4 Mar
2012
4 Mar
'12
12:55 a.m.
On 03/03/2012 11:29 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
you can't send OSC to "an OSC capable
plugin" or "an external OSC
application" in any generalized sense, because there is no shared
format for the messages.
Yes, there is. It's the OSC format itself. If you want to keep it
simple, you could boil it down to "atomic" OSC messages (i.e., POD
payload, no bundles). If you can support that in a DAW, I'm sure that
there will be plenty of applications which can make good use of this.
(Actually just simple pairs of OSC addresses and double values would be
good enough for a lot of stuff IMHO.)
then its about time that people using OSC start
defining some
standardized messages.
Well, what you see as a problem, I see as a virtue. It gives me the
flexibility to just pick my own set of messages for the application at
hand. The sequencer shouldn't have to care about the particular set of
OSC addresses I'm using.
MIDI did this from the start, and for all of
its limitations, its been a wild success.
Nobody argues that, certainly not me. For much stuff we do, MIDI is
quite adequate. But there's also the more advanced stuff where OSC is
better suited or maybe just more convenient. That's certainly the case
if you're using an OSC device like the Lemur, or if you're building a
dsp plugin with Faust and don't want to go through the tedium of
handpicking MIDI controller assignments.
Anyway, Paul, I understand that you have plenty of other important stuff
on your TODO list for Ardour3. I'm not complaining. The reason that I
brought up Ardour in this context was that I seem to recall reading
something on the Ardour website, about Ardour3 already having the right
infrastructure which would make it easy to add some kind of OSC tracks.
Maybe I've misread that remark, though.
Albert
--
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email: Dr.Graef(a)t-online.de, ag(a)muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de
WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag