# Is the Behringer X-Touch any good ?



## Fredeke

Hi.

I'll have a good deal of mixing to do in the next couple of monthes, and I'm thinking it would be time to invest in a control surface. I am running Reaper so I suppose a Mackie-compatible surface is what I need (right?). And I'd like motor faders because f*ck yeah.

How about the Behringer X-Touch (the complete one, with the jog wheel etc) ?

In your experience, is 8+1 faders frustratingly short? Should I plan on buying the 8-faders expansion right away too ? I'd like to delay the investment in an expansion for now.
Also, for those with experience: would you say the motors are quiet enough to let them wiggle while listening to your mix ? How quiet are they compared to more expensive brands ?

Also, should I worry about durability - and durable quietness ? Behringer products are well known for lasting less than forever, but then again I saw you could buy replacement motorfaders for the X-Touch quite cheaply on eBay.

The only alternative I see is the Presonus Faderport 8 or 16, which has 8 or 16 faders. But is the Faderport 8 expandable? I never tried any of their products. Are they generally reliable ?

About fader precision: The Faderport have 10-bit precision faders. Does that mean that models not advertising their bit depth (like the X-Touch) are 7- or 8-bit ? In practice, do you feel that limitation ?

Other options (Mackie etc) are just too expensive and too bulky.


----------



## estolad

Fredeke said:


> Behringer products are well known for lasting less than forever, but then again I saw you could buy replacement motorfaders for the X-Touch quite cheaply on eBay.



Define forever. My Behringer Truth monitors are over 15 years old. Still waiting for them to break so I can replace them with better ones


----------



## Jaap

Fredeke said:


> Behringer products are well known for lasting less than forever,



My BCF2000 survived many cups of coffee, daily and quite severe cat attacks, 2 times dropping on the floor and still running 

I can't speak for the X-touch, but the faders on the BCF2000 are quite noisy though.


----------



## TheKRock

Fredeke said:


> Hi.
> 
> I'll have a good deal of mixing to do in the next couple of monthes, and I'm thinking it would be time to invest in a control surface. I am running Reaper so I suppose a Mackie-compatible surface is what I need (right?). And I'd like motor faders because f*ck yeah.
> 
> How about the Behringer X-Touch (the complete one, with the jog wheel etc) ?
> 
> In your experience, is 8+1 faders frustratingly short? Should I plan on buying the 8-faders expansion right away too ? I'd like to delay the investment in an expansion for now.
> Also, for those with experience: would you say the motors are quiet enough to let them wiggle while listening to your mix ? How quiet are they compared to more expensive brands ?
> 
> Also, should I worry about durability - and durable quietness ? Behringer products are well known for lasting less than forever, but then again I saw you could buy replacement motorfaders for the X-Touch quite cheaply on eBay.
> 
> The only alternative I see is the Presonus Faderport 8 or 16, which has 8 or 16 faders. But is the Faderport 8 expandable? I never tried any of their products. Are they generally reliable ?
> 
> About fader precision: The Faderport have 10-bit precision faders. Does that mean that models not advertising their bit depth (like the X-Touch) are 7- or 8-bit ? In practice, do you feel that limitation ?
> 
> Other options (Mackie etc) are just too expensive and too bulky.


I have both X-touches, I use the compact for midi control, and after having them for a few months I can say they work flawlessly...the mechanized faders do make a little noise but nothing I can't live with. I would however research how well they work with Reaper as I read that there was a few issues with compatibility and there may be something it doesn't do that you need it to. If you have any specific questions let me know. Oh and I am using them with Logic.


----------



## Fredeke

Great ! Thanks guys.
I just ordered mine


----------



## Fredeke

Ok, first impressions :

- Super easy to setup.

I haven't checked every possible function yet. I read some would be tricky to get working, but so far everything I've tested is working fine, right out of the box, with Reaper in Mackie-universal mode.

- The motors are quite noisy when moving fast. (However take this with a grain of salt: I don't have experience with any other control surface to make a fair comparison.)

- I enjoy the transport and zoom functions a lot ! I didn't expect this, but it could be a life changer 
- It's bigger than I expected. At first I felt a bit overwhelmed. (And before you ask, yes that's what she said.)



TheKRock said:


> If you have any specific questions let me know.



Thanks! Here's my first question 

Do you know a way of disabling the motors, when I just want to sit back listen to the mix ? I already found one, kind of: FLIPping pans and volumes (provided there is no pan automation). And of course I could just disable or unplug the surface altogether... But is there a proper way to just turn the motors off, from the surface's interface ?


----------



## TheKRock

Fredeke said:


> Ok, first impressions :
> 
> - Super easy to setup.
> 
> I haven't checked every possible function yet. I read some would be tricky to get working, but so far everything I've tested is working fine, right out of the box, with Reaper in Mackie-universal mode.
> 
> - The motors are quite noisy when moving fast.(However take this with a grain of salt: I don't have experience with any other control surface to make a fair comparison.)
> 
> - I enjoy the transport and zoom functions a lot ! I didn't expect this, but it could be a life changer
> - It's bigger than I expected. At first I felt a bit overwhelmed. (And before you ask, yes that's what she said.)
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! Here's my first question
> 
> Do you know a way of disabling the motors, when I just want to sit back listen to the mix ? I already found one, kind of: FLIPping pans and volumes (provided there is no pan automation). And of course I could just disable or unplug the surface altogether... But is there a proper way to just turn the motors off, from the surface's interface ?


