[TK]

Keep up the good work.  Looking forward to seeing the finished product.

 

[TK]

I hope to hear more of your project, @type81.  Perhaps we can collaborate on some protocol work in the future.

It took months  to find a Beolink 7000 within the realm of “affordable”, and a few more weeks to figure out how to recap it.  It’s kinda-sorta working now, but still a bit twitchy.

Now that I’ve cleared that hurdle, I’m finally getting my first look at B&O’s Datalink ’86 RDS protocol implementation.  Lots of BeoBabble “Invalid Message” warnings and several never-before-seen conditions yet to be coded for, and all of it yet left to decipher. I’ll hopefully make some strides in getting a rough protocol update and update the documentation within a few weeks.

I’ll be able to add RDS to the MCP iPhone app, but beyond that, its use case will be fairly limited, primarily for anyone who uses a BM7000 and still has an interest in listening to over-the-air radio.  That said, the journey of discovery keeps it fun.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[TK]

First things first – does the TX-2, in fact, ship with Datalink enabled?

Early answer: yes, it appears so. But more testing is required to verify the entire instruction set.

I’ve been postulating on this for the past month, trying to find a definitive “it does” or “yes, but there’s a catch…” post, but I figured I’d have to do my own testing anyways.  So before changing out the RCA output cable, I thought I’d run a quickee test of the Datalink channel on the main board, to see what signals were being sent, if any.  I attached a signal analyzer to the board output (going from CPU pin 19 through some circuitry to pin 1 of the white connector) and measured the results.  Presto: Datalink. I received both a “No Media” signal and a “Status Playing” signal, depending on whether I held the record sensor down. With this experiment done, I’m quite confident I’ll be able to attach a Din-7 cable to the output board, and use the Datalink features on a Beomaster 5500, at least.  For the later units, I’ll still need to find or create an RIAA card.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[TK]

Just my observation – I’ve been following the 400x market for about a year now.  Although they are very iconic and insanely cool, they are actually readily available in all states of condition, which helps keep prices in check.  I’ve probably counted 20-30 for sale this year on eBay alone of the various types.  4002 late models probably trend as the least expensive of the original design, with premiums paid for the 4004 and 4000 models. I’d add that you frequently see several for sale asking over $1500, but not many sell at this price point in the open “as-is” market.  More frequently, they’ll sell in the high $600 range for working models with serviceable cartridges.   Known restorers can of course get more for their units privately.

The best news of all is that there is a steady supply of 3rd party support, which helps keep many of the units working (which also helps keep prices on the low side, because there’s almost always a way to get a glitchy unit working well again). RIAA boards range from $150-$400, depending on who you buy from. Cartridges are $150 for as-is (depending on the cartridge type), and plenty more for re-tipped ones. You’ll usually save a bunch of money if these are already on the unit you are buying, relative to the costs of acquiring the pieces individually. We have to pay more in the States than enthusiasts do in Europe – I’d say up to 50-75% more for the same-condition merchandise. There are simply fewer units available, and they cost a lot of money to ship overseas.

As to the future – who knows, records have seen a mini renaissance, but I don’t see this generation of kids forking over thousands for 50-to-70-year-old equipment anytime in the next two decades.  I’d venture to say that If you spent top dollar and paid $2000+ for a super cherry restored one with all the bits you describe, you’d probably be unable to make any return selling it at any point in the future.  Just one person’s opinion.

 

[TK]

Nice build, adyan!

Just for my knowledge: you added a Din-7 cable to your TX-2 and soldered pin 7 (or pin 6, depending on your RIAA setup with your receiver) directly to pad 6 on board 11, and Datalink started working without further modification? This would be what I’d surmise was a possible outcome, I just haven’t seen anyone post that it worked and was this straightforward.  Can you also share which version if TX-2 main board you were using?  There are at least 2 iterations, as shown below.  Early board types have no transistor in the data path, and later boards added the transistor.

Best!

 

 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[TK]

I’ve been sidetracked the past few months on pressing projects, so I’ve made little progress on decoding 100% of MCL 82 (Which I now call MCL1 for simplicity). Here’s the latest protocol reverse-engineering effort.   My longer term goal is to facilitate a compatibility layer between MCL1 and MCL2 using BeoBabble, so that a Beosystem 5000 works seamlessly with MCL2, and the associated MCP 5500 series of remotes.

Many of the components that were shipped with the Beosystem 5000 are quite capable of receiving and providing most the data that an MCP 5500 can send and display, with small protocol tweaks.  The weak link in the system which prevented access to this featureset originally is the Beomaster 5000 IR implementation.  I already bypass this IR layer by monitoring the internal Datalink channels between the various components directly, so tapping into them and creating a bridge mode within BeoBabble, I’ll be able to control them and the BM5000 from an MCP 5500.  This implementation will hopefully lift the BM5000 from the “Orphaned” category, and provide greater utilization of its components.

After tinkering around with various system setups, I admit I’m a bit smitten with the large LCD digits of the 5000 design – there’s something a bit magical about their character that the later systems lack, IMHO.

 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[TK]

I’ve just finished repairing one of these with a similar issue – starts playing as normal, but slides around as the record is played, as if there is not enough weight on the stylus.  The problem I found was a broken bracket, shown as 1107 in the photo below.  Apparently this is a common issue with these players.  Getting to it in order to repair it was a fiddly exercise, but not impossible. If this is indeed the same problem that you have, the player will not play properly until the bracket is repaired.

 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[TK]

Here’s short video sample of the latest iPhone MCP app working with BeoBabble.  MCP5000 and 5500 are both working, but I’ve only had time to finish the screen updating for the MCP5500.  Still a work in progress, but the exercise has greatly helped me flush out the BB protocol prior to release, so I’m happy I took the time to deep-dive into an end-user app.

 

 

[TK]

Just an alternate approach – if you purchased a used MCL2 2047 or an MCL2A and accompanying transceiver, you could hook it up to the 6500 and control it via the MCL2 link. It might set you back $150 on eBay for all the pieces. It’s not without a bit of additional trickery surrounding muting.  I’m working on software for my on edification which simplifies this process, but its primarily lab-grown tinkering software at this point, and is months away from being usable by others.

[TK]

IT definitely is datalink.  I’m writing a program which monitors and decodes datalink, and I can watch on my monitor as it is sent across the system, coinciding with all the buzzing.  Some system updates from a CD player transmit a bunch of data, while phono updates are infrequent. I don’t have a strategy for removing it yet, unfortunately.

[TK]

When you say “buzz” do you mean a low level “bzzz-bzz-bzz” type noise that may sound like someone is sending Morse code over your system?  If it is a low level bzz-bzz sound, does the length of the buzz vary depending which button you hit (advance vs selecting a new source, for example), or the component you use?   Does it also happen in between songs on it’s own?  If yes, then it’s likely your Pentas picking up the Datalink ’86 chatter being broadcast from the BM on Powerlink, used to update the Penta displays, as you surmise.  I’ve got a similar setup with the same symptoms, and I also have not fully worked out a filtering solution.

[TK]

Madskp, thanks for the clarification – I’ve read your thread, and it looks like all that would be required to make this work is to place a BB to monitor the DL80 connection (and possibly the DL86 connection, as a command-sending interface to the 2300). It would be great to test out my proposed kludge on the workbench, but the 2300 I have is code locked, and waiting for me to write a brute-force algorithm to free it from its hibernation.  What I’m not entirely sure of is the logic and safety of having two sources share a single audio channel without some form of protection circuitry, so I’ll leave that to others.

In my mind, I can see this working, because BB can behave as a surrogate BeoMaster, a surrogate component, and an end-user remote. It can be programmed to monitor the state of the connected devices and insert any missing status or commands via triggered macros, programmed as needed to achieve the desired effect (example as given above- monitor that only one source is reporting playing; tell the other source to stop playing; tell the 2300 that a source is playing, if needed).  I have a working 4000 – does it share the same Aux Dual-DL pin-outs as the 2300? If so, I could test and see how it behaves with this setup.

