How do I make my faders on my mixer more exact?

Your BCF2k works with MIDI volume. MIDI volume control messages (and almost all other MIDI control messages) can "do" 128 steps.

MIDI control 7 at value 0 is -∞, at value 64 it is -6.0, at 90 it's 0, at 127 it's +6.0.

108 is 3.2, 109 is 3.4.

As you can see, 64 to 90 is 26 steps, for values from -6.0 to 0.0, being 60 times 0.1 - but with only 26 steps that means every smallest increment is 60/26 times 0.1, or 0.23 dB per step.

90 to 127 is 37 steps for 6.0 dB, so there it is 6/37 = ± 0.16 dB per step.

Imo there's really no need for more accuracy, and even if there is, you can enter 0.1 values (aka deci-decibels) by mousing the fader or even by qwertyping it into the fader handle.. I have never come across a mixing situation where + 3.2 was "just too soft" but 3.4 "just too loud" though. I bet nobody can hear the difference between a sound set at 3.3 and the same sound at 3.2 dB - unless they are played back back to back perhaps, but even then...

But, bottom line, this is how MIDI controllers work. Now I have heard of ways of making certain messages 14 bit (meaning 16,384 discrete steps in stead of 128), but I am not even sure that is possible with the BCF2000, and if it is, it is not really worth the trouble, study and dedication to understanding MIDI and MIDI manipulation you need for that. Make do with the 128 steps - it suffices in 99,96848565 % of cases...

Eriksimon wrote:

Make do with the 128 steps - it suffices in 99,96848565 % of cases...

It does for most requirements, of course - apart from the Mod Wheel, obviously - nice explanation though, in some ways.

I think MIDI has eventually become a real standard and is very likely to be around for a long time, so its definitely worth getting into - that's still an ongoing situation for me - a knowledge of the way the MIDI data is being manipulated when you use the editors has to be useful in one way or another as well.

And, of course, you can get precious about levels in your mix he he....

You can use the Control key with the fader adjustment to get a finer control - is that what you mean?

Maybe I don't understand the problem though, could be it..

I think Eriksimon has explained the problem very well. You may not think you're using MIDI, but I believe you are - it is just being sent over USB. The basic problem is that 128 steps doesn't provide the resolution that you need to make such small changes in level. I have a cheap Korg MicroKONTROL2 that has the same issue.

BTW, thanks for calling my attention to the Behringer BCF2000 B-Control Fader - looks like a nice unit for about $200. Aside from this issue, how do you like it?

TyBo wrote:

Eriksimon, thank you for your response. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I just want my mixer faders to be more accurate. Forget volume. If I want to move .2 up or down, it moves .4 or .6 up or down. I just don't want to have to go back and forth to get it where I want it. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm asking if there is a setting I can choose to change the mixer fader's scale to make it exact or larger. I'm not hooked up via MIDI btw. Simply using it via my USB port straight to my MacBook Pro. At the moment, I'm really only using it as an external mixing alternative so that I don't have to use my mouse to adjust volume levels, etc.

Tybo, you were clear enough, as was I: your BCF2000 is a MIDI control surface; MIDI is a binary thing, it can also travel via USB, which is what it does in your case.

So, my complete explanation still stands.

About jumping from -9.0 to -8.6: I just tested it here: Control 7 at value 53 sets the fader to -9.1; 54 sets it to -8.8 and 55 is -8.5.

Again: with your MIDI control surface you can not get more accuracy than this, end of simple story. And that's not because the BCF faders aren't "accurate" enough or because Logic isn't accurate enough, it is because of the coarse "resolution" of the pretty old (early eighties) MIDI protocol.

Just to chime in here.... I use an original logic control. MIDI for sure yet somehow I manage to get .1db increments.

Boyd Ostroff wrote:

...Korg MicroKONTROL2 that has the same issue.

Well, the "issue" (I'm not considering this a major or even minor issue) is not with the hardware or how much it costs - the more expensive control surfaces (Euphonix?) will behave no different than the Korg or the Behringer if they all use MIDI CC 7. As does the simple single cheap 2" MIDI slider on my keyboard...

Data Stream Studio wrote:

Just to chime in here.... I use an original logic control. MIDI for sure yet somehow I manage to get .1db increments.

😕

Could it somehow be 14 bits? I vaguely remember this being discussed on LPH some time ago...

With just CC7 I'm sure you can't attain such accuracy. From -∞ via -144 to +6 are roughly 1501 "deciincrements" (0.1 dB).

Could you perhaps up your fader 0.1 dB via your LC and make a screenshot from your MIDI monitor in the environments' Clicks & Ports layer to see what the MIDI from the LC looks like?

So, using your Logic Control, you can set your Logic fader to

-75.0

-70.0

-68.0

-66.8 or

-55?

This is what I could set with my 2" fader:

(CC7 value = dB fader)

0 = -∞

1 = -78.1

2 = -66.1

3 = -59.0

4 = -54.0

5 = -50.2

6 = -47.0

10 = -38.1

20 = -26.1

30 = -19.0

TyBo wrote:

I'm not hooked up via MIDI btw. Simply using it via my USB port straight to my MacBook Pro. At the moment, I'm really only using it as an external mixing alternative so that I don't have to use my mouse to adjust volume levels, etc.

In this case your USB connection is in fact a MIDI connection, the only other possible scenario I see is if the BCF has it's own software that installs as a control surface and recognizes the BFC faders resolution.

Eriksimon wrote:

Well, the "issue" (I'm not considering this a major or even minor issue) is not with the hardware or how much it costs

Yes, I understood that completely. "issue" was probably a poor choice of words.

Boyd Ostroff wrote:

Eriksimon wrote:

Well, the "issue" (I'm not considering this a major or even minor issue) is not with the hardware or how much it costs

Yes, I understood that completely. "issue" was probably a poor choice of words.

Yes, and no. "Issue" is one word. Therefore "words" is a poor choice of word... 😁😎

But I suspected all along you really meant more like "phenomenon", although that may be a nerdy choice of word... 😝

If I think of it when I get back to the studio on tuesday, I''ll post it.