On Friday 16 June 2006 8:41 pm, you wrote: > I can play GM sounds from my keyboard with rosegarden but not any of my > synth sounds or non GM sounds. I see know that I have to create a bank > but I thought I would be able to (and would really like to) get > rosegarden to simply record the midi data that comes in even if it > doesn't understand it so it can replay it through the keyboard. e.g > simply use rosegarden as a midi data storage device with the bonus of > data editing and hydrogen support. > > Would i really have to make a new definition for each new sound? or can > rosegarden understand the synth commands?
OK, so the problem is you're recording program changes Rosegarden doesn't know anything about, and Rosegarden is just ignoring and dumping them. This leaves you no real choice but to define programs for your gear, even though you really have no particular need or desire to do that. It's extra work for you to get to a place that any other MIDI sequencer would be out of the box. Is that about the size of it? Well, how about that developer folks? What about dragging this dead horse back out and beating on it again? This user has a legitimate point here. The one job we do best at this point is that of MIDI sequencer, but MIDI sequencers capture raw data, and allow users to replay or manipulate it. If we ignore program changes that do not have names associated with them, then we are not capturing all of the available data, and that seems wrong. We had a discussion about this about three years ago, I guess, and I tried to mitigate it by offering some .rgd files full of numbers. It didn't quite work out like I intended. The one that was supposed to have *all* possible numbers defined actually doesn't for some reason, and if I had gotten the for loops right in the script that generated it, the result would have been ridiculously gigantic anyway. I decided to let it go, because 128 banks of 128 variations of 128 programs (or whatever) is a metric buttload of XML tags for very little real purpose. The only one that's useful is the one that has just one bank of 128 numbers, which could be loaded into any slot where it's known ahead of time it is required. That could solve this user's problem if he knew where all these program changes we're ignoring were, and could pave the way to capture them by putting numbers there. It sounds like a lot of useless tedium for him to me. Why don't we just capture programs and associate a number with them ourselves? They transmit LSB 3 MSB 35 PRG 97 to Rosegarden, we see that it isn't in their studio, so we put an "unknown 97" into this document's studio at LSB 3 MSB 35 PRG 97, and capture, store, and allow the subsequent retransmission of this data. I don't think that would ever be wrong, and it might be a satisfactory way to split the difference. One of the arguments against our dealing with raw numbers in the first place is that it provides the very nice mechanism whereby if there's nothing there for my synth, I don't have to wade through a bunch of useless junk. There are only three variations in this bank, I only see three names to choose from, which I *quite* like. My memories of Cakewalk are vague and distant by this point, but I'm fairly certain Cakewalk offered no such nice, clean view. I seem to recall having to sift through reams of meaningless numbers to get to those isolated jewels. Although even this might not quite get it all right. We've certainly had complaints as well about wanting to be able to enter and transmit arbitrary program changes without all this bother, and in the proposal I've just outlined, they would still be faced with the same problem of getting some non-null text into the appropriate slots in order to be able to do that. I've offered one of my numbers banks to these people in the past, but perhaps what we really need is just a global toggle to operate in raw numbers mode, and make every number in every bank available for transmission, on top of whatever named programs might already be there. Turn if off for my preferred clean look, and turn it on for the people who face a lot of senseless tedium without it. I'm CCing this around because this is an important point, and I don't trust the way I never, ever see any of my own posts to our lists. -- D. Michael 'Silvan' McIntyre ---- Silvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621 Author of Rosegarden Companion http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/ _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list Rosegarden-devel@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
