Jens M Andreasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:31 +0200, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> > [...] when going from the graveyard to the tomb, the
> > music is blended to another track that plays the same melody with
> > different instruments for a more "closed" feeling.
>
> Focus on the graveyard: Is th
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:31 +0200, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> Jens M Andreasen wrote:
> > What is type 2 ?
>
> Type 2 files contain several related tracks, like type 1, but instead
> of being played in parallel, these tracks are to be used in some
> unspecified way.
>
> For example, the background
Jens M Andreasen wrote:
> What is type 2 ?
Type 2 files contain several related tracks, like type 1, but instead
of being played in parallel, these tracks are to be used in some
unspecified way.
For example, the background music in Monkey Island 2 uses one type 2
file for each room where the othe
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 14:10 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 11:16 +0200, Mario Lang wrote:
> [ Florian: ]
> >
> > > Wasn't a midi file pretty much a simple dump of midi events anyways?
> >
> > That is mostly true for type 0 files, but type 1 (and especially 2) is
> > a bit
On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 11:16 +0200, Mario Lang wrote:
[ Florian: ]
>
> > Wasn't a midi file pretty much a simple dump of midi events anyways?
>
> That is mostly true for type 0 files, but type 1 (and especially 2) is
> a bit more involved. And of course, there are the SMF meta events.
>
I would
> > rosegarden and muse's source it seems there's always app specifics
> > intertwined.
>
> Sure, *because* there wasn't a standard midifile library around in the
> first place, they all hacked it into the program directly, therefore it is
> intertwined :-).
No. The first release date of Thompson'
Florian Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:52:44 +0200
> Mario Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Reusability of code is a quite valid point, and I thought the OP's
>> question was quite interesting.
>>
>> We shouldn't define ourselves in terms of what windows does. F
> > libmidifile would be cute, is any of the existing codebases flexible
> > enough so that it could be massaged into a nice lib?
>
> vote++ to everything you said. dunno about any existing midi code though
> flexible enough to be put into a lib.. After taking a glance at
> rosegarden and muse's so
> It seems like every single Windows audio app has to support like 6
> different audio backends plus Rewire/Rewire2. What's up with that, is
> there no single standard for interapplication audio routing like JACK?
>
> ;-)
Ok, not *every* query about Linux audio has to be answered by pointing
out
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:52:44 +0200
Mario Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reusability of code is a quite valid point, and I thought the OP's
> question was quite interesting.
>
> We shouldn't define ourselves in terms of what windows does. Frankly, I don't
> care anymore, its now 8 years since
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 16:56 +, Will Woodruff wrote:
>> It seems like every single linux midi app has it's own code for
>> reading/writing midi files. What's up with that? Are there no quality
>> libraries?
>
> It seems like every single Windows audio ap
There have got to be some decent libraries for this, but it seems like
almost every linux midi app has its own code for reading and writing
midi files. What's up with that? What do you guys recommend?
On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 16:56 +, Will Woodruff wrote:
> It seems like every single linux midi app has it's own code for
> reading/writing midi files. What's up with that? Are there no quality
> libraries?
It seems like every single Windows audio app has to support like 6
different audio backends
It seems like every single linux midi app has it's own code for
reading/writing midi files. What's up with that? Are there no quality
libraries?
14 matches
Mail list logo
