MIDI device panels right-click menu displays “assign to midi remote”, but doesn't work

You’d have to check the synth’s sysex implementation chart (if it has one) and in the device panel choose “Create SySex”instead of selecting a CC from the drop-down list (for more detail, see MIDI Devices).

MIDI CC pairing isn’t sysex, however. Personally, I’ve never run into it. If CC29 and 61 are two consecutive value ranges (0–127 – 128–255) of the same parameter you may need to create two knobs on the device panel, one for each CC. For CC61 you may specify Value Min. = 128, Max. = 255, and Default = 128. (This is all off the top of my head, as I don’t have the Peak.)

If the Peak is like the Bass Station 2’s implementation, it gets a little more complicated. I haven’t figured it out yet, so my Bass Station’s panel only has like 4 knobs in it so far heh.

The filter I believe DOES use both of those controls to go from 0-255, but the oscillators for example, use both in a different way. You can sweep the full range of the oscillator with the first CC control, but it’s very ‘steppy’ and jumps a lot. The second CC control is some sort of fine tuning or something that smooths out the initial CC value. It’s not a continuous 0-255 sweep, the second CC works within the first one. Like the second one are decimals values in between the first knobs values. I have no idea how the mod depth ones work, those use a pair to go from -127 to 127. Not sure it’s its -127-0/0-127 or also some fine tune control.

My Rev 2 is very similar, but they didn’t give you the dual controls, just the ‘coarse’ CC. In the manual (and the synths default settings), Sequential recommends using NRPN’s instead of CC’s (but it will do either one) as they have a greater range. Luckily both those synths are actually on my desk in front of me so I haven’t bothered with the panels much aside from trying to dig up info on the internet a couple times. Thankfully my Waldorfs were dead simple, just have A LOT of parameters.

Thanks guys! @Monotremata : I guess you are right! It is probably better to just forget about the. Midi device panel and just record the midi! It is just too much work to finally not get something in the end that looks like a well-rounded solution. Better to make some music than wasting time on some template that ain’t gonna work perfectly, anyway.

@ Aivaras : I know the difference to system exclusive and Peak doesn’t have any implementation chart in the manual. With other synths I have it is, but I think it is mostly used to exchange full presets, not change single parameters. Anyway, with the Peak, Sysex won’t help as far as I can see.

Blockquote
I did wonder why you weren’t doing this at the outset – using the Launch Control as the input to a MIDI track that has its output routed to the Peak, no need for either Device Panels or Cubase’s MIDI Remote, just oldskool MIDI.

Sorry, I missed that earlier. I thought a visual interpretation of the synths controls (pretty much like a control plugin, but without all of the fuzz) would be pretty sleek! Both for all of the controls being on one page without menu diving and for the convenience of being able to edit automation of parameters with the actual names versus just Midi data you have to makes sense of what is what …

However, it turns out it was even more fuzz, as all of these features in Cubase are not as complete as they needed to be for it to work. So, I am gonna leave it here and hope Steinberg make things better.

Another reason was: I am now using a midi send to get the midi from the peak recorded on the track in addition to the keyboard and I did not come up with that before. So, that is what this thread has been good for. Thanks!

This is also great material for the developers though! It reflects real-world user experience, and highlights the gaps between old and new – and by that I mean both features and users!

I do agree that there is a need for a radical overhaul of how MIDI devices are handled in Cubase. It’s just the way trends go … IMHO, the original MIDI Devices implementation was more or less abandoned when VSTis really took off, now, when modular and external MIDI has come back into fashion, there’s more of a market there.

We have inconsistent and sometimes conflicting handling of MIDI control devices as well. I’m hopeful that the new MIDI Remote API will mature to be able to replace all of these (though I wouldn’t like to lose the good old MIDI Device Panels).

So you can see the conundrum faced by developers … Cubase has, it appears, been too successful, and has survived way too long, with the result that it’s difficult to make such radical changes,

BUT … there is still the question of why a right-click on a control in a Device Panel offers the option to assign it to a MIDI Remote control, when that is, in fact, not possible! :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

1 Like

Now that’s a bug worth reporting, so I shall.

1 Like

Overhaul of midi exactly strikes a chord with, me! I have proposed that in countless forum posts: Midi and automation are two completely separate things. For my Film music work, midi data is way more convenient to edit, as you can do so under the note events in the key editor. Yet, automation makes things possible like labeling of parameters (e.g. vibrato instead of cc2 or dynamics instead of CC1), feedback to motor faders or a touch surface, etc. IMHO it is about time for a really innovative DAW that really merges these two. You should be able to build you template in a way that you can have all those VST parameters like expression maps and automations parameters together and not the mess we currently have, where certain things are possible here, others there …

For example, I hate using quick controls because I cannot edit the data in the same way that I edit midi CC in the key editor. I all of these things are really ready for a complete overhaul IMO as everything is cluttered and full of complexity, yet, there are so many things that don’t work in the most convenient way.

This is not a rant! I haven’t seen any DAW that does midi and VST handling right for a person that deals with a lot of midi playing AND editing.

It certainly is not a “mess.” Cubase is very good at MIDI 1.0. Remember, there are two parties involved in your case: Cubase and the Peak. The inconvenience you’re experiencing is mostly due to the Peak’s non-standard MIDI CC implementation and absence of sysex nomenclature.

I’d assume it’s already happening as Steinberg is working on MIDI 2.0.

I didn’t mean midi editing as hole is mess. It is rather one of the main reasons I keep using Cubase. What I mean is that the concepts of automation and midi editing are handled like two very different things, although, in most practical applications they are rather similar and that creates a mess (at least in my brain). It makes everything more complicated.

And I agree that Midi 2.0 (and VST3 becoming a standard) kind of makes it more likely that these things could get improved! Although I would argue that a lot more could have been done earlier to improve controlling l instruments and effects and editing there recorded data.