Tracktion Software

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:38 am

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

No, I'll wait patiently for a reply.

So what you really are grumbling about is semantics.

No, I'm trying to avoid getting involved with another vendor that is hostile to independent developers and competition.

I tend to get very upset about protocols whose specs are a guarded secret that cannot be used in open source software, in particular. I'm anticipating that's the case with HUI, and I'm finding it a bit of a shock. I actually thought we were getting past that era.

quantize · Post by **quantize** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:45 am

boy are you sounding paranoid! tough day/week/year?

and no, dont be surprised everyone out there is trying to make a buck! its ugly, i agree..

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:49 am

valley wrote:
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.

Maybe it's true that the reason FLStudio doesn't support HUI/MCU is the developer's fault. But, I need to know if it's also true that the reason Ardour doesn't support it is our fault, or the fault of the license terms of the specs.

Obviously the thing can be black-box emulated, but that's not where I'm coming from at all.

I'll shut up until I hear it from someone at Mackie.

For the record, I may buy one of these controllers for use with Audition, but never if I get the wrong answers about the protocol, in the wrong spirit.

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:52 am

quantize wrote:boy are you sounding paranoid! tough day/week/year?

and no, dont be surprised everyone out there is trying to make a buck! its ugly, i agree..

It's a very big deal to me. If a product like this can't have open specs on its protocol, it's a problem for any independent developer, and particularly those who develop open source systems.

This impact is certainly not lost on the Muse people, the people responsible for KVR, who have made their fortune on the back of the success of the GPL.

Not everyone is out there "trying to make a buck."

Some people are just sincerely interested in universal interoperability, and freedom from being locked into choice made by a vendor.

quantize · Post by **quantize** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:04 am

james0tucson wrote:Not everyone is out there "trying to make a buck."

Some people are just sincerely interested in universal interoperability, and freedom from being locked into choice made by a vendor.

well most are, that is the inevitable and sobering truth..i hear you and i agree, universal operamadoohickey sounds like a nice idea..but when you say 'vendor' do not forget that also means 'business' particularly in Mackie's case...they arent Muse or whoever (entirely diff products of course)..so lets just see what comes back from your email..ill be interested to know for one thing..some companies need a little kick..

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:08 am

quantize wrote:
james0tucson wrote:Not everyone is out there "trying to make a buck."

Some people are just sincerely interested in universal interoperability, and freedom from being locked into choice made by a vendor.
well most are, that is the inevitable and sobering truth..i hear you and i agree, universal operamadoohickey sounds like a nice idea..

Hey, I'm just asking how I can develop support for this thing in Ardour.

I was surprised that the information wasn't readily available, e.g., attached to the first reply to my original question. That tells me I may be dealing with a company that's hostile to the idea. I'm still hoping I'm wrong about that.

Beno · Post by **Beno** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:14 am

The Mackie Control protocol is not publicly available. If a developer wishes to add support they must contact us to get the spec. We do not discriminate over whom we give the spec too but we do not give it to end users, just to developers. Having the implementation does no good to an end user as the MCU is not sending standard Midi for many controls so it can't be mapped using a DAWs built in Midi mapping features.

Having said that, the MCU implementation has been reversed engineered by a large number of manufacturers which is why you see other control surfaces having an "MCU Mode". And any end user with Midi OX could easily determine most of the implementation.

Now how programmable an MCU can be to an end user is totally dependant on the software implementation. For example, Steinberg's implementation allows for a group of customizable function buttons. Other implementations, such as Tracktion's, are more hard coded.

The MCU does not lock you into anything because it is supported by so many different DAWs and other software like Final Cut Pro. If there is a piece of software you would like supported, voice your opinion to the developer. Tell them to contact us and we will work with them as needed.

I hope this clears things up.

Ben

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:04 am

Beno wrote: I hope this clears things up.
Ben

Only slightly. On one hand it confirms my fear that the protocol is closed and proprietary. On the other hand, it gives me the idea that the protocols my be available but only at the discretion of some anonymous party.

In particular, it is not clear whether the specs would be available for incorporation into an open source project under community development and released under the GPL.

Beno · Post by **Beno** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:08 pm

The MCU spec and code is closed because it won't be changed (without forcing all the manufacturers who have already implemented it to change their code) and proprietary because Mackie (and Emagic) invented it and we maintain the code and spec. But it is not closed in the sense that we do not prevent access to developers who want to use it. Think about it; the more software that supports the MCU protocol, the more MCU units sold. It is in our best interest to have as many DAWs as possible implement MCU support. If an open source DAW project contacted us, I'm sure we could work out a way to form a working relationship. We handle all requests on a case by case basis.

Ben

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:23 pm

Beno wrote: It is in our best interest to have as many DAWs as possible implement MCU support.

Ardour?

Beno · Post by **Beno** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:47 pm

I am not the person who deals with these requests, so I can't say if anyone from the Ardour team has contacted us or not. But, I would be more than happy to put them in touch with the right people on my end. They can PM and we can go from there.
Ben

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:13 pm

So the bottom line already, is that the specs for the protocol aren't published for all to see and use as they see fit? Even for those who purchase the device? There's a NDA involved, according to Image Line, which apparently goes much further than simply releasing the specification.

The company seems more interested in "Control" than in "Universal Compatability".

I'm not prepared to embrace this policy, and have already abandoned the nascent plan I had made to develop software to support the protocol.

The correct response to my original, innocent question, and the response I honestly expected was along the lines of:

"If you will kindly read the document at www.xxx.com/xxxxx.pdf, you will find full specifications of the protocol used by HUI devices."

All this "NDA, PM us and maybe we'll let you work with us, have your people call our people", that's the antithesis of an open, universally compatable protocol.

It's only universal in your own, hand-picked universe?

Sorry if I seem upset, but your advertising hooked me. I truly expected to find an open communication protocol, which would be necessary for the claim of "universal compatability" to have any merit whatsoever. From where I sit, it's just another proprietary system where only certain players are permitted to play.

Maybe it's trivial to reverse engineer as a sysex stream. I'll leave that for someone else. I'm not interested in any NDA situation unless I'm being paid for it.

Sorry if I'm a bit hostile; I don't mean to be. I'm upset that your advertising lured me in, only to have its claims fundamentally perverted by the lack of specs.

quantize · Post by **quantize** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:42 pm

stop whinging

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:19 pm

quantize wrote:stop whinging

I have. But I'll remain disappointed until someone tells me I'm wrong about the closed nature of the protocol. It's plain and simple false advertising to call it "Universal." Me and my money are done with Mackie because of it.

chico.co.uk · Post by **chico.co.uk** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:48 pm

james0tucson wrote:
quantize wrote:stop whinging
I have. But I'll remain disappointed until someone tells me I'm wrong about the closed nature of the protocol. It's plain and simple false advertising to call it "Universal." Me and my money are done with Mackie because of it.

Yeah, i got stung that way too when I got me one of those Smart cars. Smart my arse.

james0tucson wrote:
quantize wrote:stop whinging
I have.

No, no you haven't.

Tracktion Software

KVR Audio

Mackie Control Universal