On Saturday 04 September 2004 09:47 am, Chris Cannam wrote: > On Friday 03 Sep 2004 17:05, Silvan wrote: > > I've got a composition where there's some kind of strange instrument > > confusion. Same device. Instrument/channel 7 and instrument/channel 3. > > Different programs. > > You're quite sure that instrument 7 was actually on channel 7 and > instrument 3 was actually on channel 3? It is possible (using the channel > combo on the instrument parameter box) to set more than one instrument to > the same channel. I've never been totally sure why we permit that, but > there you go.
I triple checked, and that wasn't it. I don't have time to get into trying to set up a repeat, but memory says it was something like this: track 3 -> device A/connection A -> instrument/channel 3 track 4 -> device B/connection B -> instrument/channel 3 Then I changed it to track 3 -> device A/connection A -> instrument/channel 3 track 4 -> device B/connection A -> instrument/channel 3 which created a conflict; different devices, different instruments, but the same connection Then I changed it to track 3 -> device A/connection A -> instrument/channel 3 track 4 -> device A/connection A -> instrument/channel 4 which gets it to different instrument/channel on the same device/connection. It should have been sorted out at this point, but something internally was out of whack. There's something going on here, but like I said, I did eventually manage to reassign my way past it, so it's a nuissance rather than a showstopper. It brings up an interesting thought though. The reason I did this, ultimately, was because I was rearranging the-rose-garden.rg to be more readily playable as a testfile on a single-device system. I wrongly expected that all the extra devices in this file would take the same connection, since it was the only connection available. Specifically, since there was no external MIDI port on the target machine, I expected the device that expected to be connected to external MIDI to automatically re-connect itself to the only available port, which happened to be QSynth. When I subsequently re-assigned the connection manually to bring that about, in the middle part of the example, I of course created strange problems with two different devices, with different understandings of what was on the other side, trying to connect to the same equipment. So what I was expecting to happen in this example wouldn't actually have been useful behavior anyway. I'm thinking furthermore it might even be a good idea to limit connections such that it's not possible to assign the same connection to multiple devices. I can't think of a reason why that would be useful to do, and I can think of a lot of ways for it to cause mayhem such as I experienced. I think perhaps it was that intermediate mayhem that caused the underlying confusion that left things out of step even after I had gone to the last stage of putting everything pointing right there at the end. -- Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621 http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/ http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
