Author |
Topic: Data Mapping@Port Level>Using Multi OX's (Read 1523 times) |
|
twerp
Member
MIDI-OX Rules!
Posts: 20
|
 |
Data Mapping@Port Level>Using Multi OX's
« on: Dec 19th, 2002, 10:42am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Having a great time here. The only thing that makes my LIVE plans a real head scratcher is the fact that the OX (no yoke) needs to be CLEARED of ALL ports before sending another PORT MAP layout. The porblem is the IN's go to ALL PORTS reality.
What I've done is set ONE PROGram change on my Footpedal program changer to invoke a NO OUT PORTS WITH ANY CHANNELS AVAILABLE patch. Then the plan is to hit another program change that FILLS in the PORTS that I need Cubase SX to SEE for the next song.
WELL, along with the fact that I'm NOT a genius, just darn relentless. AND, the fact that I have to do setting up in Cubase SX and in MIDI OX. Well.... fact is I've not got a SYSTEM down yet as to how to work.
as my Unitor8 seems happy to have a second instance of the OX running thru one of the ports I am experimenting with CHANNELIZING my KYBD before it hits the original instance of the OX hooked to the MT4 midiface. (I only use 1-4 inputs on the unitor at present fed from the original instance of the OX FROM an MT4 emagic interface)
JAMIE! does the second instance of the OX cause any system stability isssues? OR more importantly I'd LOVE to know that as it appears BOTH OX's will share the same set of prefs, data folders, patches available etc.
I guess that having more flexibility at the PORT level would really fill a niche and raise the OX to new heights. Yes, it sounds like a nasty one to program. I have to remind myself that the biggeast surprise was that the OX sends to ALL ports by default
The channel delete in the Port map options and then the loading of this new port map in the PROGRAM change feature is brilliant!
The thing is that it gets very scary cause I have to send the RESET to NO CHANNELS ON program change PORT MAP command (prog chng) BERFORE sending the PROG change for the next song as OX leaves whatever the ports anre doing as the were and ADDS the new PORT map to existing one.
shessh.....
IF I were totally understanding how 2 OX's work together on one machine I might be able to sort this out.
Can anyone tell me:
IS there a benefit to running one OX for my KYBD's PORT MAPPING. AND, are there any drawbacks?
I've got 2 interfaces so I will be doing hardware chaining an not using the YOKE.
SO my keybd. goes into port 7 on the Unitor with the second OX set to see only 7 in and 7 out on the MFACE.
Then the OUT of 7 on this unitor goes to the INPUT 1 on the MT4 Mface which the Original OX instance is set to. I then have 4 outports FROM this MT4 which go back to the 4 inputs on the unitor 8 which is what CUBASE SX deal with.
I load the new song, (and although SX does save what channels are selected upon save) I may have to select my ENTIRE group of channels that are areALSO input transformer CHANNEL limited (or hopefully not have to do this!!)
and voila.... um..... VOILA?
Sheesh....
I've used Logic extensively but now only use my LOGIC program for recording audio as it's BRILLIANT on PC1.
PC2 is the SX VST player and midi recorder. Which all feed over to the PC1 with Logic on it as it's the MIXER / recorder.
ANY comments about How the OX shares patches and folder locations and also the registry PORT patches appreciated.
ALSO, I'm gonna be doing full day 3 here trying to get myself up to speed on POSSIBLE using 2 instances of the OX.
May I ask... IS there any benefit for me in using 2 OX's. I guess the only benefit of using the 2nd OX wihch is actually first in the physical chain from my KYBD to channelize... well, would this help? It's only going to have the other OX be able to see different incoming channels right?
I would do my keysplits on the final OX instance set to the MT4 which goes back to the Unitor and on to SX....
um..... this is complicated for ME anyways.
um, what about port mapping at the Port level...?
best wishes to ALL
twerp'd again
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Jamie OConnell
Administrator
 
Gender: 
Posts: 2027
|
|
Re: Data Mapping@Port Level>Using Multi OX's
« Reply #1 on: Dec 19th, 2002, 1:40pm » |
Quote Modify
|
That's quite a variety of questions, but maybe some of them collapse if others are answered.
Quote:| The only thing that makes my LIVE plans a real head scratcher is the fact that the OX (no yoke) needs to be CLEARED of ALL ports before sending another PORT MAP layout. The porblem is the IN's go to ALL PORTS reality. |
|
I am not sure that's true? There is an option at the bottom of the MIDI Devices dialog: [ ] Automatically attach inputs to outputs during selection. If this option is unchecked, then attachments from both Manual selection and from Presets do not attach Ins to Outs by default. You are using Presets - right? You must be if you are using the Patch mapping feature with this.
Quote:JAMIE! does the second instance of the OX cause any system stability isssues? OR more importantly I'd LOVE to know that as it appears BOTH OX's will share the same set of prefs, data folders, patches available etc.
|
|
No stability issues, that I am aware of. There are a few global options, but most things are stored in a different registry subtree for each instance. You can view how these are setup, and which items are global and per-instance by looking in the registry or looking in one of the profile .INI files. For the registry stuff, open HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\MIDI-OX\MIDI-OX 32
Global options are mostly under the Options Key. Each Instances parameters are store under a ProfileN key - ex: Profile1, Profile2, etc. Anything under one of those keys applies only to the instance.
It's not clear whether you need multiple instances, but maybe you will be able to determine that easier now.
|
|
IP Logged |
--Jamie
Music is its own reward.
|
|
|
twerp
Member
MIDI-OX Rules!
Posts: 20
|
|
Re: Data Mapping@Port Level>Using Multi OX's
« Reply #2 on: Dec 19th, 2002, 5:27pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Jamie: I've been doing this computers and music thing a LONG time. I haven't seen anyone as on it as you yet... that I can recall. And before the internet it WAs really silly calling tech support lines all the time.
i'd love to be part of a collective that showed a tangible "cash!" pooling > to go towards further development of M-OX and anything that could be developed OUT of the existing program. Like the port mapping concept being embedded into the other map. etc.
i can't imagine getting things the way I want them (SMALL and powerful with JUST PC's and less or NO other hardware)
well, without the MOX I'd be stuffed really is what i've realized recently. I'm thinking about this one for sure!
XMAS will come and go...the MOX lives ON!
THANK YOU GREATLY
twerp'ing-ly
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
User Forum ::
Powered by YaBB
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print