Would it work satisfactorily if I had two Maestros to work independently if one was used to control the BeatBuddy and the other to control the Aeros? The setup I would like uses a BeatBuddy, Aeros, two MIDI Maestros.
Although Singular Sound would probably be happy to sell you 2 Maestros 
, I’m curious as to why you want two MIDI controllers. What is it that you want to do that you can’t accomplish with a single MIDI controller?
1 Like
There is no reason why you couldn’t have two completely independent systems, but if you plan to take advantage of the ability of the Aeros to be master or slave to the BB (and vice versa), you are going to have a very complex system involving multiple MIDI channels, configured pass-through/no-pass-through (assuming that is configurable on the MM and the Aeros – it is on the BB, but I have not checked my MM to see if we have that control yet), and many, many logical gates in the programming.
It should be totally doable (if you can control pass-through), but it would be very complex.
1 Like
That was my thought when I saw this post. Since the MM is presently configured for its default mode to be on channel 1 for both devices, there could be issues with a BB as Master/Aeros as slave set up, since the commands intended for the BB would pass through to the Aeros. Now, if the MM gets all figured out with appropriate apps for the custom mode, then I would agree with @Persist implying that two MM’s are not needed. But, for that to be true, it would be best if 1) MM modes could be switched on the fly, and 2) MM default modes could be configured to individual channels. That would then allow an MM to be, for example on channel 1 for the BB mode and channel 2 for the Aeros mode. The BB can already be configured to receive on channel 1 and send on channel 2, so clock would still work, and with switchable MM modes, the problem would be solved.
1 Like
Exactly, Phil. And I want to say most of that functionality is already available, but I’d have to crack the app to confirm.
But what you’ve described seems like it might be a linear system (i.e., what MIDI is designed to be) where nothing downstream affects anything upstream. If you want to be able to start the Aeros by starting the BB and transition the BB using the Aeros, that gets complex.
Adding an MM to do all the controlling actually makes a lot of sense in that case. With the MM’s ability to switch modes when you select a given function (the other buttons change function when you hit START for the BB, for example), and the ability to stack commands to multiple devices on multiple channels means maybe you don’t need two MMs to get where you’re going. But having two in series increases the number of buttons you have at your disposal.
And, as guitarists, we all know that whoever dies with the most buttons and knobs wins.
1 Like
I was just thinking of expanding the Aeros buttons like MM does with BB to make Simple single Button presses.
Thanks for your reply, sounds like it could be complicated.
It could be, but less so if you have a linear setup – i.e., both Maestros followed by your devices, and you don’t expect them to talk to each other. Assuming the Maestros can each be programmed to ignore incoming messages. It gets more complicated if you want to have both MMs respond to modes (e.g., they both change available commands whenyou start the BB).
I believe it IS doable, though.
I have thought about the same thing but have been able to manage both with one Midi Maestro as long as I can “stop” the BeatBuddy from communicating with the Aeros at times. I purchased a MIDI Kill Switch for a mere $20 and it works quite well: