On 4/10/20 4:17 PM, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
That makes sense, I wasn't aware it had always been sent and for some
reason though CC 123 would take care of this, but thinking about it this
doesn't make sense (I wonder if CC 121 would, but again an explicit
pitchbend is probably better with many
On 10/04/2020 19:13, Ted Felix wrote:
On 4/10/20 4:07 AM, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
Unfortunately it seems now the bug seems to still be there, but
sending out a pitchbend of 8192 - this is in r15766
That is working as designed. 8192 is the correct number (in the
0-16383 system). That means
On 4/10/20 4:07 AM, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
Unfortunately it seems now the bug seems to still be there, but sending
out a pitchbend of 8192 - this is in r15766
That is working as designed. 8192 is the correct number (in the
0-16383 system). That means no pitchbend at all. So, from a fresh
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 15:49:51 -0400
Ted Felix wrote:
> Next question
>
> Why do you want/need JACK MIDI? (As with LV2 I may never get to it,
>but some justification will help focus the effort if I do.) Thanks.
>
>Ted.
One of the main claims of JACK MIDI is sample accurate
On 09/04/20 02:31, Ted Felix wrote:
I just pushed a fix [r15764] for a rather serious pitchbend bug. At
playback from the middle of a segment, a pitchbend of 0 (-8192) would be
sent out on every channel. This would shift the pithces downward
depending on the instrument's response to