[TK]

Over the past week, I started stress testing the design to see how malleable it was to feature expansion – and it fared pretty poorly.  So I decided to add a few features that I knew I would need in order to make the system work for me the way I wanted it to, and see what that did to my design.  I purchased a $30 Ethernet add-on to the Mega, and added a rudimentary telnet server to BB.  This forced me to retrofit a bunch of code, because I had never considered what it would mean to read and write I/O to and from several clients.   My current solution is incomplete and sloppy, but it did allow me to prototype something else: an iOS console that connects via TCP/IP to BB and can send and receive Datalink in parallel with the Serial port.

From there, it was a very short hop to writing an iOS MCP-Style remote control.  In reality, this is a real stretch for me from a programming standpoint.  I know next to nothing about how Swift works, but thanks to Claude.ai, I just got it working sending commands tonight by pressing MCP buttons.  The tougher part is next- translating all the MCP update status commands into LED readouts on the status screen.  This has yet to be coded in Swift, but I’m elated to know that it’s actually going to work as I imagined.  Prototyping screenshots attached.  When I get the LEDs programmed so that it behaves like a real honest-to-goodness MCP, I’ll upload a video.

Shout out to all you BM5000 users out there.  There’s an MCP in there for you too!

 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[TK]

Thx pl212 for your offer, I’ll gladly accept.  I’ve been slow to release the software for GA because I wanted to make sure that I got the syntax mostly usable, and I’m also suffering a bit from feature creep.  More on that in a following post.

This following solution is not really a good final solution, but I’ll mention it anyways as a thought exercise: at a minimum what would work with little effort is if you had 2 sources that you connected via a Y-cable to BeoBabble, and connected the BB DL86 output to an ML/MCL converter, which then connected to the BC2300. On a start signal from either source, the BB can be easily modified using a macro to send a DL86 “System-on, switch to Aux” to the BC23000 through the ML/MCL when BB detects a “Playing” Status from one or the other source, and also send a “Pause” signal to the other source, much in the same way a BeoMaster does when you switch sources.  So that part would work already, but I think it would be a bit of a kludge, and likely introduce some unwanted noise interference.  There would also be some wiring needed to bridge the audio pins, which I currently have not spent much time on.

So the BB Setup would look like this:

2 BB Macros: On DL80 Trigger “Beogram.Playing”, Send DL80 “BeoTooth.Pause”; Send DL86 “BC23000.Src=>Aux”;  On DL80 Trigger “BeoTooth.Playing”, Send DL80 “Beogram.Pause”; Send DL86 “BC23000.Src=>Aux” (Which I assume would power the BC2300 on as most B&O conventions allow for)  In theory (THEORY!) that would kinda-sorta work out of the box with just a couple of Y cables, but AFAIK it’s not really the best idea to have two sources sharing a common output channel without having a proper MUX that can isolate each source’s audio signal from the other, and switch cleanly between them.  What we are doing in this example is sharing an audio L+R, and shutting one system off if the other starts playing – probably not recommended.

Getting into the weeds here, so indulge me and feel free to ask questions or offer a clarification if I’m off-base: with respect to the BC2300, I think that it speaks ML, and not MCL2, which would mean for the moment that there would be a bit more hardware to acquire in the form of an ML/MCL converter just to get the communications working (I’ll get to ML support at some point in the future, but probably it will be a while), and then also an additional piece of hardware in the form of an Audio MUX that has, say, 2-4 input channels and an output channel for the BC2300 Aux connection, and the channel selection would have to be settable via a logic signal that BeoBabble can send out.

So, what am I saying? I think it <could> work out of the box, but I don’t know that the result would be great without a proper audio MUX. It’s clearly worth exploring what it would take to put a MUX like you would need on-board, but my experience is not in audio engineering, so my hope would be that someone resourceful could help design one, or offer another hardware audio MUX solution to with an API/Interface.

Keep those product extension ideas coming!

 

[TK]

Finally a bit of progress.  I’ve added some fun DL86 MCP updating commands, and am working on a rudimentary macro system, in order to allow BeoBabble to auto-trigger macros based on stream inputs and user request.  Here are links to two examples – the first manipulates the level meter, and the second makes a crude attempt at spelling “BeoBabble” on the 5-segment display – more like “B3O-BABBL”.  I was a bit lucky to find the “L” as a supported letter, so I’ll take that as a good omen.

User Guide is updated with the latest capabilities as I code them, and I’ll hope to have a releasable version soon.

 

 

[TK]

Also to note. The BM7000 is able to respond to commands irrespective of what source is given over MCL2.  You can actually send it a command intended for any of its sources, and it will ignore the source, and simply apply whatever command instruction is given to the currently selected source. Some commands will change the source (ie, the command that changes the source to “Phono”), which is what the Beoremote One appears to not be sending properly.

[TK]

I believe that Phono and N.Radio are both mapped to the Beo4 command 0x93, which the BM7000 will respond to by switching the source and sending a “play” signal to whatever Beogram/CD  is connected to the Phono hookup when it receives the appropriate command over the Aux channel. Is it possible that the BeoRemote One also has a different mapping of N.Radio? What happens if you map the BeoRemote One button to Phono, and try the same experiment?

[TK]

Yes, I’ve been experimenting with what few systems I have, and I’ve verified that the protocol is substantially more basic for the BeoCenter 7000, as an example. As I mentioned, this protoco document  is the ‘BM5000/Other” configuration setting (also seen as simply ‘Other’ in older MCL boxes) . A BM5000 is probably the richest component of the overall protocol, without migrating to MCL 2A, which I’m guessing is plain-and-simple straight DL86, making it incompatible with a BM5000.  Until I have a chance to experiment with more systems, I’d venture to say that MCL82 itself is primarily a kind of “communication  facilitator”, or “glorified IR extender” with an attached speaker switch, which is hard set in advance to the capabilities and IR protocols of whatever master system is specified.

That said,the 2-way MCL82 box does a great job of exposing the BM5000 speakerlink interface and control protocols, which I needed to document.  Armed with this syntax, I should be able to. test control of the BM5000 directly using an Arduino connected directly via the BM5000 speakerlink pin.  Unlike an MCL2A, the Arduino can speak and understand both MCL82 and DL86, and would facilitate a proper integration between A BM5000 and any DL86-enabled products. Stay tuned, I’m nearly there!

 

[TK]

Ok, here’s the data I’ve comprised that no one is asking for: a working copy of the MCL’82 syntax in ‘BM5000/Other’ mode.  It took me 2 or 3 days of pounding on the MCP 5000 to assemble this, and I can guarantee its not 100% accurate.  But it does work as a syntax, and it reveals an important data point- it’s rich enough and similar enough to Datalink ’86 that my goal of building a universal translator of old Datalink protocols is now within reach.

For the two or three of you holding on to your orphaned BM5000 series, this is a significant milestone, because it means that it is possible to Datalink’86-enable your precious heirlooms via a cheap, home-made Arduino box, unlocking all the riches afforded only those select users of newer (but still very old) B&O equipment.  You can have access to a new DL’86 Aux channel, and (gulp) Powerlink!  Yes, you’ll be able to hook up a Penta MkII, and actually have the display work for a change. Imagine your joy in replacing your 40-year-old speakers with more modern 35-year-old speakers! Savor this moment, it happens but once in a blue moon.

 

 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[TK]

I had a few extra minutes today to transcribe the Datalink’78 (Is there another name for it?) protocols into spreadsheet format.  It can basically piggy back off of some code I’ve already written to send and receive Datalink’80 codes, so it was pretty simple to implement.  Assuming that this document represents what was actually programmed, of course.

As we surmised, a fair number of commands are only available via IR.  That said, I’d be able to test it out with a Beocord 800X to validate the instruction set and protocol, as produced.  If I can find a decent one for $150 or so, I just might pick it up to see if I can interface it with more modern equipment.

“DL’78” Protocol, as described by TJE, attached. (sorry, two files – the second file ‘-1’ contains some edits to differentiate between the original protocol text, and my interpretation.

 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Author]

Posts