I don't as of yet....I'm watching this thread as well to see if anyone chimes in...I have the compact that i use for all CC functions so when i get tired of the noise i just kill it and the x touch isnt affected. But happy you're digging it! I feel the same way I didn't think I would like or use it as much as I did (kind of an experiment) but it has changed the way I work for sure!


----------



## PerryD

I got an X-Touch Compact for CC control. Works great. I got a second one (used) for transport and fader control. Is there a way to "reset" the Mackie Control Mode? I have the editor app but I have no idea what the default settings for MC are. Behringer support is not great.


----------



## TheNorseman

I used some sort of Behringer controller back when I was in college in 2006 when mixing my buddy's metalcore record. I think it was the x-touch but I've drank a lot of beers since then, so I'm not even sure if they were made back then. But it was awesome, it was a glorified mouse but I had a great time with it. I got very proficient with it quickly and mixing became way less of a drag. Obviously although it made the mixing experience better, it will not make your mixes better. My mixing was trash back then and it still is now.


----------



## bill5

Very general comment: Behringer has really upped their game. They aren't the wal mart of audio gear any more.


----------



## Fredeke

bill5 said:


> Very general comment: Behringer has really upped their game. They aren't the wal mart of audio gear any more.


Duely noted.

My impression so far was that their product line was uneven: each product deserving to be judged on its own merits (or lack thereof). Their mics are good, their converters are ok, their mixers sound bad, their polysynths are innovative, their pa kits sound good but tend to blow out, ...

They might be getting better overall... I'll keep my eyes peeled to see whether I agree.


----------



## greggybud

Fredeke said:


> - The motors are quite noisy when moving fast. (However take this with a grain of salt: I don't have experience with any other control surface to make a fair comparison.)
> 
> Do you know a way of disabling the motors, when I just want to sit back listen to the mix



There is no way to turn off the motors on the X-touch? No wonder it is half the price as some others. That is a huge feature I would not want to be left out. I guess I just assumed all motorized DAW controllers would have this feature.

On my QconPro, I have complained for years, even asked Mixware LLC the authorized dealer, about:

1. shaky or vibrating faders
2. noisy faders, especially when making fast/immediate movements

Just recently a forum member posted some "secret" functions. None of this is documented in the owners manual...if you can even call it a manual. Perhaps this was included in a firmware update that I installed not even knowing what the update achieves. Anyway, after a few adjustments my faders are very quiet, move more smooth, and never vibrate.

If this is an issue on the X-touch, there may be some undocumented adjustments too?

PS Avoid Icons DAW controllers. My feeling is they have been around long enough to make a change in the market and IMO they haven't made an impact. I feel they are being squeezed by the X-touch on one end and the Mackie MCU Pro on the other end. In other words, you still pay for what you get.


----------



## bill5

Fredeke said:


> each product deserving to be judged on its own merits


I would say about any gear of any kind, any brand, any price. The problem with that is generally you can't do that until you've bought it.  Of course if you know others and can try some of their stuff that can help a lot.


----------



## Fredeke

greggybud said:


> Just recently a forum member posted some "secret" functions. None of this is documented in the owners manual...if you can even call it a manual. Perhaps this was included in a firmware update that I installed not even knowing what the update achieves. Anyway, after a few adjustments my faders are very quiet, move more smooth, and never vibrate.
> 
> If this is an issue on the X-touch, there may be some undocumented adjustments too?



I'm afraid this is very product-specific. And Behringer manual is about useless too.

At least this means it might be possible for Behringer to update my X-Touch in such a way... But I wouldn't hold my breath. (I suppose their low prices come with economy-class support too ?)

However, if you can find that thread again, and if you think it can be relevant to the X-Touch, I would appreciate a link.

As for disabling the motors... The protocol is (based upon) MIDI, so I suppose if I could somehow insert a MIDI filter between the PC and the controller, that could be a way. Of course, how to do that (and, especially, for less additional investment than a better controller) remains a tricky question.



bill5 said:


> I would say about any gear of any kind, any brand, any price. The problem with that is generally you can't do that until you've bought it.  Of course if you know others and can try some of their stuff that can help a lot.



Sorry you're right. That was a big truism.


----------



## whinecellar

TheKRock said:


> I have both X-touches, I use the compact for midi control, and after having them for a few months I can say they work flawlessly...the mechanized faders do make a little noise but nothing I can't live with. I would however research how well they work with Reaper as I read that there was a few issues with compatibility and there may be something it doesn't do that you need it to. If you have any specific questions let me know. Oh and I am using them with Logic.



I have the exact same setup - full XT and Compact (which is kind of a misnomer- they are the same size minus the master section). I also use mine with Logic: one for mixing & automation, the other for advanced MIDI control.

