Ok, this will be a rather long post and i apologize right from start.
First, i got not frustrated during the course of this discussion, it is just one of these days where everything wents downhill. A day where you only hear negative things, especially on that C4 topic.
I already spend a huge amount of time, just for all the stuff i found out regarding the C4. Registered in many forums etc. just for a little piece of cake-info, till a point where my friends are asking me, if i am ok.
I got frustrated, because even with all the infos and the new exciting find outs, i feel only exhausted. I am not able to transform all that into something usefull or something i consider real progress.
It is a passion that drives me, because i really like this thing. Maybe there are other hardware controllers, that do the same, but i did not see one that is like a C4.
Sadly Steinberg did not had the same passion. I really doubt that any of their staff-members wrote the MCU protocol, it is more likely they hired someone who did that, because there are things, that really makes no sense otherwise.
But back to topic: A forum member told me, to take a look into MTP and try my luck there. Indeed, i was amazed by the product and i already can do things, that would otherwise be impossible. For example, the Commander software can layout a encoder, but you can only use one function. So either you have a rotary encoder or a push button, but you can not have both. With MTP i can do both easily and i can connect the Commander software with Cubase which is 5 of 5 stars worth for MTP.
Of course i tried many things with the C4 and the MCU protocol, as someone might think the protocol should be similar and indeed it is to a huge degree. But as i said, the protocol is closed to public view. There is no way to change the adressing of displays. Cubase supports MCU+XT and that the XT is working, is just coincedence being the same like a MCU just without transport and assignment buttons. A evidence for that is, how Cubase is unable to distinguish between the two devices. They will have the same name, just with a number at end. No other DAW will treat the devices like this. In other DAWs there is a unique name for MCU and for XT, because they did their homework and they know by sysex handshake, with which device they are dealing with and if a XT is left or right from a MCU etc. etc.
Something that Steinberg did not care about, hence there is just MCU1, MCU2 etc. A unacceptable pain for a user, if you ask me.
There is a reason why Mackie (or other DAWs) did this, because all units (MCU+XT+C4) should also work as standalone. This is not so relevant if there would be only MCU and XT, but in case of a C4 it is relevant. If a C4 is used standalone, you could split encoder rows i.e. use two encoder rows for software and use the remaining two encoder rows for hardware. Many possibilities, many options. Too many for the poor staff-crew at Steinberg. They simply did not include it into their protocol and because they surely paid a lot for this protocol, they kept it close and only hardware vendors are allowed to ask for a remote SDK, paying licence fees and their first born son.
This all happened at a time, where the biggest rival for Cubase was Logic. Both companies from Hamburg. Since Logic already had a perfect working Logic Control (basically a MCU), it is obvious why Steinberg really needed a MCU protocol, if they like it or not. Especially when Apple announced to buy Logic.
Coming to the point (and end): I really hope, that it is now somehow clear, why i do not believe that you can get the displays working with a MCU protocol. If we would talk about devices that support the MCU protocol (Cubase) like Behringer X Touch etc. , i would believe that, because all these devices copy/emulate a MCU unit.
But till today, i have not seen a device like a C4 that works with a MCU protocol or a device that can adress more than one single display with the protocol (in Cubase).
I am no expert and maybe i am doing something wrong with midi-monitoring, but i do not see any messages coming or going into that protocol, that looks like names, labels etc. with display adressing including offsets and what not. That is the only reason, why i wrote to Steve that he needs to convince me, show me something, why he is so sure that he can make the displays working.
I would even ship this thing to him and i guess shipping alone would be like 80-100€.
Maybe are able to pay him 2-3 days (depends how much), but i have a strong feeling, that he will fail with the displays. I am not questioning his skills, i am questioning Cubase and this damn protocol.
This was told to me by a member that has a lot experience with MCU product line and Cubase:
"Another issue you would have with using the C4 is, even if running smoothly, when multiple Mackie controls are in use the controls spread across them and there is no way to mirror. i.e. if you had an MCU for faders and a C4 for plugin control, the first 8 vpot parameters would be on the MCU, and vpots 9 and onwards would be on the C4. There's no option to put 1-8 on the second surface (i.e. mirror).
This is a real pain if you have an MCU and a second controller (Such as keyboard controller) that utilises Mackie protocol. It really can not be that hard to setup a mirror option, surely?! "
This brings us to adequate documentation. Well, there is no more than this Logic Manual and all the other findouts by trial and error, that i already posted to you and the more i think about, it does not need much more.
It is the responsibilty from the host (Cubase), to create necessary connections and what the vendor want to provide to the users. What this means for Cubase or our case, is written above. There will be no documentation, unless you go the remote SDK route, paying fees and giving away your first born son. The only thing we can do, is reverse engineering the protocol, which we already partly did in this thread.
My initial plan was, collect as much as possible info. Find out as much as possible on your own. Depending on this, going to Steinberg, pay a developer to include the findouts of the C4. I will not describe what kind of experience that was, just talking about it in the Steinberg forum (awful).
I hope it is more clear now, from where my frustration comes. If you know, that you are so close, but still can not manage to make it work + all the other bad experience i had on this long journey.
Again, i am not questioning the skills of Steve. I am happy to talk to a person like him. Someone who understand encoder settings (2´s complement example etc.), because Steinberg developers can not. Again a evidence how ironic this alone is. If they really have written the protocol, why there is no working option (in Generic Remote) for these kind of encoders??? And this has not change since a decade, even if the forum is full of people begging for it.
How a proper encoder support should look like, is shown here:
https://www.cantabilesoftware.com/guides/controllerEncoding
This DAW cost 69$ and has excellent encoder support, a thing Cubase will likely never ever have, cause only dumb people work there.
I am pretty sure that Steve knows this stuff very well.
](https://www.bome.com/wp-content/uploads/cma_attachments/1590436071779_Generic_1.png){kind=link}
](https://www.bome.com/wp-content/uploads/cma_attachments/1590436073822_Generic_2.png){kind=link}
](https://www.bome.com/wp-content/uploads/cma_attachments/1590436074698_Generic_3.png){kind=link}
](https://www.bome.com/wp-content/uploads/cma_attachments/1590436075662_Generic_4.png){kind=link}
](https://www.bome.com/wp-content/uploads/cma_attachments/1590436422580_Generic_5.png){kind=link}