RJM Mastermind GT/22 Compatibility?

I only assigned CC #’s in the Axe Fx III to the blocks I immediately needed, and I used the same CC #’s that were used in the II so that if I was referencing existing lists or literature, it would match. There are some blocks I may never use, plus some where even though they are in almost every preset, I don’t use the CC #'s to engage the block. Wah and Volume, for instance, are always turned on and off with the expression pedal using the auto-engage feature, so I never use the CC #’s for those blocks. It turns out that I really only needed a small handful to get myself up and running.
 
dpeterson said:
Literally nothing is mapped stock. I had to map all the cc's to a number, looper functions, tuner, all that. even have to turn on program change. I started at 1 and went on down the line, and set my tuner to 127, almost ran out of cc's.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the point being made.

Only YOU know what should be mapped for YOUR use, therefore nobody else can creating a generic mapping for everyone.
 
unix-guy said:
Yes, that is the point being made.

Only YOU know what should be mapped for YOUR use, therefore nobody else can creating a generic mapping for everyone.
Click to expand...

yes, I think if fractal doesn't do a default value, RJM is going to have a hard time getting something to work without support headaches.
 
unix-guy said:
Yes, that is the point being made.

Only YOU know what should be mapped for YOUR use, therefore nobody else can creating a generic mapping for everyone.
Click to expand...

A template would be general mapping of the basic functions most guitarists would use...anything more use case specific would be edited by the user later but even then you’re still likely to need to change things like presets, scenes, channels, etc. and since those would be populated by the template that will save a number of users a lot of time from having to start from scratch. It shouldn’t be that hard to understand the benefit. It won’t work for everyone but it’s a stopgap. It doesn’t need to.
 
Surrealistic Brillo said:
A template would be general mapping of the basic functions most guitarists would use...anything more use case specific would be edited by the user later but even then you’re still likely to need to change things like presets, scenes, channels, etc. and since those would be populated by the template that will save a number of users a lot of time from having to start from scratch. It shouldn’t be that hard to understand the benefit. It won’t work for everyone but it’s a stopgap. It doesn’t need to.
Click to expand...
You still have to define all the necessary CCs on the Axe Fx III... I get what you're after, but to me it just isn't practical. You need both sides to have a "handshake"...
 
Totally thinking out loud here, but I have wondered if there might be an agreed upon (between RJM and FAS) arrangement of CCs, PCs, etc that you could download to make a two way handshake possible between them. A firmware download to each to provide a native AFX III mode, and you adjust your presets accordingly. Something along that line is the only way I can see to make the two work together short of programming from scratch on each to make them speak to one another.

Maybe RJMs way forward is to figure out how to “read” the Axe Fx III. I don’t even know if that’s possible.

Lol, come to think about it, just programming them individually is sounding like the simplest solution!
 
Rick said:
Totally thinking out loud here, but I have wondered if there might be an agreed upon (between RJM and FAS) arrangement of CCs, PCs, etc that you could download to make a two way handshake possible between them. A firmware download to each to provide a native AFX III mode, and you adjust your presets accordingly. Something along that line is the only way I can see to make the two work together short of programming from scratch on each to make them speak to one another.
Click to expand...
The whole reason Fractal didn't set default CCs on the III is because you only get 128. There are more than 128 items that can be controlled...

Who decides which get included and which get left out?

Everyone has different workflows. I don't really see a method that works for everyone, or even a majority.

Personally, I don't know what is so hard about defining the settings as a one time event on both devices? But I've got no dog in this fight... I don't own, nor am I planning to own an RJM controller.
 
@unix-guy yep, agreed. The more you discuss it, the more it sounds as though that’s the answer. I’m not sure on what is involved in the two way communications for items like tuner display, but it doesn’t sound too involved.

I wonder though, what it would take to make an extended MIDI protocol. I mean to extend available spaces to 256 while leaving things not needing more (the 0-127 velocity or range, for instance). Again, just talking on something I know nothing about. I’m just suggesting a RJM-FAS thing, as other controllers would neither see nor respond to those numbers.

My guess is this has been discussed many times in the last near 40 years.
 
I could have defined whatever CCs I desired for use in my III and loaded a default XL+ template in the Mastermind to control them in the time it took me to read this last page of posts and type this response.

I've moved several pro MM rigs as well as my own from the II to the III seamlessly with only a few value changes to account for channels vs. X/Y. For 95% of use, the III and the GT are already compatible.
 
Last edited:
ccroyalsenders said:
I could have defined whatever CCs I desired for use in my III and loaded a default XL+ template in the Mastermind to control them in the time it took me to read this last page of posts and type this response.

I've moved several pro MM rigs as well as my own from the II to the III seamlessly with only a few value changes to account for channels vs. X/Y. For 95% of use, the III and the GT are already compatible.
Click to expand...

Effect state and tuner is all that is needed for me. I have it switching fine for what I need now, but I don't have a tuner on my board, can live without it on the RJM but it's nice to have if i don't have time to go back to my rig. I like many on this board don't have techs handing me guitars already in tune, or have them switching presets for me. I need to see what is on or off at any given moment.
 
ccroyalsenders said:
I could have defined whatever CCs I desired for use in my III and loaded a default XL+ template in the Mastermind to control them in the time it took me to read this last page of posts and type this response.
Click to expand...

:D :D :D Exactly! It was like 15 minutes of total "work" to get my LT going.

dpeterson said:
Effect state and tuner is all that is needed for me.
Click to expand...

Same. Get those two things going and It's smooth sailing until the FC units come out. Even now it's perfectly fine. So I have to look back at the rack when I tune...big deal. I could easily clamp on a Snark and not even do that.
 
unix-guy said:
I'm not sure what you're asking?

The Axe Fx III does not have predefined CCs. You have to define them there, which means you have to define them on whatever midi controller you use.

There is no alternative.
Click to expand...

Sorry...I’m asking FAS if the required communication to work well with the RJM unit can please come soon.
 
greiswig said:
Sorry...I’m asking FAS if the required communication to work well with the RJM unit can please come soon.
Click to expand...

Soon is the key word here. I posted last Monday on the RJM forum, asking if there are any roadblocks besides time, and he never replied. So either he's busy or just doesn't want to talk about it.
 
Karl Houseknecht said:
:D :D :D Exactly! It was like 15 minutes of total "work" to get my LT going.



Same. Get those two things going and It's smooth sailing until the FC units come out. Even now it's perfectly fine. So I have to look back at the rack when I tune...big deal. I could easily clamp on a Snark and not even do that.
Click to expand...
Karl, I know RJM is working with Fractal on the GT22. Do you know if the LT will have support for the III as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom