but the legal aspect of it can get hairy depending on minutae. this is how the IBM PC bios was cloned (by compaq?) in the 80's, and there are lots of examples of this sort of thing being cleanly and legally done. they then hand that protocol specification document over to other people who develop the emulation. one group reverse engineers and documents the system. To be watertight, in the past, this sort of work is usually done by two groups of people. as far as i know, clean room reverse engineering for purposes of interoperability is usually legal, unless you have to break an encryption scheme to do it (but your mileage may vary, and i am definitely not a lawyer here, this is just my understanding of the situation). The legalities of it will totally depend on what country you're in (at least, at the moment). Not only for myself, but also the hundreds (if not thousands) of Control 24 owners out there. I am definitely interested, and am willing to commit to substantial support for the effort. Is anybody else intrigued by this possibility? Your thoughts are welcomed and anticipated. My equipment is available for any testing and data gathering it would require to get the job done. But I have an opportunity here, as my studio is currently in a construction transition period, so I have no deadlines or other distractions except my normal daytime job (network and telecom manager). But I do remember enough about it to know this is most likely doable, barring any crazed authentication routines in the Control 24 firmware that aren't readily apparent across the ethernet wire. I have done programming in a previous life (Borland C), but I do not consider myself a programmer now. That relieves the DAW maker from any risk, as they are only supporting a generally known protocol.īack to the technical for a moment. Another possibility is if middleware was the answer (and that seems to me to be the best answer) - a Control 24 to HUI or MMC translator, if you will. If I did this for my own enjoyment, I suppose there would be less concern than if support was built into a commercial product. On the legal side - assuming one could indeed work out the technical, what are the legal ramifications of such a solution? Most likely Digi doesn't want people doing this, but to what extent do they have control over someone developing software that communicates with a piece of their hardware? There does seem to be a couple of different sub-angles as well. While I haven't analyzed it all, there are some clear indications of how the protocol works. Using the network sniffer program Wireshark, I captured some of the conversation between the computer and the Control 24. No IP stack is needed as it's layer 2, for instance.Ģ. In fact you can remove every other protocol if you wish. To use it with Pro Tools, you install a protocol driver under your NIC card's properties. On the technical side, I can tell you a couple of things:ġ. That said, some initial investigation into the way it communicates leads me to believe there is hope (more on this later). Now for those of you unfamiliar with it, the Control 24 does not use any known standard way of communicating with the DAW instead it is proprietary and specific to Pro Tools. If you google for images of the Control 24, you see many studios that have this control surface, so I would imagine there are many out there in the same boat.īottom line is I would like to be able to use my Control 24 with Reaper, or at least partially (motorized faders, S, M, R, buttons, etc.). One thing standing in my way is my studio has a Control 24 control surface ( ) that I really don't want to abandon, even though Digi has. I have used Pro Tools for a few years, and am ready to jump to Reaper (past ready, really).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |