Forwarded to the list, sorry.
----- Hat den folgenden Inhalt empfangen ----- Absender: Bernd Casper Empfänger: Elimar Green Zeit: 2010-08-12, 10:12:51 Betreff: Re: Re: MIDI Bank Select proposal (was Re: [fluid-dev] Re: Son of ticket#65) Hi Elimar, yes, I do. My opinion: I can understand the need of the most versatile bank select method for performing MIDI-files. But from my personal point of view (musician, practical, real-time) I need to know how I do handle bank select in FS correctly, only. The most versatile bank select method has to do something with the playback of MIDI-Files of any "non-standard standard", but nothing to do with FluidSynth. What's currently discussed, is a kind of bank-select-mapper, not a pure bank select. This is drifting away from the main purpose, and opens the thread of implementing MIDI playback "standards" into FluidSynth. In my opinion, this needs more to do than bank select. Certainly, a completely elaborated bank-select-mode-standard-mapper would be a great add, in future. In my eyes, the most effective way is to cleanse up real *errors* of controller handling (as Pedro stated), and make FS support the GS bank select for default. Then to explain to the public, which message line is needed to select banks in FS correctly. From practical experience, I'd focus on a correct working CC00, a correct handling of bank 0 and a FS default channel handling of channel 9[10] for percussion. If the user wants to use FS to perform MIDI-files created with a "non-GS standard", it should be left up to him to feed FS with the correct data. This should certainly be the kind of data from files like Chris Collins' examples. Regards Bernd. ----- Folgende Nachricht wurde empfangen ----- Absender: Elimar Green Empfänger: Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas Zeit: 2010-08-12, 00:43:47 Betreff: Re: MIDI Bank Select proposal (was Re: [fluid-dev] Re: Son of ticket#65) On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas <pedro.lopez.cabanil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Sounds good. Does it make sense to have separate midi.bank-select and >> a midi.mode setting though? Why not just make it midi.mode and then >> we can add additional functionality on to it in the future? That was >> how it had been implemented previously in SVN. > > I thought about that, and decided that I prefer two separate settings. In this > way, the current setting name (finally "synth.midi-bank-select") is a clear > hint that it doesn't try to offer anything else than the bank select mode. We > can offer later a "midi.mode" setting, with broader meaning and of course > more functionalities, that overrides the bank-select setting. > > Regards, > Pedro > It seems like it would just add confusion in the long run, an additional redundant setting and the need to synchronize midi-bank-select with the MIDI mode setting, once real MIDI mode handling is added. I don't see an issue with stating that midi.mode just determines the bank select mode for now, with additional compatibility features to be added in the future. Anyone else have any opinions on this? Regards, Elimar
_______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list fluid-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
