Date   

Re: Expression Pedal Output Sticks

Ian Ockwell-smith
 

This is the link to the vid I think you're talking about.

https://youtu.be/8m0v3Rr6f4U

Ian


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.


-------- Original message --------
From: Scandemor <fse22abbott@...>
Date: 10/06/2020 15:54 (GMT+00:00)
To: main@fcb1010.groups.io
Subject: Re: [fcb1010] Expression Pedal Output Sticks

Hi, remember having similar issues with the expression pedal. Then I saw a Youtube video, from someone in Italy, that did a mod in his FCB reducing sensitivity of the optosensor in a very easy way. I did the same, and also the change of the mechanic switches. From that day, my FCB is now on Premier League.........Not sure if may fix your particular problem.


Re: Expression Pedal Output Sticks

Scandemor <fse22abbott@...>
 

Hi, remember having similar issues with the expression pedal. Then I saw a Youtube video, from someone in Italy, that did a mod in his FCB reducing sensitivity of the optosensor in a very easy way. I did the same, and also the change of the mechanic switches. From that day, my FCB is now on Premier League.........Not sure if may fix your particular problem.


Re: Expression Pedal Output Sticks

chrisw_63
 

While it's possible your problem is firmware, it's also a known issue with the FCB1010 that, sometimes, the sensor arrangement is out of alignment inside.  Usually, it's the graduated transparent plastic piece has rotated so it's out of the sensor at the low end, but moves back in as you push the pedal down.  It's an easy fix if you're comfortable opening the FCB1010 - just carefully rotate it back into place.  This is what it looks like:


Re: Expression Pedal Output Sticks

ossandust
 

Hi Norman,
apparently my email reply (sent on 07/06/20) got blocked by your email provider. Here's a partial copy (you're correct about the purposeful hysteresis, so I removed that from the reply below) : 

indeed, this is solved in the most recent UnO firmware versions. I have long hesitated to lower this threshold for MIDI transmission, because it must have been introduced for a good reason by Behringer. After lots of similar complaints I have adapted the behavior in the latest UnO firmware, the pedal reaction is now immediate. There have been a few people complaining about a constant MIDI stream leaving the FCB1010 - that's indeed the problem which was avoided by that large threshold - but in general the change seems to be an improvement.

Unfortunately I can't ship chips to New Zealand for the moment, due to the COVID-19 situation, I'm waiting for a message from BPost when this will change :
https://news.bpost.be/en-corona

regards,
Xavier 


Expression Pedal Output Sticks

Earth.Sky.Surf5@...
 

My FCB1010 with the original Behringer "FCB1010 V2.5" chip has the appearance of a "sticking" expression pedal. The pedal is moved slowly -- no output, then all of a sudden jumps to action if the amplitude of movements is high enough and then skips some of the midi control values. During the calibration stage, where the HEX numbers are shown in the foot controllers LED of the expression pedal positions, no "sticking" behaviour, so I suspect this is a limitation of the Behringer firmware. I used my DAW to view the expression pedal outputs. Read some posts on this forum and suspect it is a purposeful hysteresis. For me this feature makes the expression pedal useless, as I need fine control.

If I can confirm that it is the Behringer original firmware that is at fault, I could upgrade it to a third party developer like UNO.

An email to Behringer support says they have never heard of such a thing and tell me to send the unit off for repairs -- right, wait three weeks to tell me there is nothing wrong with it. Not going there for the moment.

Can anyone confirm if my suspicions are correct regarding "sticking" expression pedal output and that replacing the chip with say UNO will correct this problem. I would get the UNO from the UNO developers, hopefully they can mail to New Zealand, no response from them yet.

Thanks in advance,
Norman.


Re: FCBUNO 2.0 and dropped Catalinos

ossandust
 

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 06:42 PM, SirPsycho wrote:
Before with the old version, when the 2 network cards would encounter a naming conflict and rename, I would have to re-register the software. With the new software, I have to re-register every time I launch it
Hi sp, 
nothing changed with the new software version : the computer is identified by its name, and apparently a Mac (in some cases) changes its name when a different router is used. You indeed need to register each computer name once, but after that you should be fine. If not, there are 2 possible causes : 
- naming conflicts caused by some misconfiguration, more info on what to do about that here : https://www.macissues.com/2015/05/18/fix-your-macs-network-name-getting-2-appended-to-it 
- some permission issue causing the Mac not to save the application config file (.plist file) and therefore not storing the registration data. As far as I know that issue can be solved by reinstalling the application


Re: FCBUNO 2.0 and dropped Catalinos

SirPsycho
 

Hey Ossandust, 

I completely understand where you're coming from. Apple hardware is expensive and I appreciate that you made a solution for Mac users, especially considering the close ties Mac has with music production. It would have been nice to see the registration issue fixed with the new Catalina software. I have an Apple Watch. When my Mac is connected to WiFi, I can use my Apple Watch to unlock my PC and approve purchases, basically anything that requires a password. But I get much better internet bandwidth with ethernet. So I have both in use. WiFi for Watch and ethernet for network traffic. This poses a problem with your software. Before with the old version, when the 2 network cards would encounter a naming conflict and rename, I would have to re-register the software. With the new software, I have to re-register every time I launch it. Not ideal when your creative juices are flowing and you have to stop and look for a license key. 

Thanks, 
sp


Re: FCBUNO 2.0 and dropped Catalinos

ossandust
 

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 04:05 AM, Nic Marin wrote:

I recently bought a Uno firmware 1.0.4 and FCB Uno control center v2 from you, just to cope with the new MacOS Catalina requirements. Everything worked really fine until some 2 weeks ago, nice and smooth. Just about 2 weeks ago I realized that FCB Uno control center does not connect anymore with the FCB1010 with the Uno firmware installed in it. After some research, what I can tell you about this, is the fact that the control center does not recognize the FCB1010 because it is connected as an external MIDI device to a UMC404 audio interface from Behringer with MIDI thru capabilities.

what I means is that the control center only can recognize the FCB1010 when it is connected directly to the MacBook Pro through MIDI to USB interface cable. 

In my mind, this seems to be a simple problem of not iterating deep enough the search for MIDI devices in the whole MIDI setup created by Apple’s MIDI studio to display all the available MIDI inputs and outputs in the MIDI communication setup of FCB Uno control center.

so far, what I can tell you is that with this glitch in the control center, it is absolutely useless for me, just because of the fact that I have to disconnect from the audio interface the FCB1010 and connect it directly to the  macbook every time that I need to make a change in the FCB1010 to work with different setups...

any idea how I can work around this issue?

Hi Nic, 
the FCB1010 is not a MIDI device which can be recognized by your Mac. The Mac only recognizes MIDI-USB devices and lists them in ControlCenter. Also there is no "hierarchy" in MIDI-USB devices, the Mac just detects what is connected: the UMC404, the no-brand MIDI-USB cable, etc. If the UMC-404 doesn't forward the SysEx messages correctly, resulting in a connection timeout in ControlCenter, you will need to keep using the other interface which seems to be still working OK. If the UMC-404 did work before and stopped working 2 weeks ago, you might check if maybe a Mac OS update was installed, and if the interface maybe has a more recent driver available which solves the problem. In any case, when using the functioning interface ControlCenter will be as useful or as useless as it was before. 


Re: FCBUNO 2.0 and dropped Catalinos

Nic Marin
 

Glad to know you are still working with the small EPROM Uno and also working in a new version of tiny...

And yet, I have a problem for you...

I recently bought a Uno firmware 1.0.4 and FCB Uno control center v2 from you, just to cope with the new MacOS Catalina requirements. Everything worked really fine until some 2 weeks ago, nice and smooth. Just about 2 weeks ago I realized that FCB Uno control center does not connect anymore with the FCB1010 with the Uno firmware installed in it. After some research, what I can tell you about this, is the fact that the control center does not recognize the FCB1010 because it is connected as an external MIDI device to a UMC404 audio interface from Behringer with MIDI thru capabilities.

what I means is that the control center only can recognize the FCB1010 when it is connected directly to the MacBook Pro through MIDI to USB interface cable. 

In my mind, this seems to be a simple problem of not iterating deep enough the search for MIDI devices in the whole MIDI setup created by Apple’s MIDI studio to display all the available MIDI inputs and outputs in the MIDI communication setup of FCB Uno control center.

so far, what I can tell you is that with this glitch in the control center, it is absolutely useless for me, just because of the fact that I have to disconnect from the audio interface the FCB1010 and connect it directly to the  macbook every time that I need to make a change in the FCB1010 to work with different setups...

any idea how I can work around this issue?

thanks for the good work and please let me know if I can help in any way to solve it.

regards


Re: IMPORTANT: Group Funding Renewal Request #announcement #donations

chrisw_63
 

As for the Google question, I did some research and found that Google Groups has not been updated since 2013.  Given Google's tendency to drop services that it no longer has any interest in, moving there would likely be temporary anyway.  Groups hasn't been listed as being on the chopping block yet, but if we had to move again even a year or two from now it'd be a lot of unneeded work.


