[LAD] [LAU] So what's the deal with controlling the aeolus organ?stops via midi

Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas pedro.lopez.cabanillas at gmail.com
Tue Oct 6 20:02:43 UTC 2009

On Monday, October 5, 2009, Nick Copeland wrote:
> Getting a registration requires it be paid for, pretty ludicrous for what
> purports to be an open standard. I would suggest that Open Source
> developers should simply take one of the unassigned values for its own
> first digit, agree between themselves who get the next two digits for their
> apps and SYSEX then be sent with 3 byte ID.
> SLab hijacked 0x53 about 10 years ago for this purpose and bolted on a
> three more digits for personal identification and there is little reason
> why this should not be done again, this time in line with the current MMA
> SYSEX ID defs as above? If open source goes and squats on 0x7d then
> everybody can go and haggle over which app gets the next two digits.

The process for the sysex manufacturer ID registration is not only expensive 
($200 per year) but also quite ridiculous. It is almost an invitation to 
sysexquatting. Have you seen the "Recently Assigned Manufacturer ID Numbers" 
page? http://www.midi.org/techspecs/manid.php 
There are a lot of companies with a status of suspended, relinquished, renewal 
pending ... In red, no less, to add embarrassment to the crisis?

> Now, to tie this back into the original subject: this does not really help
> with assigning MIDI controllers back to app controls as now the surface has
> to be configured to generate more complex SYSEX messages, neither easy nor
> even possible with some of them

I agree. It doesn't help in many situations. However, sysex messages could be 
used to store patches inside of MIDI files, attached to the music using the 
patches. This can be done as well in Aelous with the current controller 98 
messages. In either way, it won't be "easy peasy lemon squeezy".


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list