-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 alex stone wrote: <snip> > > Ralf, we're unlikely to get a sudden swell of linux support from > additional HW manufacturers, until they can clearly see the potential > for profit in return for their efforts. All the more reason to support > those that don't suffer from paranoia, cowardice, and fear of having > their 'secrets' discovered. > We'll need a lot more users in the linux audio world, pushing a > sustained groundswell of pressure on the manufacturers, and the > manufacturers will need to see a lot more users clamouring for their > kit, before they get their linux feet wet. > > Chicken and Egg. > > And a clear picture of just how many clever people we have in the > linux community, that despite a profit driven reluctance by some, we > still have many modules, drivers, and tools to use, through reverse > engineering. Talented stuff. > > I refute the idea that midi jitter makes work more 'natural'. That's > just nonsense. The composer decides where he wants natural or not, and
As a drummer I am bothered by the mechanical accuracy of most drum machines. As such if I am using hydrogen I intentionally add jitter (humanize is the term hydrogen uses IIRC). There are limits to the human nervous and muscular systems, we are simply not as accurate as we think we are (the timing jitter numbers mentioned by Ralf are an order of magnitude smaller than human reaction times). Having said all that I believe that we should be in control of that "humanizing" function to suit our own tastes. As of right now I have never noticed any issues with MIDI, but up until now all I have done is practise piano with a MIDI keyboard and a piano synth. Likely a lot of the resistance comes from people using MIDI in a particular way in which they do not notice certain problems. Any MIDI jitter that may be present in my system gets obliterated by my human inaccuracy, magnified by my lack of skill with that particular instrument. If you asked me about MIDI and Linux, from my experience to date there are no problems. Being rude and obnoxious is not going to convince me or anyone else otherwise (yes Ralf I am thinking of you in particular. I have watched how you have started a number of those flame wars by saying exactly the wrong thing. You do this with such consistency that even today, I believe that there is a strong possibility that you are indeed a troll). This is important because the people you are talking to may not be using this software in the same way, you need to be aware of these differences so that you can properly present your case. I have posted a link to ESR's "How to ask Smart Questions" FAQ dozens of times. It still amazes me how very few people seem to heed those words. Always remember that you are trying to convince someone to *work* for you, for *free*, on their own time. Of course if it is really important to you, you can always pay someone to work for you to get the job done (assuming of course that you have accurately determined what the problem actually is). What I am trying to say is that you need to *prove* that the problem exists, and then convince someone to fix it. Simply telling someone on a mailing list that there is a problem somewhere is not enough. See below for more detail on this. For the most part I have never bothered with MIDI, now that I have a couple of synths and am doing some remixes for friends I suppose that I may follow this a bit more closely. I also now have the ability to actually test and measure in the same way as Ralf. I will also be comparing the USB MIDI interface to that of my 9652, I expect the USB to perform worse than the 9652 interface. Whatever the results, I expect to have a better insight to the problem (if it exists) and where to direct my reports. AFAIK no one who maintains the relevant projects monitors this list. Right now I would not even know who to contact since all I know is that there is some vague report of jitter. > not at the whim of an inaccurate device. Try a succession of bank and > programme changes in rapid string or woodwind phrases, and understand > that "quaint" isn't always good. > I have no idea what "quaint" means in this context, in fact most of that paragraph was utter nonsense to me. I suspect the same may be true of some of the people you are trying to work with. Don't assume that everyone uses this stuff in the same way as you, or even has the same knowledge base as you. Of course do not assume that you know more than the person you are talking, no one I have ever known actually likes arrogance in others. > Once again, i most respectfully ask devs to consider adding sample > accurate jackmidi to their apps. Accurate midi IS important for some, For this to happen, you need to participate in the relevant project. Participating does not mean tossing ill thought out, flame attracting, whining complaints to a mailing list (Ralf was particularly guilty of this, hence the hostility he tends to draw in all the lists that he participates in). Even if you are reporting a valid problem, you have to be specific and courteous. You do not have to be a coder to participate, but it will take time and effort (TANSTAAFL, google it if you don't know what it means). Especially for a bug of this nature reproducibility is a must. You *must* be able to clearly communicate how to reproduce your results so that others can test and hopefully resolve the issue. Just reporting that there is a jitter problem somewhere is not at all useful. Filling out proper bug reports is also a plus. > and contrary to what seems a popular view, there ARE those who make a > living using midi as part of the composition/performance/production > process. Having an accurate foundation from which to work means the > composer can rely on the effect he or she intends, when adding a > degree of..."reality". If MIDI is important to you, then you have several options for getting it improved. Unfortunately none of those options involve vague complaints to mailing lists. Right or wrong, you will need to do more than that. > > For those of us who are out in the trenches, trying to present linux > audio as the viable option we think it is for new users, this question > comes up on a regular basis. > Why? I do not blindly push any solution to anyone. Any recommendation I make is contextually sensitive. I am a firm believer in the right tool for the right job. For me Rosegarden, Ardour, Jack et al. have been those tools. I have friends who think Windows and Macs are complicated to use, so I do not suggest a Linux based work flow. > "Is the midi in linux consistently reliable?" (With variations on the > same theme.) > I have no idea what this means. What measure of reliable are we talking about. It is these kinds of vague statements that get us in to trouble since they have absolutely no value except to incite and inflame. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAko+Kw0ACgkQwRXgH3rKGfN6eACfd6h6GSTWxNVBfrZtoNltfMEo DnAAn38xS/ZhWRryoTS6nu6/z2Ecv56O =Vxqa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 64studio-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
