I mistakenly said 'running status' instead of 'active sensing'. The Unitor 8 will successfully pass a PCG sysex transfer whilst merging in outputs with active sensing from the SY77 and TG77. Something the 4×1 cannot do, in either mode.

For now, the issue has been solved by changing the Trinity return lead from the XpandR 4×1 over to the MRCC MIDI In 6, via a DIN to 3.5 mm TRS adapter, which works fine. For possible future expansion/problem-solving, a second Unitor 8 has just arrived.

I use two MRCCs connected via RJ45 (and also a Remote 7 that I have no use for which I bought along with my first unit without realizing that it had no midi out capability, thus ended up buying another MRCC before they had brought the other variations to market). I LOVE 'em, and think it is the best midi aggregator/expander on the market by a country mile. I don't mind the small screen, because I don't have to use it all that often. It is 99% plug and play for me. The USB device input side was a little tricky to get my head around in the beginning, but once you've got it sussed it is a piece of cake. With two of these working in tandem, It is highly unlikely that I'll need any other solution in the future. Highly recommended.

Conductive Labs to the rescue again lol.

Ive been using the MRCC for a while now and love it. I have also used the Epander 4x1 as well to increase inpiuts.

However, I had been getting midi lag and timing issues recently. Ive literally got too much Midi traffic. Id also run out of routing numbers on one template meaning I had to compromise (I had things routed I might only use occasionally but because of the limited number of connections I had to manually change a couple from time to time)

I have midi clock going to most outs, I have note and sequencer data flowing, I have real time NRPN messages going for control of synths via an LFE.

Using the Epaander doesnt fix/help this - as all the traffic is routed and managed by the MRCC.

Soo..... enter the 880.... which also adds extra outs compared to the Expander.

Ive basically split my ins/outs so there is as little traffic as possible between the two units - but unlike hte Expander the 880 does its own routing. Soooo - Ive cut down the data through put of the MRCC by sharing it with the 880.

I literally have 1 lane of midi clock and 1 lane of note data going from MRCC to 880 - and nothing coming the other way BUT NRPN control messages and return date data from synths to my LFE, patch change messages to FX units etc are all handled by the 880.

I have everything working smoothly now.

I am considering utilising the Expander as well - but not from a functional POV - just means I can make cable routing a little tidier by using it as a remote unit rather than all cables flowing to the MRCC. It will add extra ins though if I need them later.

I now have 5 Din ins used on the MRCC with all 4 USB connections, the PC connection and 7 of the Din outs. The 880 is using its USB link to MRCC then 3 of the Din ins and all 4 outs are being used.

A total of 9 Din ins, 11 Din outs, 4 Bi directional USB connections PLUS the 16 lane connection to the PC.

The only down side - sort of - is having to select saved templates separately on the two units. I say sort of because the more I use it the more I think its actually beneficial lol.

I now only have 2 templates on the MRCC - one when playing live and utilising the clock from the Fantom - and the other for sequencing using the clock on my Hapax, with suitable routings for each. The 880 also has 2 templates. One for when the MRCC is playing one synth direct and the other via the LFE and the the second for when the synths are reversed (ie the one the LFE controls changes). Again with routings inc clock so that all connected units get the right flow.

If I was saving templates on the MRCC Id need 4 to achieve the same thing - though everything would change with one change rather than having to manually do 2 how it is currently. Swings and roundabouts but the more I consider it the more I think 2 seperate switches makes for better workflow.... It means I only need the User 1 and User 2 template along with the Factory one for manual operation If I need to/want to.

I did seriously consider a 2nd MRCC rather than an 880 - but I got the 880 at a decent price, and the larger size of the MRCC would have been harder to locate. I will have no problems getting that 2nd MRCC and selling on the 880 if I get to the point I need to further separate midi traffic and/or need extra connection (though I have 1 in and 3 out dins spare, or if I use the Expander 5 ins and 3 outs). Possibly could see needing/wanting it if I get more USB connectable gear rather than din - thats really the only time I can see maybe needing to do that.

thank you guys, lots of useful insights!

have just got my MRCC, can anyone explain tick on stop? I get it keeps sending clock, was wondering how that affects hardware sequencers ( if using mrcc as master) more than synths or effects. I have an MC-909, a Yamaha Rs 700 and now an E-Mu p2500, and am tossing up which should be master or if the MRCC might be better for that. Cheers.

just my 2 cents - I would not use the MRCC for any kind of clocking. IMHO it was a poor choice (although I know why they did it) since you cannot sync it up to anything else. If your setup is really limited and you have no other good clocking options, then maybe give it a try.

Depending on the receiving device, "tick on stop" may cause them to continue.

The intent is to allow downstream devices to be on time and start immediately with the correct tempo when they receive a MIDI start/continue command.

I looked at these boxes and felt they missed a trick by not including a proper multi out clocking facility.

The only current options have 4 outputs. I would love 8 or more individually stop/started outputs on something, anything.

Even better would be something that scales to be able to add more outputs.

Alas no such thing appears to exist.

I'm old school in that I believe specialized devices should focus on what they are supposed to do and do it well. IMHO, clocking, arpeggiators, and such have no business being inside a MIDI patchbay.

Use something like an E-RM Multiclock or similar to sync DAW+gear and those specialized devices will give you the extensive control you need.

If you really need something like 8 separate stop/stop controls, it might be time to spin up a MIDI hw controller and then configure the various buttons/etc to either manually send the clock start/stop or sequence them to automate the process.

Again - even without a dedicated mega-clock-box there are solutions that can be satisfactorily implemented. It may not involve buying multiple 4-output boxes, but that can be a solution as well.

What do you mean by this?

