Anyone used the Doepfer Pocket Dial with the G2?

mosc

Has anyone used the Doepfer Pocket Dial with the G2? Seems like a natural.

Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.

Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.

http://www.doepfer.de/home_e.htm

This is different from the Pocket Control which uses pots, not endless rotary encoders.

Nodular · Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 2:25 am Post subject:

I'd like to know too...

3phase · Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:45 am Post subject:

i dont think the G2 understands incremental controlers... Or?
but..
maybe it should.. at least the engine would benefit from that.

jksuperstar · Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:03 am Post subject:

Yeah, incremental controllers would be nice, you could have as much resolution as you wanted, instead of 7bits as per MIDI CC#s. I have an old Peavey StudioMix, which only uses NRPNs, meaning I need a translator somewhere to use it. NRPNs inthe G2 would be helpful for MIDI processing.

But MOSC is right, that little box looks like a match for the "empty" space on the G2's (I'm always looking for more things to put there!).

gal · Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:53 am Post subject:

Hi
It definitly understands incremental controllers. I used it a while ago with Cubase SX. But isn't there more than one method of incremental controller communication?

Best would be to check out the manual for detailed information about communication methods ( http://www.doepfer.de/pdf/pd_man.pdf )

good luck
gal

note Blue Hell : edited post to make link clickable

blue hell · Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:27 am Post subject:

Some creative use of flipflops and or s&hs would give you NRPNs on the G2 I'd say.

Kassen · Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:48 pm Post subject:

sebber · Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:50 pm Post subject:

What are NRPNs? Confused

blue hell · Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:39 pm Post subject:

For some info on NRPN's see http://www.philrees.co.uk/nrpnq.htm

A summary :

It is a way to have finer detailed control over more parameters through MIDI. Normally with CCs you get 128 value steps for 120 controllers, with NRPN's you can get 16384 steps for I think 16384 controllers.

It works by first selecting through a special CC sequence a controller to manipulate and then sending values for that specific controller through some other CC messages. When you want to control another parameter you first have to select that one.

The price to be payed is some protocol overhead, meaning that more time is needed to control parameters in this way. Fast changing parameters in practice need less detail in their control, so those could be dealt with by normal CCs.

Doing it yourself :

An NM implementation would need some storage elements (S&H's) to remember values in and some logic to get values into that storage depending on the MIDI CC sequence seen. o not use all your resources for NRPNs only you would have to limit yourself to some parameters that you can to control in this way.

I of course agree that it would be nice to have this built in as a system feature, but when you really need it /now/ for some parameters you could build it yourself.

deknow · Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:39 pm Post subject:

jan, would that be possible for pitchbend data? i can't quite picture the whole concept.

deknow

jksuperstar · Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:24 pm Post subject:

Pitchbend's use a dedicated MIDI command (3bytes total) to transmit the 14bits of pitchbend data.

NRPN's use a sequence of 4 commands (2 for address and 2 for data) (12 bytes total) to allow the 14 bits of data transfer. They are like the CC expansion for undefined things, much like sysex allowed for undefined things. Sysex was intended for non-realtime control, whereas NRPNs are FOR real time control.

Pitchbend *could* be sent over NRPNs, but unless you have more than 1 pitchbend per MIDI channel, it'd be a waste of MIDI Bandwidth. It would be perfect for more than 1 pitchbend within a MIDI channel (Poly pitchbend?)

Kassen · Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:38 am Post subject:

soundklang

hi,
http://electro-music.com/forum/topic-25262.html shows a patch that emulates an incremental controller with a frontpanel knob. it also allows for independently assign and name a knob and a button to the frontpanel.

buzzr · Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject:

I use the pocketdial with the G2 and it works great.

We are currently designing a midi controller like the Pocketdial but with better encoders (smoother) and the encoders also have switches built into them.

So the controllers will be smaller then the pocketdial, have 16 encoders that will be able to use four of the switches on the encoders to switch between the banks. The rest of the encoder switches will be used as cc. We are thinking that we might also be able to custom program for people who want something different.

The controller box will also have 2 inputs for outside sensors, maybe 4, we are still working this out. So... the list

16 encoders with switches
2 to 4 inputs for sensors
USB and MIDI out

and smaller then the pocketdial.

And no, it's not built from midibox.org designs.

Not sure when we are going to have these done as we are running into problems with the code (Amtel Chips)

www.buzz-r-electronics.com

mosc · Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:46 am Post subject:

puggo · Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 1:38 am Post subject:

hello!

here a g2 newbie

would like to know if anyone here uses the "classic" pocket control to tweak the engine. I used it years ago with my first micromodular and worked for me...but surely I touched some of the backside pins and loose that generic preset. Don´t know if ithis first pocketc is suitable for my engine (it seems it receives control from the pocket, but can´t assign the controls properly on the editor)

tonight I´ll try with some "generic" presets from the pocket I´ve seen at the manual (the "masterchannel" ones)

all the best,

pug

buzzr · Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 6:01 am Post subject:

Well, I have had both the pocket dial and the pocket control. Unfortunately the G2 has a bunch of midi channels taken and you cannot use them. Which makes it difficult when you have unprogramable midi controllers like the Pocket Dial and Control.

Here is the list:

Unusable MIDI CC#'s

0
1
7
11
17
18
19
32
64
70
80
96
97
121
123

buzzr · Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 6:02 am Post subject:

Faderfox is also this way. So, any small midi controller it seems is not really suited.

egw · Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 6:23 am Post subject:

puggo · Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 8:05 am Post subject:

buzzr · Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 8:34 am Post subject:

Ah, yes the nano series. These are quite fragile unfortunately...

egw · Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 5:37 am Post subject:

The Peavy pc1600x is very sturdy and completely programmable - not much bigger than the nano, but more expensive. No knobs, only buttons and sliders. The buttons don't light up to indicate on/off in toggle mode, which is one thing I like about the nano.

grimley · Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:30 am Post subject:

Haven't seen the Pocket Dial, but I did use the Doepfer Pocket Electronics to build this thing which fits perfectly on the right side of my G2:

photoController.JPG

Description:

Custom joystick controller

Filesize:

19.37 KB

Viewed:

12397 Time(s)

photo2.jpg

Description:

Doepfer Pocket Electronics + G2

Filesize:

153.33 KB

Viewed:

170 Time(s)

This image has been reduced to fit the page. Click on it to enlarge.

davep · Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:20 pm Post subject:

grimley · Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject:

A bunch of radio shack knobs (not endless encoders) and switches and 2 Doepfer joysticks (with springs removed) connected to a Doepfer Pocket Electronics kit, stuffed into a Lacie drive enclosure plastered in Elektron stickers!
http://www.doepfer.de/pe.htm