Tracktion Software

Beno · Post by **Beno** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:58 pm

For the record, we would love Fruity to add MCU support, but it is comepletely in their hands.
Ben

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:43 am

Beno wrote:For the record, we would love Fruity to add MCU support, but it is comepletely in their hands.
Ben

What I'm getting at, is, how possible is it for the end user to make this discussion irrelevant by doing the compatability layer himself?

In other words, how well documented is this device?

For instance, I don't need the developer of my host to know that I'm using a Peavey PC-1600x to control it. The reason is that the PC1600 is fully documented and I can configure it however I want.

How about a PDF manual? Copious technical docs would go a long way toward getting me excited about this device.

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:45 am

djsubject wrote:
james0tucson wrote:Is it vendor-lockin or can it be used to control FLS and eXT, etc.?

Mackie Control Universal

its in the name

its one of the most suported controll serfices out there (from what i have seen)

Subz

A link to a PDF manual that shows how programmable it is, would go a lot further than your assurances.

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:48 am

I want to know whether I can, say, make an FL dashboard for it, and whether it can be programmed to be what *I* want it to be.
You probably can, but you'd be on your own. That's not what the MCU is designed for, and I'm not sure how much of the spec is public.

Oh my. I think you may have just destroyed any interest I had.

I think you have the wrong idea about the purpose of the MCU though.

I.E:

Essentially, I want to know if it's future proof
Yes. It's the HUI, it is pretty much the standard in its game. Most stuff that provides MCU style functionality also provides an MCU compatibility mode, but:

and hacker friendly.
No. It isn't a supersized M-Audio UC-33, and it probably wont lend itself well to being used as one.

More to my personal situation, it's no substitute for a Peavey PC-1600x. Not if I cannot program it. Certainly not if documentation is withheld from the end user.

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:53 am

james0tucson wrote:What if you hate Tracktion but love the control surface? Is it vendor-lockin or can it be used to control FLS and eXT, etc.?

I have to be honest, the replies I got to my question really surprised me. It's vendor lockin. Something I personally don't do.

I really, honestly thought I'd get replies enlightening me into how open the system is, and all about what extraordinary things have been done in the community.
But no. Basically, it's "the system is closed, the protocols aren't documented, you don't need to know, and if you don't use software that supports it, you should."

Something like that.

Nice looking device. Giant step in the wrong direction. Unless I'm wrong. Please tell me I'm wrong.

quantize · Post by **quantize** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:54 am

no you dont get it, you dont need to any programming whatsoever if the MCU protocol is supported correctly by the host app...it allows every miniscule parameter to be controlled, its infintely cooler that the other fader and knob boxes..

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:55 am

So, if it's "universal" then I can write a driver so my custom host can support it, and the specs are readily available?

Or does someone else decide what is and what is not, "in the universe?"

quantize · Post by **quantize** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:56 am

..btw, i think blame Fruity before you blame Mackie..if the others can get it together, then im sure Fruity can...its well worth taking the MCU for a spin..you'll be wowed for certain

quantize · Post by **quantize** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:03 am

since you are so keen on doing Fruity's job for them...you could try

http://www.mackie.com/products/mcu/mcu_support.html

and mail them yourself...

once the protocol is supported, the 'configure it for my own use' thing becomes irrelevant..as the controller can show pretty much *any* parameter or fader within the host app..

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:14 am

quantize wrote:since you are so keen on doing Fruity's job for them...you could try

http://www.mackie.com/products/mcu/mcu_support.html

and mail them yourself...

once the protocol is supported, the 'configure it for my own use' thing becomes irrelevant..as the controller can show pretty much *any* parameter or fader within the host app..

You don't understand where I'm coming from.

The marketing strategy for this product did a very expensive thing, very successfully -- it reached me, an interested customer who is looking to upgrade a similar product that's long been discontinued.

But, at the same time as discovering the product, I also discovered something else which is *fatal* :

The product appears to be a closed system, whose specs are not made public.

Show me I'm wrong. I'm not worried about whether FLStudio supports it. I'm worried about whether there are legal reasons why we can't develop for example an driver in ALSA for it.