I’ve had mine for about a year and a half now, and I absolutely love them. In fact I was pretty shocked to find out how nice they are - Behringer has most definitely upped their game. Then again it doesn’t hurt that this line is made by Midas! Everything about them feels superb – the faders in particular. Honestly I was stunned that these offer every bit of functionality as my Mackie Control from ages ago – for a third of the price - but even higher build quality. The whole thing is made of metal.

Oh, and if the little bit of fader noise bugs you (it’s no louder than any competitor, and only bothers me on extremely quiet passages) you can easily disable the motors: just hit the flip button


----------



## Dewdman42

My experience was not as good as some others. The motors on mine were noisy as hell. You can put the unit into midi mode without motors. But the editor you need to use to configure what midi messages will be sent only runs on windows, there is no working version of that software on Mac, at least last time I checked. I had to send it back as useless for midi mode as I don’t have a pc handy for that task.

Priced very well though and if you don’t mind the noisy faders in hui mode there is always that.


----------



## whinecellar

Dewdman42 said:


> My experience was not as good as some others. The motors on mine were noisy as hell.



Man that doesn’t sound right - I would have tried swapping it for a new one if you liked it otherwise. Both of mine are super quiet.

It is true unfortunately about the editor aspect for setting up custom CC’s - it’s PC only, and it was a pain to set up initially. Thankfully one of my slaves is a PC. Other than that though, I’ve loved mine...


----------



## tack

Fredeke said:


> The motors are quite noisy when moving fast.


I'm curious, how would you compare the motor noise to this video of the Icon Platform-M (inasmuch as it's possible to tell anything at all from a video)?


----------



## whinecellar

tack said:


> I'm curious, how would you compare the motor noise to this video of the Icon Platform-M (inasmuch as it's possible to tell anything at all from a video)?



Geez, that sounds like crap. I don’t have a video of mine handy but they’re nothing like that!


----------



## tack

whinecellar said:


> Geez, that sounds like crap. I don’t have a video of mine handy but they’re nothing like that!


It's probably important to calibrate the volume such that the ambient noise is just barely audible, so as to better represent actual volume levels. Of course if you crank it up it'll sound pretty obnoxious.

Generally the noise doesn't bother me except when the fader shifts directions, then there is a more audible click. But I've always wondered how it compared to the Behringer X-Touch where the complaint about fader noise is common.


----------



## greggybud

Fredeke said:


> I'm afraid this is very product-specific. And Behringer manual is about useless too.
> 
> At least this means it might be possible for Behringer to update my X-Touch in such a way... But I wouldn't hold my breath. (I suppose their low prices come with economy-class support too ?)
> 
> However, if you can find that thread again, and if you think it can be relevant to the X-Touch, I would appreciate a link.



I would think it's product specific too. But here is the link:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.ico...2/Qcon-proX-Fader-Calibration-procedures1.pdf

These instructions even forgot the final step which is.. you have to save the new changes. I can't remember that combination right now, but I doubt any of this matters because I would guess it's product specific.

This is why I suggested it's worth a try to see if Behringer has hidden functions as well. I have been using the QconPro for many years, even asked the USA designated tech support about noisy faders and they gave no solutions. A forum member found the above on line.


----------



## novaburst

greggybud said:


> PS Avoid Icons DAW controllers. My feeling is they have been around long enough to make a change in the market and IMO they haven't made an impact. I feel they are being squeezed by the X-touch on one end and the Mackie MCU Pro on the other end. In other words, you still pay for what you get.



Disagree: the Qcon is an excellent controller, never had your issues, built like a tank very heavy, aluminium casing feels like a tank can roll over it and it will still will function, plus they look out for the not so popular DAW Reaper. never had any issues as long as you have the latest software.


----------



## bill5

whinecellar said:


>


That is one purdy setup. Wish I had that kinda audio budget


----------



## whinecellar

bill5 said:


> That is one purdy setup. Wish I had that kinda audio budget



Ha - well let me tell ya, those PMCs were bucket list items for me. They ruined me for anything else once I heard them - I truly wish everyone could experience that kind of audio performance. It’s jaw-dropping!


----------



## Fredeke

@whinecellar : Beautiful setup !
@greggybud : Thanks for the link 
@novaburst : The X-Touch doesn't feel like it's built like a tank, on the other hand. But it's not too flimsy either.

After I've worked a few days with the X-Touch, here are a few quirks I stumbled upon:

- The faders are decidedly noisy. I haven't done some proper mix automation yet, but just project changes, when all faders have to abruptly adjust at once, is very noisy. Of course, I suppose this is the worst case. I still have to try make them move slowly, to appreciate the noise.

- The first (and only for now) function that doesn't work directly out of the box is the pot assign. I could I dig a little for a way to make that work, but it's not too bad anyway, since the pots are stuck on the pan function by default, which I suppose if the one I'll want most of the time.

- There is no "pause" button: only play and stop (and rec, and previous/next marker). I could have seen that in the promo pictures, so there's no point complaining about it now.

- The faders align well enough with each other, but they don't align with the markings on the panel. At 0dB they seem to sit around -2dB. This is the only thing that bugs me a little, so far. [UPDATE: the offset seems to vary from day to day (What!?)]

- Only 6 characters per track name brings me back to 1995. [EDIT: this is in fact a limitation of the protocol]

All in all, I don't regret the purchase, because getting a control surface is still a life changer, and there's no real competition in that price range anyway.


----------



## Dewdman42

Fredeke said:


> - The faders are decidedly noisy. I haven't done some proper mix automation yet, but just project changes, when all faders have to abruptly adjust at once, is very noisy. Of course, I suppose this is the worst case. I still have to try make them move slowly, to appreciate the noise.



Associate one of the faders to a fader in your DAW and then move the fader in your DAW up and down with your mouse and listen to the noise.

I also sent back a Midas M32R because of the same noise, presumably has the same stuff inside. When I went to Behrinnger forum and inquired some more and googled about it, I found other people with the same problems, see people had written a custom little program to smooth out the communication between your DAW and the box..which supposedly made it quieter...so the problem seems to be that the fader is made to move up and down a little bit..I actually video taped it at the time and saw it in slow motion... so some kind of protocol quantization or something like that...causes it to be noisy.


----------



## Fredeke

Dewdman42 said:


> Associate one of the faders to a fader in your DAW and then move the fader in your DAW up and down with your mouse and listen to the noise.
> 
> I also sent back a Midas M32R because of the same noise, presumably has the same stuff inside. When I went to Behrinnger forum and inquired some more and googled about it, I found other people with the same problems, see people had written a custom little program to smooth out the communication between your DAW and the box..which supposedly made it quieter...so the problem seems to be that the fader is made to move up and down a little bit..I actually video taped it at the time and saw it in slow motion... so some kind of protocol quantization or something like that...causes it to be noisy.



I tried moving a fader from the DAW like you suggested, and noticed two things :
- the friction noise is about acceptable
- but there is a lot of quantization (multiple tiny starts and stops, which must be what you saw in slomo) making slow movements as noisy as fast ones, which is very noisy. The problem is way worse on the way up than on the way down. This renders the motors basically useless in mix automation !

This can be due to one of two things I can think of :
- bit depth : basic MIDI controls only have a 7-bit resolution. That's 128 steps, which is too few for a 100mm course (each step spanning across 0.8mm - supposing the resolution is linear, er I mean logarythmic like the dB scale - well anyway).
I knew this before buying, but I though this would only be a precision issue, not a smoothness issue. I would have expected the device to smooth the movements out internally.
(Some control surfaces have a 10-bit resolution. I don't know what standard that corresponds too, but it's probably enough.)
- temporal precision : I won't call it "resolutoin" or "frequency" because the MIDI date is probably sent in erratic bursts rather than at constant rate. MIDI's bitrate is rather low, but it's still fast enough for smooth sweeps (as we all know), so it must be a software issue, which I suppose could be improved. But where would you insert the improving software or device ? The DAW addresses the MIDI port directly through the USB driver, I don't see any software or hardware point where the stream could be intercepted and smoothed out.

So, could you (or anyone) tell me a bit more about this? In case it matters, my DAW is still Reaper.

(Note: MIDI is sent through USB, and USB itself works in bursts, but I don't expect this to be the problem, since it's still smooth enough for transmitting multichannel audio with acceptable latency.)


----------



## Dewdman42

Your description is exactly the same experience I had. I had that quantizing problem with the M32R, and with the X-Touch Compact, but in addition the X-Touch compact made an electric buzzing sound (like an electric train set), when moving the fader slowly. When the faders snap quickly they were super quiet on both units. Its more the "sliding" that was rackety. On the M32R I would also get the quantized "juddering" when linking two faders on the mixer and moving one of them....(no software involved in that case).

Here's a video I made of it for the Behrinnger user forum when I was trying to diagnose whether to keep or return the unit. turn up the sound. This was actually the M32R, not the XTC, but the XTC was even louder with the transformer buzz. In slow motion you can actually see the fader moving up and down as its slid down.




Some guy made some kind of program (windows) that he can insert in line to interpolate or smooth it out, i never tried it, all I can find now is his video on you tube, which appears to have a download link:


----------



## Dewdman42

As a final note, I would have kept the XTC as a CC controller with the motors turned off, *IF* behrinnger had provided a mac editor to configure the CC assignments, which they don't. In that mode of operation, on a PC, I think its good value. The non-compact X-Touch has some limitations about that, by the way, the compact is the one to get if you are going to use it in that capacity, but just bear in mind you need a PC to configure it for that use, and when in HUI mode, it will be rackety. Well some people don't seem to mind the racket, but I do.


----------



## Fredeke

Great !
Here's the download link that goes with the video you posted : https://www.dropbox.com/s/2nzbk6zskek6jar/MackieFaderFixer.zip
(In case it goes offline and I'm still around, just PM me for it.)

I will test that tomorrow. At first glance, it looks like either a Windows background program (which would be great for me), or some DAW-specific script (which would be not so great). His thing is called "Mackie Fader Fixer" but the video demoes it on an X-Touch. So it might work with all Mackie-compatible surfaces, or possibly all 7-bit ones.

As for noise levels, it is all subjective. I might be a bit more intolerant, but we both agree that fades are noisier than instant adjusts. (That's because instant adjusts are just one movement, while fades are a multitude of tiny badly quantized movements.) So at least we're hearing the same thing.

[UPDATE: MackieFaderFixer works in conjunction with another (apparently) free program that you'll need: LoopMIDI. Here's the link: http://www.tobias-erichsen.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/loopMIDISetup_1_0_13_24.zip . Oh, and they _are_ background tasks, so they should work with various WinDAWs. Now off to bed, more on this tomorrow.]


----------



## Fredeke

I still have to test the Fader Fixer, but meanwhile here's something else: This guy seems to have succeeded in assigning colors to track displays (like in the promo pictures !)


He doesn't explain how, though. It might or might not have something to do with him using Cubase 9.


----------



## greggybud

novaburst said:


> Disagree: the Qcon is an excellent controller, never had your issues, built like a tank very heavy, aluminium casing feels like a tank can roll over it and it will still will function,



I would suggest if any DAW controller is "built like a tank very heavy" it would be the Mackie MCU. But I wouldn't even describe the Mackie MCU as anything like "built like a tank" when comparing studio gear. Perhaps _more solid_ than QconPro, QconProX, QconPro G2 and Behringer X touch...absolutely.

Here is a 9-year old and 16-page link to the evolving Qcon and it's issues.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/ele...557777-new-icon-qcon-controller-any-good.html
Note the price differential between the Qcon and the Mackie MCU in Europe vs. the USA. In Europe, the price difference was more substantial than in the USA creating much interest in Europe. As a matter of fact, for years there was only 1 USA distributor suggesting a low demand.

Taking so long, and a constant struggle to address common issues, plus release the following QconPro, Qcon Pro G, and Qcon ProX, suggests Icon isn't thriving today relative to the MCU or Behringer.

Here is 17 more pages addressing the QconProX with less than stellar replies. I'm not dissing it, I'm suggesting when it comes to DAW controllers, you pay for what you get.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/pro...con-pro-audio-qcon-pro-x-now-shipping-13.html

While all these are MCU protocol, there are substantial differences between the Behringer X Touch and Mackie MCU Pro...some of them noted in this post. Again, IMO, the IconQcon Pro and IconQcon ProX is being squeezed by the low price Behringer, and the higher priced Mackie. Trust me, I want to like my QconPro, and with the newly discovered fader noise reduction adjustments I still do. I like the adjustable angled scribble strip. But if I were to choose MCU protocol today, I would save for the Mackie MCU Pro.

And finally, while the MCU protocol issue of only 7 characters is completely out-dated, Behringer X Touch makes it a bit more clear than the QconPro scribble strip. With the QconPro, if you want any spacing, you are limited to 5 characters. This is something Icon should have addressed with the original Qcon.


----------



## Fredeke

Ok, here's my experience with MackieFaderFixer:

I was wondering where it would insert itself in the protocol's path to the unit, well it uses another soft called loopMIDI which creates virtual port. I may very well adopt loopMIDI to replace Bome's MIDI Translator which I'm using for addressing the same MIDI ports from multiple softs simulteanously, and which I'm not very satisfied with.

But as for the X-Touch motor noise, it didn't make it any better. Possibly even slightly worse. I've tried fiddling with the variables, but noting helps.

MFF's documentation explains that the problem comes from too profuse MCU data overloading MIDI's slow bitrate, and MFF is supposed to streamline it. Except it doesn't work. Maybe a problem with my computer ? Everything else works fine enough though.

And my motors' noise is worse than what you hear in the video. To the point of making them useless for mix automation.

So I'm now considering returning the X-Touch, and get a (probably cheaper) motorless control surface. I would miss the instant page updates, but at least I'd be able to use the surface for mixing. _Does anyone have a motorless, yet professionally featured, control surface to recommend?_

Meanwhile, I'm going to try using Bome and/or loopMIDI to filter out outgoing fader data. That would allow me to turn the motors on and off at will, which would be a passable compromise.

Back to you soon.


----------



## Fredeke

I finally arrived to a satisfactory solution.

All motorless controllers I could find online had tiny toy faders, so I decided to keep the X-Touch. But I found a way to turn the motors on and off. I used Bome's MIDI Translator, which like loopMIDI, allows you to create virtual ports - though it is more limited than loopMIDI in that way. But it also helps you intercept and modify MIDI messages on the fly (like what MackieFaderFixer does but much more general and customizable - and with a real GUI though it looks like it's from 1990 - oh, and it's not free). I could have used a combination of Bome and loopMIDI as well, but Bome was needed to create the rule that pitch bend message (which are what controls the faders - so I was wrong when I said MCU has a 7-bit resolution, btw) are discarded.

All I have to do is turn that rule on and off to turn the motors off and on. 

If there's a way to get them to move smoothly, I haven't found it, and I've got no more time for this. 
Problem solved, moving on.

Thanks everyone for your help and patience.


----------



## Mucusman

I'll just chime in to add that I have the X Touch One (one single fader), one of the early batch. It is built like a tank, and the motorized fader is _very _quiet. I use it mostly for CC automation and some DAW navigation with Studio One.


