syncing mc-202 to ableton (improved sync, FIXED the link)

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:38 am

http://www.mediafire.com/?18csmtelyj2

ableton project files included there. I have now got the pilot tone and a new sync tone which allows an mc-202 to sync with ableton between 89-192 tempo.

there is also a read me file which explains how to do it properly and a copy of the mc-202 manual in pdf. just for kicks.

hope somebody finds this useful.

edit: forgot to collect all and save for the first download. the download does now include the samples needed.

edit again: I noticed a flaw in the read me. you should start the pilot tone playing BEFORE you hit /shift transpose up/ and play on the 202.

jngpng · Post by **jngpng** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:07 am

Nice job! I had the same thing set up and running on my MDUW a while back, but it was a tad unwieldy. Doing it in Live seems like a much better idea.

spiral · Post by **spiral** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:41 am

is that the 11mb version of the manual?

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:27 am

spiral wrote:is that the 11mb version of the manual?

nah, it's about 2 megs.

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:46 am

jngpng wrote:Nice job! I had the same thing set up and running on my MDUW a while back, but it was a tad unwieldy. Doing it in Live seems like a much better idea.

doesn't the MDUW use a 12 bit sampler? I did notice that when using a 16 bit recording of the sync tone as apposed to a 24 bit sample of the sync tone I was ableto to get a much wider range of tempo's from a single file with 24 than 16bit. meaning that when I change the tempo and lives pitch warp would warp the recorded sync tone it would be able to edit much farther with a 24bit recording before the 202 would get confused.

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:50 am

also, if anyone could varify whether or not this works with other gear I would love to hear about it.

jngpng · Post by **jngpng** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:52 pm

Johnisfaster wrote: doesn't the MDUW use a 12 bit sampler? I did notice that when using a 16 bit recording of the sync tone as apposed to a 24 bit sample of the sync tone I was ableto to get a much wider range of tempo's from a single file with 24 than 16bit. meaning that when I change the tempo and lives pitch warp would warp the recorded sync tone it would be able to edit much farther with a 24bit recording before the 202 would get confused.

Yeah, the UW is only 12bit. My method didn't actually involve changing the pitch of the sync signal though, I just had a block equivalent to one 16th that I would trigger repeatedly when I wanted to step the 202 forward. It sounded pretty rough

ethios4 · Post by **ethios4** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:55 pm

Thanks for posting this! I just found a 202 recently that I might be able score for cheap, so your work here will come in very handy if that works out!

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:11 pm

jngpng wrote:
Johnisfaster wrote: doesn't the MDUW use a 12 bit sampler? I did notice that when using a 16 bit recording of the sync tone as apposed to a 24 bit sample of the sync tone I was ableto to get a much wider range of tempo's from a single file with 24 than 16bit. meaning that when I change the tempo and lives pitch warp would warp the recorded sync tone it would be able to edit much farther with a 24bit recording before the 202 would get confused.
Yeah, the UW is only 12bit. My method didn't actually involve changing the pitch of the sync signal though, I just had a block equivalent to one 16th that I would trigger repeatedly when I wanted to step the 202 forward. It sounded pretty rough

interestsing that it even worked. the 202 sync's by reading the rate of the sync tones pulses which means that if you want it to go faster or slower the pitch does actually have to change.

OMI+NIK · Post by **OMI+NIK** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:24 pm

Thanks for this John, I'll be trying it with my sh101 in the next couple of days...

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:47 pm

probably didn't work for the 101 eh? I learned that the 101 uses pulse code not tape sync (maybe thats different names for the same thing though?)

steve-o · Post by **steve-o** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:23 pm

Johnisfaster wrote:probably didn't work for the 101 eh? I learned that the 101 uses pulse code not tape sync (maybe thats different names for the same thing though?)

Bummer, that's what I was hoping to run it on...

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:35 pm

steve-o wrote:
Johnisfaster wrote:probably didn't work for the 101 eh? I learned that the 101 uses pulse code not tape sync (maybe thats different names for the same thing though?)
Bummer, that's what I was hoping to run it on...

I've heard that sharp peaks in audio can potentially work for the pulse sync on the 101 I'm sure if you experiment you can probably get that to work.

steve-o · Post by **steve-o** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:30 am

Johnisfaster wrote:
steve-o wrote:
Johnisfaster wrote:probably didn't work for the 101 eh? I learned that the 101 uses pulse code not tape sync (maybe thats different names for the same thing though?)
Bummer, that's what I was hoping to run it on...
I've heard that sharp peaks in audio can potentially work for the pulse sync on the 101 I'm sure if you experiment you can probably get that to work.

So, just a kick track might work? Hmmm....

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:43 am

steve-o wrote:
Johnisfaster wrote:
steve-o wrote: Bummer, that's what I was hoping to run it on...
I've heard that sharp peaks in audio can potentially work for the pulse sync on the 101 I'm sure if you experiment you can probably get that to work.
So, just a kick track might work? Hmmm....

maybe, it might depend on the type of sound, I'd try sines and squares and all that and see if you can learn along the way