Before I started asking about it here, I scoured the website for documentation and found none. The supported software list is coming from the wrong direction to convince me it's not vendor lockin.

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop when I find out the terms of the NDA.

So I should have worded my question like so:

How does an independent developer optain the specs for the protocol used by the MCU?

Are there any coniditions that would preclude the support for this protocol in GPL software?

valley · Post by **valley** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:20 am

james0tucson wrote: A link to a PDF manual that shows how programmable it is, would go a lot further than your assurances.

Rather than being perpetually snide james, why not just email Mackie and ask if they'll let you have access to the spec? Personally I've never had any need for it, so I've never gone looking, and why would I go looking for you?

Anyway, since I think you may still be missing the point of the MCU, let me try and explain again:

The MCU is not like a programmable controller in the style of a phatboy. It is designed to set itself up as a virtual interface to your host software. You don't choose what the parameters do, 'cos the MCU and the host take care of that for you. You may have a few options available, but basically the device is designed to let you hit the ground running.

Think of the target market. People who buy the MCU are probably not looking to spend hours wading through tech sheets trying to get the thing to send an MMC start stop command when they press a given button. Most of them probably just want to turn it on and get mixing, and that's what the MCU gives them.

It may or may not fit your needs, that's for you to decide. If it doesn't though, I don;t know why you think that makes it an evil locked in device? My car is pretty locked in: I get in I start the engine and it moves around. I can't do much beyond that, but then some things work best when they have one job that they do exceedingly well.

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:24 am

valley wrote:
james0tucson wrote: A link to a PDF manual that shows how programmable it is, would go a lot further than your assurances.
Rather than being perpetually snide james, why not just email Mackie and ask if they'll let you have access to the spec? Personally I've never had any need for it, so I've never gone looking, and why would I go looking for you?

I admit to being snide, but I looked for specs, and not finding them, I'm anticipating the conclusion:

It's a closed, proprietary protocol which will not be disclosed except under NDA, for a fee, or both.

What I'm getting at, is it seems to only be "universal" within a specific universe.

I've contacted Mackie, and I'll be quick to apologize if I'm wrong. I've got some adrenaline up because of my suspicion -- that this is a "universal" protocol which is also "secret".

valley · Post by **valley** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:26 am

james0tucson wrote: But, at the same time as discovering the product, I also discovered something else which is *fatal* :

The product appears to be a closed system, whose specs are not made public.

Again, I have no idea, and neither do you. Contact Mackie and ask them what if any access they'll give you to the specs.

They're trying to sell the thing after all so it's not like it is in their inetrests to stop apps being written around it.

I'm worried about whether there are legal reasons why we can't develop for example an driver in ALSA for it.

And again, why ask Tracktion users in the RMS forum? Ask Mackie. They can give you a definitve answer, all you'll get here is speculation.

How does an independent developer optain the specs for the protocol used by the MCU?

Email Mackie.

Are there any coniditions that would preclude the support for this protocol in GPL software?

Very good question, but you can already guess my answer, can't you.

valley · Post by **valley** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:30 am

james0tucson wrote: I've contacted Mackie, and I'll be quick to apologize if I'm wrong. I've got some adrenaline up because of my suspicion -- that this is a "universal" protocol which is also "secret".

I wouldn't read too much into the name. I think 'universal' is a a marketing term as much as a technical one.

It's Mackie's protocol, I'm not sure they ever claimed to be creating the next MIDI. On the other hand, a lot of hardware devices offer 'MCU compatibility' modes and I haven't seen much sign of the legal dogs being let out of the cage, so I can't say I see much reason to think ill of them. They single handedly built a market for such devices, perfected the design, and accepted the competition gracefully. I can think of plenty of companies that don't play that nice.

quantize · Post by **quantize** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:32 am

oh for goodness sake!, so you *did* actually mail them and get a reply?

So what you really are grumbling about is semantics..for heavens sake, why would you bother obsessing about the use of the word universal, if its that difficult, and you cant see the obvious benefits of the system and why so many other developers can be arsed, then just find another controller!