Thinking about thinking about a Behringer X Touch

[daniel.sneed]

[...]In the past Behrinnger definitely made some cheap crap, but the X32 line is a completely new ball game.

+1. I bought an X-32 rack to replace my trusty very old Yamaha 01-V. Extremely pleased with preamps, internal EQ & FX and audio usb interface.
BTW, works fine thru Wifi with iPad and Airport express.

[jellyson]

Hello fellow DP engineers,

Hopefully the following comments will help those considering the X-Touch.

Our small studio has been using DP for many years, and as you know, DP has supported the Mackie Control protocol at least back to the early days of V7 if not sooner.

Having recently been trained on using the X32 from Behringer, and being amazingly impressed with the quality and design of the unit, we felt good about adopting the use of the X-Touch in the studio. Everything in the limited documentation suggested that the unit was fully MC compliant.

When the HW was received we were equally impressed. It is a well made unit in the X32 style.

Here is where things unfortunately have not gone as well. Though we could quickly configure the X-Touch to be seen by DP and perform all the basic track functions and basic transport, the real value of MC was lost to us. Almost all of the extended DAW functions were either inoperable, or didn't work as advertised.

Subsequently we opened support tickets with both Behringer and MOTU to see if there were some configurations that needed adjustment.

Behringer Support was responsive and engaged us at length, but came back with the conclusion that MOTU wasn't following the MC Protocol as Behringer understands it's implementation.

MOTU Support likewise was very responsive and helpful, providing us many ways to further the testing by which we could engage Behringer.

The end of this long story is that thus far, neither company has a solution as regards DP.

It is hard to think that MOTU isn't following the MC Protocol considering the length of time the actual Mackie Hardware has been supported. But it is a protocol, and protocols can be subject to interpretation and implementation.

The bottom line for us was that though we very much liked the hardware, we felt it necessary to return the unit until such time that it is fully compliant with DP, as we are a dedicated DP Studio.

The X-Touch appears to works outstandingly with Apple Logic Pro and perhaps other DAWs, but it is not ready for prime time with DP. But we would reconsider the X-Touch if compatibility is implemented.

We hope this has been a fair and balanced report and not seen as a rant against any particular company.

respectfully,

[Shooshie]

We hope this has been a fair and balanced report and not seen as a rant against any particular company.

respectfully,

Oh, this was a slam job if I ever saw one!

No, I'm joking. Yours was a very well-written report and a pleasure to read, through the conclusions were troubling, of course, due to the facts at hand. It seems that the touch control by Slate is working well with DP, so whatever protocol it uses is implemented properly in DP. At least... that's how things appear to this observer. Are they not using the same protocol as Behringer? And if so, why doesn't Behringer's work properly?

Could it have been that the unit you were using was defective? I'd like to hear from at least one other person who has tried the Behringer. I suspect your report is accurate and fair, but this is the internet, and your post count is exactly 1. You could be working for Slate, you know.


So, does anyone else out there have a similar experience to report?

Shooshie

[Killahurts]

Though we could quickly configure the X-Touch to be seen by DP and perform all the basic track functions and basic transport, the real value of MC was lost to us. Almost all of the extended DAW functions were either inoperable, or didn't work as advertised.

Which extended DAW functions didn't work?

[toodamnhip]

Hello fellow DP engineers,

Hopefully the following comments will help those considering the X-Touch.

Our small studio has been using DP for many years, and as you know, DP has supported the Mackie Control protocol at least back to the early days of V7 if not sooner.

Having recently been trained on using the X32 from Behringer, and being amazingly impressed with the quality and design of the unit, we felt good about adopting the use of the X-Touch in the studio. Everything in the limited documentation suggested that the unit was fully MC compliant.

When the HW was received we were equally impressed. It is a well made unit in the X32 style.

Here is where things unfortunately have not gone as well. Though we could quickly configure the X-Touch to be seen by DP and perform all the basic track functions and basic transport, the real value of MC was lost to us. Almost all of the extended DAW functions were either inoperable, or didn't work as advertised.

Subsequently we opened support tickets with both Behringer and MOTU to see if there were some configurations that needed adjustment.

Behringer Support was responsive and engaged us at length, but came back with the conclusion that MOTU wasn't following the MC Protocol as Behringer understands it's implementation.

MOTU Support likewise was very responsive and helpful, providing us many ways to further the testing by which we could engage Behringer.