----------



## Fredeke

Mucusman said:


> I'll just chime in to add that I have the X Touch One (one single fader), one of the early batch. It is built like a tank, and the motorized fader is _very _quiet. I use it mostly for CC automation and some DAW navigation with Studio One.


Cool! Count your blessings


----------



## Dewdman42

a free alternative to Bome that might do the trick also is Transmidifier. Bome has the advantage in that it can also listen for keyboard commands if that is something you need.

Another free tool that might work for this is MidiPipe.

Interesting that its using PitchBend messages to move the fader...I would be curious to see a log of those messages to see if we can spot why it judders..


----------



## Fredeke

Dewdman42 said:


> a free alternative to Bome that might do the trick also is Transmidifier. Bome has the advantage in that it can also listen for keyboard commands if that is something you need.
> 
> Another free tool that might work for this is MidiPipe.



Thanks ! I'll check them out.

The original reason why I got Bome is that it does virtual MIDI ports. But it can do maximum five of them, which is still a bit short for my needs.



Dewdman42 said:


> Interesting that its using PitchBend messages to move the fader...I would be curious to see a log of those messages to see if we can spot why it judders.



Pitchbend has a better resolution than CC. I can't remember how many bits, but surely more than 7. It's coded over two bytes.

As for the MIDI log, it's on another computer, and mine doesn't log timing. But I can tell you what I saw (We're talking messages from the DAW to the controller) :

Pitchbend/fader messages are not outcrowded by other messages (like display etc.), contrarily to what MFF's documentation suggests. In fact, Reaper only sends bulk updates every couple of seconds, and we're only talking about a handful of messages each time (when it runs, of course there's the song position or timecode display to update too, but that too is minimal load).

The problem is pitchbend/fader messages are just too few to express a smooth movement. Indeed, Reaper sends a fader update every 15ms, though this can be configured. (I'm baffled: What's the point of having such a good bit resolution if you're gonna skip most steps anyway???)

MFF is supposed to interpolate what's missing, but it's just making the jerkiness even worse: More messages but still not enough for a smooth movement. Increasing the fader update frequency in Reaper should do the trick as well, but there's a limit to what a computer can do in real time. I don't suppose I could get intervals shorter than my shortest clean audio buffer size, for example, and it's about the same order of timeframe. Plus, my system isn't terribly efficient that way, I must confess. It used to be, but some cleaning is overdue.

I think the only way I could possibly improve the situation would be to tweak my system for best realtime performance (lowest possible latencies), which is something I've been planning to do for over a year now.

But of course, that's only assuming the motors are capable of smooth operation at all. After all, no matter how finely grained, the data stream will always be discrete by nature. I naively thought it was the control surface's job to smooth it out. Apparently I was wrong. It's the computer's job... as if it had nothing better to do !

So, for now, the ability to switch the motors on and off at will is still a good enough workaround. I turn them on when working on the general balance (because they're still convenient for that), and off when actually automating the mix.


----------



## Dewdman42

In my view it absolutely should be the job of the hardware to smooth out the interpolations. also, when I look at the slow mo video it almost looks like the fader is moving up and down a bit..not just jumping down, but literally moving up and down...which would infer a bug in their software somewhere...but weould need to see a log of the midi...regardless of whether it has timestamps...just be in the correct order.

I think its ridiculous to think you would need to have a more realtime computer for this task, why spend so much time on it...use it as is for consider other options...


----------



## Fredeke

Dewdman42 said:


> In my view it absolutely should be the job of the hardware to smooth out the interpolations. also, when I look at the slow mo video it almost looks like the fader is moving up and down a bit..not just jumping down, but literally moving up and down...which would infer a bug in their software somewhere...but weould need to see a log of the midi...regardless of whether it has timestamps...just be in the correct order.
> 
> I think its ridiculous to think you would need to have a more realtime computer for this task, why spend so much time on it...use it as is for consider other options...



Maybe other protocols rely less on the computer. I don't know. But Reaper's config box's layout makes me believe not.

Tonight it's late, but tomorrow I'll check wheter the PB messages are in the right order. I'll see if I can select, copy and paste the 'log', too. (It's not an actual log, it's just that Renoise, another DAW I use, can display incoming and outgoing MIDI messages.)


----------



## Dewdman42

The computer obviously sends discrete signals, but the hardware programming should be smoothing it out, simple as that. Anyway I'd like to see that log. Good luck.


----------



## Fredeke

Dewdman42 said:


> The computer obviously sends discrete signals, but the hardware programming should be smoothing it out, simple as that. Anyway I'd like to see that log. Good luck.



I couldn't copypaste the log, so I filmed it. Sorry about the poor quality of the video. I filmed it in a hurry.


----------



## Dewdman42

The xtouch compact has the ability to completely turn off the motors but now that you mention it I guess that also loses Hui mode.

Interestingly when you have motors on and you change things in your daw to cause snap automation to happen, the faders are very quiet moving a long ways very fast. This leads me to the conclusion that it’s the “stopping” of the fader that causes the noise, not the “sliding”. It’s just that if you are sliding it in the daw, it sends all those Pb messages and stops it a dozen times or more as you slide it along. So I don’t see how interpolation would make it quieter. The fundamental motor design is just noisy when receiving a series of Pb messages, each one is like a mini-snap.

