• Registered: 2015-02-17
  • Posts: 4

Topic: midi control workarounds

Hi, I'm new to the forum, and don't actually own an RME unit yet, so any advice would be very much appreciated.

I'd really like to use a UCX as a standalone mixer/effects unit for a hardware synth/sampler/acoustic band, and apart from the audio quality and low latency I'm attracted by the midi control aspects.

Like a few others, I'd really like to control Reverb and Echo, and I see that it's possible to change user presets via midi. Are these changes seamless, could they be triggered live for incremental or drastic effects, or will there be interruptions in the sound?

Also, what would be great for me (and I realise that Im not a 'typical' user) would be far more snapshots stored on the unit itself, so that I could have a mix saved for every possible song in my setlist, more like 16 than the 6 available now via midi. In fact I'd really like 127, so that I could just mix songs in TM on my computer and  save as part of my OTB setup.

However Im realistic that this might never be implemented, so I'm wondering whether I could setup submixes or something to squeeze multiple mixes from each snapshot, or perhaps just have 4 channels for each input (I'm using only 8 inputs) and only one fader up at a time? Would this ugly workaround end up straining the DSP, or do channel strips only add processing load when audio passes through them?

Lastly, Matthias, can I ask if there are any plans to extend midi control functionality? I see that I could do a lot with OSC control via Totalmix on the computer but I want to work live with zero reliance on a computer. If you aren't prioritising this I understand, but would be fantastic to get an idea of our chances!

Many thanks

B

  • From: Anchorage, AK US
  • Registered: 2012-02-05
  • Posts: 4

Re: midi control workarounds

To jump in here (it's a forum anyway, right?) - I own & use the UFX, and since the TotalMix & MIDI control for the UCX looks to be the same from a quick glance at the manual, perhaps I can offer some answers to your post.

So far, I have found the most robust use of the control of these units, when using a computer, -or not-, is to combine the use of snapshots, (and TotalMix workspaces if on a computer), and your preferred controller [such as DAW MIDI track(s), and/or connected MIDI control surface(s)...], using Mackie Control Protocol (MCP) together, for the most flex when using the onboard mixer and effects over a variety of projects.

I use the system to fully automate live mixes, while also having the TotalMix interface live onscreen, onstage, for full flexibility in multiple situations. And of course the audio i/o for my DAW is provided, and controlled in sync as well. But one can certainly, and I have at times, just control the mixer functions directly via only a MIDI controller.

It does take work, as initially, yes, there are only 6 internal snapshots (8 in any one TotalMix workspace on a computer), but with planning (as well as the multiple submixes, etc.), you can easily create enough options for many mixes to match several songs, for instance, and then when augmented with specific MIDI CC control, you can add much, much more. In fact, I usually arrange sets of material where very few, if any, actual stops are required to load any settings from my computer.  -Yes, changes as such can certainly be "seamless", as long as the changes you make are planned correctly of course. For instance, In general, I never notice any artifacts when changing snapshots mid-stream, so to speak, -unless of course I open an input channel from something else that is noisy..!

Some things to note: Especially if you wish to rely on MIDI control only - without TotalMix itself, you will need to rely on the fx changes that you create within the 6 internal snapshots. While most important mixing functions are controllable (using MCP MIDI is the most robust in general) via MIDI, the reverb & echo settings remain saved only in snapshots. -Still, there are many ways to use that combination, and never have to add an external mixer or fx unit.

You can of course edit your snapshots on the computer, In TotalMix, and then send some of those to the 6 onboard snapshot locations, so in effect you can load, edit & sort the mixes beforehand, if you connect in advance to a computer. And, on the computer you can save as many snapshots (and workspaces) as you like.

One other programming issue is that if you mix snapshots changes & other MIDI control, snapshots always overwrite any previous MIDI CC, and as such, one usually wants to use a feedback-capable controller, so as to work smoothly live without what I call "blind jumps", which is a logical drawback of one way MIDI control.  I myself often use a BCF2000 controller in Mackie mode (as per the RME documentation in the manuals), and find using the system as a hardware mixer replacement to be quite decent. Again, it just takes planning.

Anyway, I hope this helps.   -Jn-

  • Registered: 2015-02-17
  • Posts: 4

Re: midi control workarounds

Thanks for your detailed response Jn. Really helpful. I'm still on the fence about buying one of these, actually now looking at the UFX.
Great to know that I could use submixes to get more mixes prepared. I certainly would prepare everything using the computer, just really don't want to have one onstage. Also very useful to know that it's possible to change presets midstream, and especially that one could use the snapshots to change fx presets this way. I'm thinking I'd probably use the midi control of channels to basically set up the fx with sends anyway.

Thanks again Jn.

  • From: Anchorage, AK US
  • Registered: 2012-02-05
  • Posts: 4

Re: midi control workarounds

Always happy to add what I hope is useful information.  I do some of the same queries when searching for gear, and in between the inevitable online rants, it's nice to hear actual user experiences. Next best thing to finding someone nearby who has one.

The UFX is an excellent package, quite I jump I would think, at least in terms of capability. I can only assume, but likely the UCX has the same quality. I have found the UFX to have very clean and absolutely reliable performance, and I move it around a lot, and compared to a few other audio interfaces I have used, it has very solid connectors, and superb RF rejection. That makes a huge difference in heavy use & multiple locations.

I suppose the standalone mixing choices themselves would not be hugely different between the units, except of course the number and variety of i/o connections to the UFX may make your idea of using fx with sends more flexible and all that. I will say that if you happen to want to directly record while also using the mixer, the UFX is an awesome choice for that. Between that feature, and the uber-flexible i/o options, it really can do a lot onstage or in a studio. -Anyway, good luck, lots of creative choices!  -Jn-