The end of this long story is that thus far, neither company has a solution as regards DP.

It is hard to think that MOTU isn't following the MC Protocol considering the length of time the actual Mackie Hardware has been supported. But it is a protocol, and protocols can be subject to interpretation and implementation.

The bottom line for us was that though we very much liked the hardware, we felt it necessary to return the unit until such time that it is fully compliant with DP, as we are a dedicated DP Studio.

The X-Touch appears to works outstandingly with Apple Logic Pro and perhaps other DAWs, but it is not ready for prime time with DP. But we would reconsider the X-Touch if compatibility is implemented.

We hope this has been a fair and balanced report and not seen as a rant against any particular company.

respectfully,

I have three questions:
1) Do the X touch faders work to adjust levels? ( I could do without the other bells and whistles if the faders worked great and easily chased to DP fader banks).
2) What chicanery do you have to pull to get the unit to focus in any given bank of DP faders?
3) Is there any way to use the units faders to automate things such as EQ boost, compressors thresholds etc? And again, what trickery is needed to get this to occur?

[jellyson]

Though we could quickly configure the X-Touch to be seen by DP and perform all the basic track functions and basic transport, the real value of MC was lost to us. Almost all of the extended DAW functions were either inoperable, or didn't work as advertised.

Which extended DAW functions didn't work?

Hi Killahurts,
We logged the functions that worked and did not work. These extended functions of which we speak are for instance, in the "Global" Buttons section, most of the functions were "confused", executing something different than the MC documentation from MOTU. Additionally some aspects of the Transport extended buttons were a problem, such as nudge, marker, cycle, replace, etc.

Using the "MIDI Monitor" application we were able to identify the MIDI commands being executed, reported this list to Behringer as well as comparing this to a MC Protocol reference that MOTU supplied, and we find that many of the commands coming off the X-Touch are the wrong MIDI notes/commands, many of them shifted by just one note. But that shift is just enough to cause problems. And since the the X-Touch does not provide for any programming, there appears to be no means to address these mis-calls.

Hope that further information is helpful.

[jellyson]

I have three questions:
1) Do the X touch faders work to adjust levels? ( I could do without the other bells and whistles if the faders worked great and easily chased to DP fader banks).
2) What chicanery do you have to pull to get the unit to focus in any given bank of DP faders?
3) Is there any way to use the units faders to automate things such as EQ boost, compressors thresholds etc? And again, what trickery is needed to get this to occur?

Hi Toodamhip
1 - Yes, the faders provide for adjusting levels, and as i mentioned, the basic fader functions worked fine.

2 - There are set of buttons for shifting either by fader bank of 8, as well as moving channel by channel.

3 - There is a "Flip" button that works, which flips the controls of the selected function between the rotary encoders and the faders, depending on the "focus" of the encoders. Some of those encoder assignment buttons work, others don't which of course will impact the functionality when in "flip" mode.

There are a larger number of Behringer Videos on the X-Touch that will give you these details.

[Killahurts]

We logged the functions that worked and did not work. These extended functions of which we speak are for instance, in the "Global" Buttons section, most of the functions were "confused", executing something different than the MC documentation from MOTU. Additionally some aspects of the Transport extended buttons were a problem, such as nudge, marker, cycle, replace, etc.

Using the "MIDI Monitor" application we were able to identify the MIDI commands being executed, reported this list to Behringer as well as comparing this to a MC Protocol reference that MOTU supplied, and we find that many of the commands coming off the X-Touch are the wrong MIDI notes/commands, many of them shifted by just one note. But that shift is just enough to cause problems. And since the the X-Touch does not provide for any programming, there appears to be no means to address these mis-calls.

That was the problem with my SSL console/controller when I first got it. Took me weeks to figure it out. Fortunately there is a software utility for the SSL that allows me to program it for the many DAWs it supports. DP is not really one of those DAWs, but it uses MCU, and I was able to re-route the MCU commands to the proper format for DP.

Mackie Control was originally created for Logic, and the Mackie Control surfaces have the Logic layout as a default. This is still the default to this day, for all the MCU-based controllers like the SSL Matrix, and the Behringer.

How did I know how to reroute it for DP? In the old days, if you bought a Mackie Control, they gave you a (physical) overlay for DAWs other than Logic. I simply compared the two and manually set them to be correct: