15 Jan
2003
15 Jan
'03
8:17 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:29:20PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
I agree with you David.
In MIDI all of this is typically worked around by using multiple channels
using the same sounds. I understand your point and must admit that the VVIDs
are indeed very powerful.
Frank.
--
+---- --- -- - - - -
| Frank van de Pol -o) A-L-S-A
| FvdPol(a)home.nl /\\ Sounds good!
| http://www.alsa-project.org _\_v
| Linux - Why use Windows if we have doors available?
Because that's just the way it is, even if you can "stretch" the
concept slightly. Ever implemented a MIDI synth?
In fact I did :-)
<snip>
If you doubt, feel free to come over to my studio
and hear my AKAI
sampler play multiple times the same sample at the same pitch :-)
I have hardware that does that as well, but it doesn't demonstrate
anything more than possibly a minor hole in the MIDI specification
AFAIK, there is no official statement as to whether synths should do
this or not, and either way, you'll find synths doing it in several
different ways. "Restart" and "new voice" are just two possibilities.
(I've mentioned other alternatives previously.)
Anyway, yes, many synths and samplers allocate new voices when you
send multiple NoteOns for the same pitch, but:
1. For many sounds, this is simply *incorrect behavior*.
Examples would be many percussion instruments, most
string instruments with fixed per-string tuning,
most pipe, tube, electromechanical and other organs,...
2. What happens when you send Poly Pressure...? One of two
things: a) the synth screws up and applies the effect
on a "random" voice, or b) the synth applies the effect
on all voicen playing on that pitch.
3. What happens when you send NoteOff? Well, I have yet
to see a synth that even tries to match NoteOns and
NoteOffs - and it would be rather random anyway. What
happens is that the synth stops *all* notes playing
that pitch on the channel.
4. If we were to use separate events for VOICE_ON and
VOICE_OFF, nothing would prevent XAP synths from doing
the same thing. (However useless it is, when pitch is
separated from VVID.)
I see the use of the VVIDs but for some reason I
get an
uncomfortable feeling seeing it; it just reminds me of over
engineering and adding unneeded complexity.
So, how do you propose we deal with voice/note addressing? Take the
MIDI approach, and forget about continous pitch...?
I'm quite glad my MIDI
devices are smart enough to do their voice allocation....
And XAP plugins would be no different in any way. VVIDs are just a
more powerful, but not really fundamentally different addressing
method.
This is not about voice allocation, but about voice *addressing*.
I've stated many times before that I specifically *do not* want
senders to have anything to do with the details of voice allocation.
Sorry, couldn't resist it.
Frank.
Sorry, but I still claim that MIDI note pitch is equivalent to VVIDs
when it comes to voice management. VVIDs are just more powerful. :-)