Re: IMPORTANT: Group Funding Renewal Request #announcement #donations

Derk Schmidt
 

I fully agree, Google only uses "free" to lure you into getting established.  Just ask all of the smaller companies who used to be able to use Google's location services for free.  I'm more than happy to pay a small subscription than whatever price touted to be free really turns into.


On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 6:19 PM Roger Colwell <roger.colwell@...> wrote:
Many thanks, EJ.

I'm now locking this topic from further comment as it would otherwise be distributed to the whole membership, many of whom have unsubscribed due to receiving this Special Notice. For further discussion on any of the above points, please consider opening a new topic -- thank you!
--
Roger Colwell
FCB1010 Group Owner/Moderator


Re: IMPORTANT: Group Funding Renewal Request #announcement #donations

Roger Colwell
 

Having realised that only the original message was sent to all members as a Special Notice, but replies are not, I've unlocked the topic again.

I'll take this opportunity to express my thanks to all those that have made a contribution as we are close to reaching the target for 2021.

I have received some private questions asking why we are paying for a Premium plan when we could revert to a free plan in October. My reasoning for this is that GIO provides a stable platform with no adverts, with support that is accessible, even direct communication is possible with the creator/developer, so it's worth supporting GIO with a contribution in the long-term, rather than revert to free membership which doesn't support GIO whatsoever! Having dealt previously with Yahoo's complete lack of communication facilities and knowing that Google also has no means to contact them for support about groups, it's a no-brainer to stay where we are and support GIO. YMMV?

The Premium plan provides lots of additional features on the admin side and, importantly, supports the inclusion and addition of subgroups (like our own FCB1010_UnO group) which a free account does not.
--
Roger Colwell
FCB1010 Group Owner/Moderator


Re: IMPORTANT: Group Funding Renewal Request #announcement #donations

Roger Colwell
 

Many thanks, EJ.

I'm now locking this topic from further comment as it would otherwise be distributed to the whole membership, many of whom have unsubscribed due to receiving this Special Notice. For further discussion on any of the above points, please consider opening a new topic -- thank you!
--
Roger Colwell
FCB1010 Group Owner/Moderator


Re: IMPORTANT: Group Funding Renewal Request #announcement #donations

EJ SHELDON
 

Roger - Thank you for the effort you put in to continue this worthy cause.

Since I'm currently flush (like, the sun is out...) I've made my annual donations to both forums.
PLEASE do not move to GOOGLE! They've lost their way, and I no longer trust them!
The day you can't get 15 people to donate $10 each, this forum will no longer be necessary.
I don't see that happening anytime soon!

Keep on truckin'!


Re: IMPORTANT: Group Funding Renewal Request #announcement #donations

Roger Colwell
 

Thanks for your question, Stephen, I guess this is as good a place to ask as anywhere else!

I haven't extensively researched Google groups in the past, except I read lots of negative opinions and little to support it (when considering an exodus from Yahoo). But I did read LOTS of good things about GIO so joined an enormous number of other Yahoo groups in migrating here!

I wonder if anyone else is interested in moving to Google groups, just to avoid a subscription payment (that I think is excellent value-for-money, but YMMV)?
--
Roger Colwell
FCB1010 Group Owner/Moderator


Re: IMPORTANT: Group Funding Renewal Request #announcement #donations

Stephen Hannah
 

Hey, Roger!

Not sure if this is the correct place to ask/request, or if this possibility that has been investigated, but would migrating to google groups be a possibility? FWIW, it’s free and has superior search capabilities (as I’ve found trying to find and aggregate relevant info using the group.io search bar very difficult). Happy to help with data migration! 

Best, Stephen

On Jun 2, 2020, at 6:19 AM, Roger Colwell <roger.colwell@...> wrote:

Brief History
When FCB1010 and FCB1010_UnO groups were successfully migrated from Yahoo Groups to Groups.io (GIO) in October 2019, in order to maintain/store all previous data (which Yahoo has since deleted), it became necessary to purchase a GIO Premium Yearly Plan in order to complete that migration.

Ongoing
We have so far enjoyed the GIO experience, with no annoying ads or delays/outages (as per Yahoo), so this Special Notice is a request for members to make a small contribution towards the upkeep of FCB1010 and FCB1010_UnO, as our subscription is due for renewal in October.

As the vast majority of original members (from Yahoo) have seemingly never needed to visit our Groups.io website then, if you are one of those members, you will not have seen the Donations tab in the main menu. I'd very much appreciate you take a look before October, please – you will be presented with a login page when you visit this URL: https://fcb1010.groups.io/g/main/viewdonations that looks like this:

<2020-06-02_13-25-51.png>

As you will probably not have set a password to login successfully, you can choose to be emailed a link to login. You will arrive at this page:

<2020-06-02_13-18-12.png>

From here you can click on the "Forum Running Costs" link and arrive at this page:

<2020-06-02_13-19-52.png>


Please note that the "Raised So Far" amount may well be different than shown (well, at least that's my hope) :-)

To conclude this request, all I would like to add is that for those who are UnO group members, with your own Donations page, you may either visit the main group's page (as you are already members of the main group FCB1010) or you may start a similar path from: https://fcb1010.groups.io/g/uno/viewdonations

Thank you in anticipation of your continued support, on behalf of myself and the moderators ...

--
Roger Colwell
FCB1010 and FCB1010_UnO Groups Owner/Moderator


IMPORTANT: Group Funding Renewal Request #announcement #donations

Roger Colwell
 

Brief History
When FCB1010 and FCB1010_UnO groups were successfully migrated from Yahoo Groups to Groups.io (GIO) in October 2019, in order to maintain/store all previous data (which Yahoo has since deleted), it became necessary to purchase a GIO Premium Yearly Plan in order to complete that migration.

Ongoing
We have so far enjoyed the GIO experience, with no annoying ads or delays/outages (as per Yahoo), so this Special Notice is a request for members to make a small contribution towards the upkeep of FCB1010 and FCB1010_UnO, as our subscription is due for renewal in October.

As the vast majority of original members (from Yahoo) have seemingly never needed to visit our Groups.io website then, if you are one of those members, you will not have seen the Donations tab in the main menu. I'd very much appreciate you take a look before October, please – you will be presented with a login page when you visit this URL: https://fcb1010.groups.io/g/main/viewdonations that looks like this:


As you will probably not have set a password to login successfully, you can choose to be emailed a link to login. You will arrive at this page:


From here you can click on the "Forum Running Costs" link and arrive at this page:



Please note that the "Raised So Far" amount may well be different than shown (well, at least that's my hope) :-)

To conclude this request, all I would like to add is that for those who are UnO group members, with your own Donations page, you may either visit the main group's page (as you are already members of the main group FCB1010) or you may start a similar path from: https://fcb1010.groups.io/g/uno/viewdonations

Thank you in anticipation of your continued support, on behalf of myself and the moderators ...

--
Roger Colwell
FCB1010 and FCB1010_UnO Groups Owner/Moderator


Re: Pedals active by default?

David Grosz
 

Check out the new UnO2 chip it does default to whatever you want upon powerup. It makes the FCB1010 a completely different pedal and way more advanced functionality than before


On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 3:14 AM, Jens Andersson
<jason@...> wrote:
Is it possible to have a default preset where both pedals are activated by default at start up?

As with the default setup, I have to activate a preset - i.e. hit a foot key - for the pedals to be active. Since I always want the pedals active in any preset, the requirement of first activating any preset is a bit frustrating. Needless to say, all my presets include the pedals.

//Jens


Re: Pedals active by default?

chrisw_63
 

No, sorry.  You can always set up a single preset with nothing except the pedal configuration, but I know what you mean.  Half the time when I'm setting up I get interrupted, they later start playing and realize I didn't hit the preset.


Re: FCB1010 STOCK VERSION. CANNOT MAKE IT WORK WITH GUITAR RIG 4 OR 5... UNDER MAC OR WINDOWS. Sorry for bothering you with newby stuff.

ossandust
 

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:14 AM, Stephen Hannah wrote:
Seeing how this played out, I’m becoming more convinced that most people’s issues (mine included) stem from using a an incompatible midi interface. 
True! All MIDI interfaces work well for sending the "regular" MIDI messages necessary for switching sounds, activating effects, playing a synth  (ProgChange, CtrlChange, NoteOn/NoteOff, ... ). However many interface manufacturers don't go through the effort of correctly implementing that one message type "SysEx", which is more complex than the rest, because it can have an unlimited message size (as opposed to 1,2 or 3 bytes for all other message types), and therefore requires things like providing large enough data buffers, making sure buffers are flushed fast enough, filtering out 1-byte System Realtime messages which could occur during a SysEx transfer, and so on. Not to forget the weird non-standard way Mac sends SysEx over MIDI-USB, packing each message byte into a 4-byte packet, instead of the standard SysEx format which packages each group of 3 bytes into a 4-byte MIDI-USB package. That's a lot to take into account, especially if you want to keep R&D price down... 

521 - 540 of 29161