, if that makes any sense. I find the Chroma very organic and "alive" so I'd prefer a more analogue-looking front. That's what I lack in your vision. But hey, that's just my way of seeing things. It's look very intuitive and easy to navigate so why not.
David Hobson [21030506] · Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:08:49 -0400
Chroma Programmer latest revision
William,
At first glance I liked the layout! Very user friendly. I hope this turns out well! By the way, what is the Chroma font (Fonts), if you don't mind me asking?
Regards,
David Hobson.
Chris Smalt [21010280+] · Mon, 31 Mar 2014 01:02:30 +0100
Chroma Programmer latest revision
Looks very "digital" to me, if that makes any sense. I find the Chroma very organic and "alive" so I'd prefer a more analogue-looking front.
Jesper, can you give an example of other software with a layout that looks that way?
Jesper Ödemark [21010135] · Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:31:16 +0200
Chroma Programmer latest revision
"Too digital" you mean? I don't work with music gear on screens (except Cubase) so I cannot say. I only went with my initial gut feeling.
It might be the huge blocks of text info that is messing with me. I know, you need that info on the Chroma, but still...
William Santana [21030244] · Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Chroma Programmer latest revision
Yeah the amount of interface on the Enabler is definitely a treat. I guess I was thinking that something as big a the Chroma already is, that a programmer that takes up as little additional real estate as possible would be ideal for some. Something that would be easy to view and would not go against the grain of the somewhat standard signal flow approach of other gear one might find in the studio.
I have to decide whether I should make the interface panel a flip-top like a Minimoog or just make it a Chromatop/tabletop unit. I do believe, however, my programmer would wonderfully compliment an Expander.
William Santana [21030244] · Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Chroma Programmer latest revision
Alright. I believe the concept is finished. I just posted attached the final product image as well. If anybody sees any errors please let me know. Otherwise, I am going to start the build process in my spare time (slowly).
David Hobson [21030506] · Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:12:27 -0400
Chroma Programmer latest revision
William,
I like it. It really "looks" good. I like all the little LFO waveshapes and the straight-forward approach you have taken.
Regards,
David Hobson
Yet another production run of Chroma Pressure Sensor Kits!
Chris Borman [21030194+] · Wed, 19 Mar 2014 21:59:19 -0400
Just wanted to let folks know that I’ve had enough interest to move forward with another production run of CPS kits. If anyone else is interested in adding the Polyphonic Keyboard Pressure option to their Chroma I will have parts available to build up more CPS Kits in 3-4 weeks.
Regards,
Chris
Howie Shen [21030552] · Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Chris,
That's great to hear about the new batch of CPS kits!
Put me on the list for one.
Best,
Howie
Data Entry buffer access via CC or Sysex in the CC+?
William Santana [21030244] · Fri, 21 Mar 2014 22:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
In my quest for an optimized programmer, I figured the use of an alternate alpha control other than the data entry slider on the front panel of the Chroma would be useful. Although the CC+ does allow access to all patch parameters, there are other parameters still in the unit that would be far better under the control of an encoder. I have been combing through the CC+ specs and have not found an obvious code to access the active parameter buffer. Has anyone looked into this before or have any interest to help follow through with a solution?
David Clarke [21030085++] · Sat, 22 Mar 2014 09:26:46 -0300
... I have... not found an obvious code to access the active parameter buffer...
William - can you explain further specifically what you're looking to have access to? Do you mean access to the memory that contains the active patch or something else?
William Santana [21030244] · Sat, 22 Mar 2014 09:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
I would like to have an encoder that controls whatever is already in the parameter edit buffer. For example, if the "Pitch MOD Select" parameter was the last parameter to be used, then the data entry slider on the front panel of the Chroma will remain active for that parameter. So, at that moment, I would like to have an encoder that is also controlling the "Pitch MOD Select" parameter. And so, when a new parameter is engaged, the encoder will also control whatever parameter has been brought up to be edited. In other words, I would like to have an encoder elsewhere that will serve the same function as the data entry slider.
David Clarke [21030085++] · Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:21:23 -0300
... I would like to have an encoder elsewhere that will serve the same function as the data entry slider.
I can confirm that there isn't currently a standard way to do this (via the CC+ or other interfaces).
The Parameter slider on the Chroma is an analog input (like the levers, etc.). The analog value from the slider is regularly read via the ADC. After the raw value is processed (to account for some null space at the top/bottom ends of the slider) it is used in an internal calculation that has knowledge about how many total parameters are possible for the given selected paramter. That result is what is used to update/change parameter chosen.
If you wanted to be adventurous, then this sort of functionality could certainly be implemented via the Chroma Port.
For instance - you could create a PIC or other microcontroller based interface to the Chroma's DB-25 port. YOu could then use the peek and poke commands (xref: Interface Manual: Command Descriptions) available over that interface to take control of any/all stored memory parameters you'd like.
William Santana [21030244] · Sun, 23 Mar 2014 09:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
Thank you for the digging. Still looking at all options. An alpha dial would be a pretty nice feature on a programmer especially for the CC+/Set Split function editing. More to come.
1. MIDIQuest works great 2.Pressure for adding more vibrato ?
Pontus Hagberg · Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:47:35 +0100
Hi !
I recently bought a Rhodes Chroma with the Syntech MIDI interface built in and I can report that the MIDIQuest sound editor works great on OS X.
Normally in MIDIQuest you can double click on a patch and the Editor will update its parameters however in the Chroma case you have to open the patch editor and click GET in MIDIQuest to have MIDIQuest to get the patch but then ALL sound parameters are supported !
However I have a question regarding the LFO´s /Sweeps , I can use polyphonic aftertouch from my Roland A-80 to control vibrato depth without problems but it would be nice to be able to have a certain initial level of vibrato before applying aftertouch. Now when I assign pressure as the modulation source the vibrato stays on zero until I apply pressure. In short I would like to have vibrato on my patch without the need for pressure and then with pressure add MORE vibrato like the Yamaha CS-80 trick. Is it possible ?
Best Regards
Pontus Hagberg
Sweden
Jesper Ödemark [21010135] · Fri, 28 Mar 2014 09:39:01 +0100
I'm guessing from you mail address that we've talked in the 99 community. Anyway, welcome and congratulations to the Chroma. We need more of them in Sweden! :)
I leave the vibrato discussion to the rest of this great group!
Paul DeRocco [21030230] · Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:27:15 -0700
From: Pontus Hagberg
I have a question regarding the LFO´s /Sweeps , I can use polyphonic aftertouch from my Roland A-80 to control vibrato depth without problems but it would be nice to be able to have a certain initial level of vibrato before applying aftertouch. Now when I assign pressure as the modulation source the vibrato stays on zero until I apply pressure. In short I would like to have vibrato on my patch without the need for pressure and then with pressure add MORE vibrato like the Yamaha CS-80 trick. Is it possible ?
Nope. The only thing you can do is set both A and B sweep the same, except that only one has pressure amplitude modulation, and then combine them as two modulation sources.
David Hobson [21030506] · Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:47:17 -0400
I concur.