23 Mar
2010
23 Mar
'10
6:44 p.m.
Nick Copeland wrote:
and
English isn't my native language ;).
I guess people like to control automation by hardware similar to this one:
http://www.musik-schmidt.de/images/product_images/original_images/Korg-nano…
I don't know this hardware, it's just an example, because it's very cheap.
What we need in addition are SysEx editors for hardware synth that can
be controlled by MIDI "control change" hardware controllers and soft
synth need to be able to receive data from such hardware controllers too.
When soft synth and soft mixers are controlled by cv, there is the need
to have a bridge MIDI to cv and cv to MIDI, assumed that some more
expensive hardware controllers are motorized.
IMO this doesn't make much sense, especially because cv isn't really
analog on Linux. As Nick said "recognise that
in the current digital world 'analogous' is floats/samplerate".
Please make some tests. 14 bit = 16384 steps recorded and played by
sequencer ticks. This is smooth. Special needs, e.g. like what Fons said
"Another limitation of MIDI is its handling of context, the only way to
do this is by using the channel number. There is no way to refer to
anything higher level, to say e.g. this is a control message for note
#12345 that started some time ago" could be done by using SysEx. There's
no problem with having several MIDI ports when using the regular 31.25
kBaud (31250 bits per second) or to make MIDI internal Linux faster.
So anyway, if a new port does get defined I would personally not like
to see it called
a CV port. Automation (CA) maybe, but not CV, that confuses the issue.
Hm? And how do we use the automation? By mouse or by hardware MIDI
controllers ;)?
If the hardware MIDI controller would define the start and end point cv uses a movement curve it isn't really
manually control, but having a
resolution of 14 bit for MIDI might be smooth enough and manually
movements could be recorded by the sequencer.
I would imagine the movements of the controls in the GUI would have to
be recorded then potentially interpolated/smoothed. Isn't this how the
automated decks handle fade/mixes? If you say you want to record the
settings of a controller during playing the song then any movement of
that control is saved somewhere - then it shouldn't matter whether that
was moving the control with the mouse or having it move from a surface
control linked to the GUI device. Actually scrub that - it would just be
recording a MIDI track next to the audio track that drives the mixing
desk itself. I take it Ardour can do that anyway for any of its
controls as
they can all be linked to MIDI surfaces.
Must have missed the point again. 