I think blocking the Pb is probably the best solution you’re going to get if you want to use this hardware. Imagine if you are listening to a cue with lots of fader automation, all 9 sliders being moved around as it plays. If they are single event “snaps” it won’t be noisy but if you recorded automation on any kind of curve over time I would expect them to have all this noise, unless you block it with BOME. 

Downside is that your faders will be in the wrong place a lot.

Another thing you could do with smart programming in bome or maybe some other tool is detect when Pb messages stop for an appreciable length of time, and catch up the last Pb message. That way you minimize the noise but at least the faders will snap to the right place when you stop moving them in reaper.


----------



## Fredeke

And btw I was wrong on several counts before:
- The fader refresh rate is 15Hz or about, not every 15ms or about. Which means it is sensibly slower than the audio buffer refresh rate.
- MUC is not 7-bits, since it uses pitch bend messages instead of CCs.



Dewdman42 said:


> The xtouch compact has the ability to completely turn off the motors but now that you mention it I guess that also loses Hui mode.



How do you do this ? 
Maybe I can apply it to the non-compact xtouch...



Dewdman42 said:


> Interestingly when you have motors on and you change things in your daw to cause snap automation to happen, the faders are very quiet moving a long ways very fast. This leads me to the conclusion that it’s the “stopping” of the fader that causes the noise, not the “sliding”. It’s just that if you are sliding it in the daw, it sends all those Pb messages and stops it a dozen times or more as you slide it along. So I don’t see how interpolation would make it quieter. The fundamental motor design is just noisy when receiving a series of Pb messages, each one is like a mini-snap.



I'm afraid you're right.



Dewdman42 said:


> I think blocking the Pb is probably the best solution you’re going to get if you want to use this hardware. Imagine if you are listening to a cue with lots of fader automation, all 9 sliders being moved around as it plays. If they are single event “snaps” it won’t be noisy but if you recorded automation on any kind of curve over time I would expect them to have all this noise, unless you block it with BOME.



I'm not sure Bome is that sophisticated.



Dewdman42 said:


> Downside is that your faders will be in the wrong place a lot.



I can live with that. (though not as happily)

When I was a student, in the early 1990s, we had analog mixers with VCA automation but no motors. It was still better than anything I'd known before.



Dewdman42 said:


> Another thing you could do with smart programming in bome or maybe some other tool is detect when Pb messages stop for an appreciable length of time, and catch up the last Pb message. That way you minimize the noise but at least the faders will snap to the right place when you stop moving them in reaper.



MFF supposedly does this (I haven't looked at its MIDI stream yet), but in practice it does't work - at least not on my computer. (Note that for some reason, the noise problem is worse in my system than in MFF creator's, with or without MFF.) However I agree that that should probably remain the best solution, theoretically.


----------



## Dewdman42

Ok..here is something to try if you're adventurous...

You're on windows I presume? You need some kind of VST host that is lightweight that you can run in parallel to Reaper. You might be able to do this somehow with Reaper, but I dunno, for now, just think of a separate lightweight VST host you can run that can output midi.

Then get this: https://www.osar.fr/protoplug/

with that you can host a VST lua script...and process the PB events however you like. If you're not up for LUA programming, then never mind...but.. it would give you complete control to do as we have been talking bout. I'm not sure if VSTHost can output midi, but that would be a nice lightweight host to run it in if so. There could be others.


----------



## Fredeke

Dewdman42 said:


> Ok..here is something to try if you're adventurous...
> 
> You're on windows I presume? You need some kind of VST host that is lightweight that you can run in parallel to Reaper. You might be able to do this somehow with Reaper, but I dunno, for now, just think of a separate lightweight VST host you can run that can output midi.
> 
> Then get this: https://www.osar.fr/protoplug/
> 
> with that you can host a VST lua script...and process the PB events however you like. If you're not up for LUA programming, then never mind...but.. it would give you complete control to do as we have been talking bout. I'm not sure if VSTHost can output midi, but that would be a nice lightweight host to run it in if so. There could be others.



There's probably no need to go through a VST plugin. 
See, you can customize any aspect of Reaper using scripts, and the scripting language is also Lua.

It's one of those things I've been meaning to get around to (since I'm not completely illitterate when it comes to programming), but it's still on my rather long to-do list.


----------



## Dewdman42

The issue though is whether or not Reaper can access that particular stream of data that is being sent over midi to the X-Touch. If Reaper has access to the controller stream to run Lua on it, then great, that is absolutely how I would do it if I were a Reaper user.

I just did a quick test with VstHost and it does work with the Lua plugin...so there is always that, then together with LoopBE you can have a standalone program that just sits over on the side somewhere and is always thining out the pitch bend message for X-Touch.






You can also use SaviHost to have an easily launchable version of it.

I don't know of a good standalone alternative for Mac at the moment.


----------



## Fredeke

Dewdman42 said:


> The issue though is whether or not Reaper can access that particular stream of data that is being sent over midi to the X-Touch. If Reaper has access to the controller stream to run Lua on it, then great, that is absolutely how I would do it if I were a Reaper user.
> 
> I just did a quick test with VstHost and it does work with the Lua plugin...so there is always that, then together with LoopBE you can have a standalone program that just sits over on the side somewhere and is always thining out the pitch bend message for X-Touch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can also use SaviHost to have an easily launchable version of it.
> 
> I don't know of a good standalone alternative for Mac at the moment.



Thanks.
I'm running Windows anyway.

I expect Reaper to allow for directly working on the controller's stream, but... MFF was written in C++. Assuming it wasn't completely anti-optimized, I don't see how a Lua script could achieve finer timings that a C++ binary. (Well -- except there wouldn't be any MIDI port loopback through third-party application.)

Sure, I should try, and maybe I will, but as I said I don't know when I'll get around to learning Lua (I'm into learning KSP right now). I've bought the book all right, but it's been sitting on a shelf for months.

Anyway, thanks for the VST tip, it could come in handy some day -- if not for this, then for some other thing.

Oh, and btw, if I knew how to script Reaper, then I could disable the motors from within Reaper, without the need of an external app such as Bome's MIDI Translator. Yeah... The reasons to get to it are piling up.


----------



## Dewdman42

The way midi and audio plugins work, I’m assuming that includes reaper lua, they operate on buffers and they are not actual real time. So there is actually plenty of time for a JavaScript or lua plugin to do even rather complex things with exactly sample accurate results the same as c++. Lua or JavaScript might require more cpu to get same job done in some cases but in many cases it will be negligible, especially for a simple task like this. Lua is perfectly capable of fast audio dsp processing so midi will barely make it sweat. Either way the timing will still be correct as long as lua can complete the task in the space of a “processing block” of time which is usually the audio buffer size.

Lua that is in protoplug is also using the just in time compiler so it’s very fast, close to c++ speeds

FWIW


----------



## Fredeke

Dewdman42 said:


> The way midi and audio plugins work, I’m assuming that includes reaper lua, they operate on buffers and they are not actual real time. So there is actually plenty of time for a JavaScript or lua plugin to do even rather complex things with exactly sample accurate results the same as c++. Lua or JavaScript might require more cpu to get same job done in some cases but in many cases it will be negligible, especially for a simple task like this. Lua is perfectly capable of fast audio dsp processing so midi will barely make it sweat. Either way the timing will still be correct as long as lua can complete the task in the space of a “processing block” of time which is usually the audio buffer size.
> 
> Lua that is in protoplug is also using the just in time compiler so it’s very fast, close to c++ speeds
> 
> FWIW



Ok. Duely noted. 
Thanks.


----------



## cferrer

Does anyone know if this fix with the Faderfix tool works with Cubase?


----------



## cferrer

I just tried it. The little app works. Now I am just tweaking the values. I havent be able to get it as quite as the author show in the video. Anyone out there have any suggestions for the interpolation values?


----------



## A3D2

Hi!

I just bought a Behringer X Touch and use it with Logic Pro 10.5.1. I have some questions about it and was hoping you guys could help me out. @Fredeke @whinecellar

1) When you adjust the volume of a selected track, is it normal that the track on the right of the "selected track" has a blank display for the duration of the volume changes on the selected track?

2) @Fredeke I read about Zero Mode ("Control+flip") which disables all the faders, which is very nice if you don't want all the noise of the faders... In your solution, can you still use the faders of which the motor is disabled? I mean: do your faders still control the faders in your DAW?

3) When I open a blank Logic X project, the Master fader is duplicated on my X Touch, so when I touch my "Main" fader, another cloned fader (fader 2 for example) also moves and acts as a Main fader. How can I avoid or remove this?

4) @whinecellar I love the look of your X Touch: did you modify the outer case of the X Touch? I thought I saw some wood? I'm interested in doing this myself. I have a disability so the X Touch at an angle would be better for me.

Thank you for the help!


----------



## Fredeke

A3D2 said:


> 2) @Fredeke I read about Zero Mode ("Control+flip") which disables all the faders, which is very nice if you don't want all the noise of the faders... In your solution, can you still use the faders of which the motor is disabled? I mean: do your faders still control the faders in your DAW?


I'm not sure because in the end, I just got used to the noise which is not such a big deal, so I don't remember my solution that well. But I would say yes, because 2-way MIDI communication is basically two one-way communications, so there's no reason filtering one would affect the other.

However, I don't know how to deal with the "jumps" moving the slider away from its physical position would create in your automation curve when the logical position is different (because physical position wasn't updated prior). I know 1990s automations dealt with that elegantly, because motors were a rare luxury, but I don't know about modern ones.


----------



## A3D2

Fredeke said:


> I'm not sure because in the end, I just got used to the noise which is not such a big deal, so I don't remember my solution that well. But I would say yes, because 2-way MIDI communication is basically two one-way communications, so there's no reason filtering one would affect the other.
> 
> However, I don't know how to deal with the "jumps" moving the slider away from its physical position would create in your automation curve when the logical position is different (because physical position wasn't updated prior). I know 1990s automations dealt with that elegantly, because motors were a rare luxury, but I don't know about modern ones.


@Fredeke Thanks, good to hear that the fader noise just needs some time to get used to. 😊


----------

