Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    
    Very interesting topic.
    
    My MX-8 and I have been through a number of different configurations
    since I bought it, and I use it both for studio and "live" applications
    (which consist of playing "studio" out in a club somewhere in front
    of people, usually). 
    
    I have found some things I don't like either, but I'm not certain
    if it's the fault of the MX-8, MIDI, or me. For instance, I am having
    no trouble merging any two inputs (like the Octapad and the output
    of the Atari, when adding drum tracks whilst listening to earlier
    tracks)... I have found that I can share inputs and outputs. For
    instance, my MIDIbass uses output 4, but input 4 is the Octapad.
    I never patch input 4 to output 4 anyway.
    
    I would like to see better filtering on the MX-8. Currently, I make
    the Atari use MIDI ch. 16 as my program change/sysex diddle track.
    That's because Dr T's is better at filtering than the MX-8.
    
    One learns to adjust to limitations (eventually). Currently, the
    drumboxes are all chained out on output 3. I have had to completely
    adjust new compositions to a new drum standard (local definitions
    apply), so that I don't hit the DDD-1 orchestra hit everytime I
    really wanted an HR-16 clave. All it really meant is that in my
    studio, drums are always on channel 3, and there is a unique key
    for every mappable instrument. This lets me filter, locally, on the
    MX-8, which I don't really bother with much.
    
    I wish I had better software to induce the MX-8 to be more friendly.
    I despise little 20-char windows. The patch menu packs a lot of
    information into 20 cells, and it's hard to read. I am under the
    impression that DMC is working on this, and will announce it shortly.
    
    I find that much of the MX-8 functionality is not useful for me.
    I don't really use filtering much, with 4 or 5 digital delays, I
    am not using the MIDI delay at all, and I have the same frustration
    with multimerge, i.e. I have plenty of controllers, but I can't
    merge more than two at a time.
    
    This is NOT to say that the MX-8 was a bad investment. I am VERY
    happy with the box, due to it's very simple setup. I just don't
    like programming little names by toggling letters up and down
    individually, and having to squat down to see the damn display.
    Nothing I couldn't fix with some programmin, but why should I have
    to?
    
    I think that part of having a large MIDI configuration requires
    you to manage your network, like making local standards and conventions
    that work for you, although they might not work for others. Certainly,
    drumboxes and SGUs fit into the "need to standardize" category,
    and control channels are another big sore point. But face it; I
    doubt anyone else wants to try to play my disks on their network,
    there would be a lot of strangeness unless I documented my mapping
    fully, right down to the bass drum keymap and channel. 
    
    So I guess I'm ambivalent. You can make it as simple or as complicated
    as you want. The MX-8 does give you enough rope as it is. 
    
    /pjh
    
    

    
    
    Re -1 and 2
    
    Can you program the MX8 over Midi(I.e. Sysex).
    
    
    				Paul K.

    re: SYSEX to the MX-8
    
    Currently no. Supposedly, there is a ROM upgrade (that requires that
    you lose what is currently stored in the MX-8's patch memory) that
    should allow it. So far this is vaporware. An MX-8 does do some slick
    things for you, however, I havn't used at least half of the features
    (figuring out how to use the ones I am using took quite a while).

    For me, I buy the stuff to make music (amazingly, I've spent nearly
    $1000.00 on things this year that control things that make sounds, but
    without an SGU, make no noise at all) & not to diddle with. I find
    that with MIDI I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time playing
    with things, rather than finishing them & going on to the next thing.
    
    There must be some effort, or competition for lousy documentation. Each
    MIDI device I buy seems to have worse documentation than the previous
    purchase (I do miss quite a few things when I can't figure out what
    they mean, then later once the concepts sink in, I tend never to
    reference the manuals, since they baffled me initially)

    The Patch Bay shouldn't need to exist (as far as I can see), there
    should be some sort of LAN to make things work. The patch bay does
    sort out quite a few messes, and at this point in time it works for
    me. The more I try to do, the more restricted that things seem to
    get.