Except all of those other options are a kludge and ugly to implement.

I know because this is what I am doing right now.

Multiple boxes require their own clock source so you end up with one clock sending clock to other clocks and its just a complete clusterfcuk

When you say multiple boxes require their own clock source, what do you mean? That you have multiple boxes that need to be the master?

If so, there is no solution for that. If you mean that you have (say) 8 boxes that can sync and need an incoming clock, then the combination of a master (like E-RM or mioXL) and a MIDI patchbay that can distribute that clock is the best answer we have at the moment. Since you probably want more than just clocking going to the devices, you'll need some way to send clock+control to them.

So no matter how you implement it on the front end, at some point there needs to be a merge of MIDI data before going to the target device. If it only needs clock, then a simple passive MIDI splitter can do the trick.

Again - a non-trivial MIDI setup is going to require a lot more in the way of support boxes/routing than something simple. It's been that way for 40+ years and no one has come up with a simpler solution.

Yes, I know this.

I've been doing since this 1982.

I know what I am doing and need you are preaching to the choir and have kind of missed the point of what I am asking for.

I'm not looking for advice. I know what I am doing, I know the issue and I know what the solution is.

Bumping this, just bought my second MRCC. I already have the Remote 7 and Xpander (remote probably useless in my rig now, maybe I can use the Xpandr). Anyhow, any tips for integrating a 2nd MRCC? I’m hoping it will just see it like the remote did, but I’m not sure if I’ll need to reconfigure midi ports or if there’s other gotchas to note. Any insight regarding using two of them is much appreciated

I have a pair connected with their RJ-45 remote cable. I printed out a thin strip of labels showing the local device on the top and the remote device on the bottom for each MRCC and taped that over the port numbers.

Both are connected to the computer. That way, I can treat them as 2 separate patchbays or I can route from one to the other if necessary. Since both are connected to the Mac, again, I can record/play back MIDI from one or both.

They are located in different areas of my setup so that the cable runs from the gear to the MRCC can be kept short and I only have to deal with that long flat RJ-45 to connect them.

A common issue is the computer 'renaming' the MRCCs on power up. The core issue seems to be the USB device naming/handling/recognition. I know the Conductive Labs guys are working on another update to better handle USB in general, so watching their forum for a post about that might be useful. Other than the computer thing, the only real headache comes from a large complex setup and having to set up the routes and using the extra button press to route MIDI between the two MRCCs.

Once I got the second MRCC, the Remote 7 got put on the shelf and never touched again. The Xpander 4x1s (I have a couple) have been in use, but given my recent downsizing, they are also on the shelf and I just use the 'route between MRCCs' approach instead.

Considering replacing my current ESI m8u MIDI interface with an MRCC, as the m8u lacks flexibility

I want to be able to seamlessly sequence my synths both via my DAW (Studio One) and my hardware sequencer (Hapax)

For those who do this, how do you find it? Any gotchas?

so far i could solve all routings with it, so i am really happy with it. The included A and B TRS midi conversion is a gift, too, no need for adapters, any 3,5mm stereo cable will do. And routing is basically done in 1 second, touch in and out buttons, done. I love the MRCC.

It’s seamless. I could grip about the small screen and lack of an editor. But that’s trivial considering all it does. Highly recommended gear.

Few things in the universe need an iPad app as much as the MRCC. I can’t think of any other gear that could benefit more from an editor.

Could they ask the users to chip in to a “developer fund” to hire someone to program a configuration program?

IMHO the screen is borderline unusable and the thought of configuring anything on the MRCC makes me cringe.

I will not go on a rant about Hipsters and their tiny screens on their Black Corporation and Elektron gear

I don't remember if the MRCC supports sysex dumps/restores for their presets/settings. That would be the first question. I'm pretty sure there's no published methods for remotely configuring it.

This is why I haven't bought one. MRCC is great for simple cable-to-cable routing (as were all the 80's MIDI patchbays) but when you need to do anything complex like filtering that screen is a no-go for me.

At last year's Knobcon I met one of the developers and asked about an editor. Short answer is they're actually resistant to idea because they want to keep the MRCC a stand alone box intentionally designed so it wouldn't need an editor.

Maybe they will change their mind if anybody else releases a midi patchbay.
My MRCC would be gone if MioXL released a version with front patch buttons.

Please excuse the rant. I do find these tiny screens super annoying and unusable.
I also wear THICK glasses. Lol

Button to button functionality in a modern device is why I got the MRCC. Absolutely last thing I want is a (big) screen!

My MRCC replaced a MioXL of which I disliked very much. MioXL editor is terrible.

I hear you and also wear glasses.

I got MioXL's to replace an MRCC, and I think the editor is awesome, LOL. Maybe they updated it?

As someone who runs a DAWLess, computer-less studio, I completely understand this approach and I think it is perfectly valid.

I think the middle ground is having MRCC offer an API that a typical scriptable GUI editor (think, TouchOSC) could use to build custom panels that do what you need. You'd run that on a tablet or phablet and it would dramatically improve the UX without all the overhead of a full PC setup.

The iConnectivity mio units do this. I still have a pair of mio10's (previous generation) that I used for R&D on a large MIDI custom software project a few years ago. They have a very complex Sysex API that allows you to configure all aspects of the device (its the same API their desktop editor uses). I assume the XL series has the same but the last time I checked (a long time ago) the API wasn't published. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the API, building custom panels for MIDI patching the iConnectivity units is a major undertaking and requires some pretty advanced programming skills.

The other thing I didn’t like on the MioXL is how they paired the MIDI I/O physically next to each other. The MRCC has the inputs and outputs separated making connections much easier.

They did regularly update the editor but I lost hope soon enough to make the switch.