You think it’s possible to use the Hale UMC32 brain with the Livid breakout boards? They should be electrically compatible I’d imagine and it’d save a lot of money. Any pitfalls to be aware of?
You think it’s possible to use the Hale UMC32 brain with the Livid breakout boards? They should be electrically compatible I’d imagine and it’d save a lot of money. Any pitfalls to be aware of?
i have the hale umc32 i dont think this will work as every wire on each 10 pin cable must be attached to a switch or button to complete the circuit if you wanna use the livid stuff you need to buy their brain it uses 16 and 18 pin cables i think can't remember but all the peripherals are made with their brain in mind. the hale i think is better for arcade buttons and potentiometers
yeah the +/- are shared for the pentiometers... but it'd be relatively simple to solder the +/- wires from the umc32 to the livid breakout boards (you'd just need to use more wires than usual)...
so what have you made with the umc32? why you think it's better for arcade stuff? would you recommend it?
the hale would be fantastic if you are just starting out and making basic controllers. i have a few hales, one in a pocket effects controller and some as control proto's
the livid brain would be fantasic if you want to build a larger scale controller.
i have to disagree with herbstrike on the halemicro being a better option.
i think its subjective. (so i guess im a hypocrite lol)
because the livid brain allows you to add alot more buttons/leds/r-pots/s-pots etc.
the fantastic thing is, you can matrix buttons up to 179, which is pretty incredible.
and the range of possibilities ranges from super beginner to highly advanced
i think it could be possible to use the potentiometer section of the breakout board with the hale, IF you have a 10 pin ribbon cable, first pin ground, second pin voltage, and the rest signal/wiper.
ill do a few tests about this one, never thought of it!
"if it sounds good, it is good"
http://soundcloud.com/creative-phaze
http://soundsparks.blogspot.com/
well I want to make a vci-100 style controller, but with the ability to easily control 4 decks and without jog wheels. Surely I could make this with a few UMC32's daisy chained together?
well in my current mood i would not recommend it! i'm having issues have i have 16 arcade buttons hooked up as you can only connect 8 buttons to each source 8 outputs one 5 v for led's and the ground which obviously have to be connected to every button, i did not buy enough cable when i bought the card and no the place i bought it from have taken it off there product listed so i can't find a company that supply's in the uk i was going to use the rest of the outputs to set up a midi mixer but no more cables = stopped in my tracks wait to make some cash and buy the extra bits. I have the potentiometers just no cable. here is the the thread about my stuff.
http://www.djtechtools.com/forum/sho...lerism+project
You should be able to do it with one - it really doesn't take much processing power to sit around and wait for a button press. Exactly how many controls were you planning on using at the same time? Even a crappy controller should be able to handle hundreds as you only have two hands!
not sure I follow!
I want a controller that has a similar amount of knobs, buttons and faders as the VCI-100. Except without the two jog wheels and 4 channels of EQ's, gains and volume instead of the 2 that you get on the VCI.
How does 'processing power' relate to this?
The two brains I'm considering should have enough inputs to handle what I need... the question is, which one should I choose (baring in mind, I'm on a budget).
The idea that one pin maps to one button is just a convenient simplification that allows the sellers of these products to say their controller is "easy to use". Which it is, provided that you can map your problem to the "out of the box" capabilities of their device.
In the real world of controller design it's possible to map any number of keys to just three pins using a number of outboard chips called parallel-in-shift-out devices. Each one of these chips (cost around $0.30) can daisy chain with it's neighbors to allow you to instantaneously scan the state of a large number of keys using only a few pins. The trade off is that large numbers of switches can take a while to read in - to offset this you need to have a high speed controller that can "bit bang" these values in as quickly as possible. So the responsiveness of your controller is related to the speed of the processor.
If you're on a budget and are willing to do some programming yourself, get a Teensy controller (http://www.pjrc.com/teensy/) for $18 and a few outboard chips and make your own board using a piece of stripboard and a soldering iron. You can use the Midifighter source as a starting point to build your own software and you can be controlling your MIDI device for less than $30. All you need to supply after that are POTs, switches and a box with a front panel, which you would have to do anyway.
If you go for the UMC32 you're paying a LOT for the "out of the box" convenience and, as a side effect, limiting your design possibilities. You say you're on a budget, so hopefully this can show you the cost/benefit analysis you need to look into. Is the extra $60 worth it to you? Can you program? Would learning to program your own microcontroller be a valuable life skill?
Last edited by Fatlimey; 03-30-2010 at 07:08 PM.
"if it sounds good, it is good"
http://soundcloud.com/creative-phaze
http://soundsparks.blogspot.com/
|
Bookmarks