suggested/standardized CC assignments?

[gjungman]

Has anyone created a set of "standardized" CC assignments for control
of the Axe-Fx? I'm thinking of a table with entries like the following:

...
CC 7 volume pedal (continuous type)
...
CC 28 delay1 enable (on/off)
CC 29 delay2 enable (on/off)
etc.

Obviously you can do whatever you want, but it's nice to have some guidance
when you're wondering what assignments to use, just like it's nice to know that
CC 7 is almost always going to be some kind of global volume control in most
other units.

Line6 has a table like this for all their products, and I sometimes use it as
a general guide. But that table is a real mess, with parameters scattered all
over. And it's not general enough to handle the the Axe-Fx.

Of course, there are way more than 128 controllable parameters in the
Axe-Fx, so some choices would have to be made. But that's another
good reason to have a table (or more than one) like this, to have a
few common ways to make choices, etc.

I'm asking since I'm about to start programming an FX-1, and
it would be nice to get things neat and tidy right at the start.

Maybe something like this is already implicit in the sysex architecture.
But it would be nice to translate it into CC assignments outside of sysex.
I'm not sure how the Fractal foot controller or the LiquidFoot do their
handshakes with the Axe-Fx to determine what parameters are
available. That may be part of this question too.

Yes, I am a compulsive nut. But I'm guessing that I'm not alone...

 

[miketheman]

Although there are some "suggestions" of controller assignments in the midi specification itself, it didn´t take long time until several manufacturers went their "own way". The problem here would be in 2 ways as I see it:

First, the original specification in the midi protocol were mostly aimed towards synths, drummachines and whatever. So many parameter assignments (the parameter names) aren´t that useful for the Axe.

Second, if you´re going to use a standardized assignment based on a manufacturers setup, which manufacturer should it be?

I for myself have never followed any of these suggestions...

/Mike

 

[mik]

... Obviously you can do whatever you want ...

I think you pretty much nailed it right there. There are really no standards. Everybody uses something different with possibly only one thing being standard across the board CC 7 - volume.

Mik.

 

[gjungman]

Although there are some "suggestions" of controller assignments in the midi specification itself, it didn´t take long time until several manufacturers went their "own way". The problem here would be in 2 ways as I see it:

First, the original specification in the midi protocol were mostly aimed towards synths, drummachines and whatever. So many parameter assignments (the parameter names) aren´t that useful for the Axe.

Yeah, I agree. General MIDI is one of those things that seems like a good idea, but is
never going to work. I learned this the hard way working with MIDI drum machines/programs.
The General MIDI kits are never expressive enough. And since all the vendors go in
different directions, your programmed drum parts are never cross-compatible; they
don't even work from kit to kit in one program.

Anyway, I'll end up making my own map, like everybody else must be doing for themselves.

Part of what I was wondering was whether or not some de-facto choice will be made
in order to add control features to the standard patches. But I'm guessing that won't be
necessary, given the proprietary handshaking between the fractal foot controller and
the Axe.

Thanks guys.