Dennis Schulmeister wrote: > So the idea is to decouple patch selection from the sequencers. A > sequencer would just send MIDI data to a MIDI port offered to it by JSM. > JSM in turn would provide the necessary means to select a patch from any > synthesizer available. > The idea is to provide the JSM with a patch and synth (and other metadata) database, and a mechanism for sequencers to connect to and query the database. So patch selection will happen in the sequencer in the classical sense: I imagine that a "patch" database entry will contain the necessary information the sequencer needs in order to get the right sound from it's midi tracks: The port to connect to (A JSM jack midi input port), the midi channel and the required program and bank changes. The only thing that changes inside the sequencer is that it doesn't have to care about midi metadata, it gets it for free from the JSM. The sequencer is entirely free as to whether it wants to read the JSM database or not. The same old midi data is sent, and it can be set up by hand using low level midi numbers if one wants that instead. > > Of course for such a feature an arbitrary large library of meta-data of > all patches of all MIDI-capable synthesizers ever built and written > would be needed. :) > > Metadata for most synths are available via a simple google search. The plan for JSM is to be able to read and import the standard instrument definition formats and put the instrument definitions in it's database, ready for sequencers to read. Some of the patch categorization has to be set up by hand, but some of it could also be automated due to the nature of naming patches what they sound like: A patch that sounds like a piano will likely have "piano" somewhere in its patch name, and JSM will hopefully correctly deduce that it belongs in the "piano" category.
-Audun Halland- _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
