<html dir="ltr"><head></head><body style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div>It is working as here:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/ponderworthy/midi2tcp">https://github.com/ponderworthy/midi2tcp</a></div><div><br></div><div>and quite well. Haven't come up with a single reason to make it more complicated, beyond much more careful timeout handling. It will need to be able to destroy its own socket and recreate et cetera, to be durable with marginal wifi. And performance is not very good, midi2tcp takes 3-5% of one core and tcp2midi takes 6-8% of another on this i3-3110 at 2.4GHz. </div><div><br></div><div>Am not sure what best to do about the performance. Will probably try converting Python to binary, but have read over and over again that that doesn't do so very much.</div><div><br></div><div>I also had to rename it back to TCP after re-reading the Mido library docs yet again, it is using rtpmidi backend but it says it's TCP, not UDP, and it is using a connected socket which means TCP I do believe. I had thought RTP-MIDI was UDP? I wonder if judicious use of UDP would improve performance by a substantial amount?</div><div><br></div><div><span><pre>-- <br></pre><div><i><font color="#1a5d1a">Jonathan E. Brickman <a href="mailto:jeb@ponderworthy.com">jeb@ponderworthy.com</a> (785)233-9977</font></i></div><div><i><font color="#1a5d1a">Hear us at ponderworthy.com -- CDs and MP3 available!</font></i></div><div><i><font color="#1a5d1a">Music of compassion; fire, and life!!!</font></i></div></span></div></body></html>