						    Jens

    
    re: .-2
    
       Jens is correct, although I was under the impression that the
    ROM they stuck in mine allowed SYSEX. I'll check it tonight, since
    I have the latest documentation (which still sucks).
    
       Actually it does allow SYSEX, it just doesn't do much while IN
    SYSEX....
    
    /pjh

Hi y'all.

I'm a budding MIDIot looking to add more-on to my system; at the moment I'm
seriously considering purchase of a used (1 1/2 years) MX-8 patch bay, which has
had its firmware updated to support sysex messages. I don't know yet (but I'll
ask) whether it's "post-wallbug" vintage or not.

In looking at currently available patch bays, the two which seem (a) reasonably
affordable and (b) capable enough to support me well into the future are the
MX-8 and the J.L. Cooper MSB-plus Rev 2. Main differences as I see them:
8 x 8 on the Cooper, 6 x 8 on the MX-8; some effects like (MIDI) companding,
delay/repeat on the MX-8 which aren't on the Cooper (both do transpose, channel
remap, merge and such).

Before you say it, don't: I *have* read the extant notes on patchbays in general
and the MX8 in particular- what I haven't seen, and would appreciate, are
recommendations for competing boxes to consider, and/or advice on potential
pitfalls in getting a *used* MX-8. I can't think of *any* on this type of gear,
but as I grow older my appreciation for my own ignorance increases
proportionally! I'd like to benefit from the experience of other noters and make
sure I get something which will last me for a while. Much thanks in advance.

Cheers,
	Bob

Hi Bob !

You might be interested to hear about a product of a German company called
DOEPFER for merging additional MIDI INs (DOEPFER also produces the LMK
masterkeyboards, which may be available also outside Germany ?). The product is
available as a kit, as a pre-built board or as a ready to operate box (no
19"). You can switch between 4 in 1 or 4 in 2 merging mode. The prices range
from 190,- to 250,-DM. I think it's a good complement to the MX-8 which only
allows 2 (fixed)  channels to merge.

	Richard

Re .6:

Thanks, Richard. "Interested" is probably a very appropriate description of my
response to your info. I'm pretty well decided on the MX-8 (just waiting for a
copy of the manual to seal my fate), and I'm fairly sure that merging of any two
of its six inputs will meet my needs for quite a while. However, the box you
describe, especially its availability as a kit, is intriguing to say the least.

If you could provide further info, I have the feeling that other noters may have
a lot of interest; I have to confess that on my part it's probably going to end
up just as curiosity. BTW, anyone know the current conversion for US dollars and
Deutschmarks?

Thanks for the info.

Cheers,
	Bob

Hi Bob !

There's actually not much more info I could give, maybe besides that uses an
outboard power supply (wall bug type propably, not included), it has 4 IN and
2 OUT plugs and just that one switch for the operating mode (4 in 2 or 4 in 1).
The box version looks more like a soap box.  

The conversion rate must be around 0.6 currently.

As far as I know the MX-8 does not allow to merge ANY TWO, but only two that
are connected to ports 1 and 2. So in order to merge any you have to pull the
plugs and connect the device to merge to port 1 or 2. 

	Richard

>As far as I know the MX-8 does not allow to merge ANY TWO, but only two that
>are connected to ports 1 and 2. So in order to merge any you have to pull the
>plugs and connect the device to merge to port 1 or 2. 

This isn't true. You can choose any 2 MIDI input ports (out of the 6 input
ports) to merge together, and that result can be sent to any or as many
of the 8 output ports that you want. I've configured my MX-8 such that
depending on the patch, I merge different things (I have numerous recording
modes, and even more playback modes - all depending on what gear that I
expect as a controller, and what SGU's I expect). The MX-8 is very flexable.
I still ended up buying 2 additional Anatek Merger units (at about $80.00
each), because I allow many controllers during performance.

								Jens

Hi Jens !

Thanks for the clarification ! I'm glad that I put a "as far as I know"
infront... However, the dealer gave me the wrong information, but thanks to
notes.....

So this would make the MX-8 a good choice, combined with that merger board I
mentioned instead of the Anatek Poket Merge, which is 180,-DM over here.

	thanks and best regards

		Richard