On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Len Ovens wrote:
>MIDI was designed to handle in realtime (10 events from 10 fingers)
PS: Even if we reduce MIDI to one channel for real-time playing without
usage of e.g. the nose as an eleventh finger, at least usage of pedals
is included. The amount of
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Len Ovens wrote:
>MIDI was designed to handle in realtime (10 events from 10 fingers)
That is incorrect, MIDI was designed for sequencer usage, too, so MIDI
provides 16 channels ;). While I only can play 6 channels in real-time
using my guitar synth, even
On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 16:49:48 -0500, Jonathan E. Brickman wrote:
>to sidestep all of the well-known MIDI limitations
Without doubts MIDI has got well-known limitations, but nowadays a bad
implementation of the MIDI standard often gets confused with the MIDI
standard, so it's better to clearly point
[Active Sensing]
You said that you "need lossless JACK MIDI networking", but not why you
need networking at all. You might have a good reason, I'm just curious.
For what purpose do you need an _additional_ network?
Btw. I have no experiences with MIDI over an additional network, but
regarding the
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Len Ovens wrote:
[ etc. etc. etc. ]
i wonder if sctp (the transport protocol used for web sockets) might be
better for this sort of thing than either tcp or udp or raw ip ...
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio
On Sat, 1 Sep 2018, Jonathan E. Brickman wrote:
In general I too am attracted to UDP -- but for MIDI performance transmission,
0.001% loss is still far too much, because that means one note in 1,000 might be
held and never released, causing massive encruditation to the moment :-) This is
because
In general I too am attracted to UDP -- but for MIDI performance
transmission, 0.001% loss is still far too much, because that means one
note in 1,000 might be held and never released, causing massive
encruditation to the moment :-) This is because every time I press a
key there's a MIDI signal fo
