On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:29:20PM +0100, David Olofson wrote: > > 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 agree with you David. > > > 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. :-) > 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 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] /\\ Sounds good! | http://www.alsa-project.org _\_v | Linux - Why use Windows if we have doors available?
