On 02.01.2025 16:51, Will Godfrey wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:48:16 +0100
ichthyo <p...@ichthyostega.de> wrote:
So maybe it helps if we consider "Omni" to be some kind of
temporary change in channel mapping / routing?
What does it mean then?
Is "Omni" something global?
==> then it would mean that all input is remapped into one single channel
==> this would then also imply that all other channels are disconnected,
i.e. parts configured to another channel would become muted
Or is "Omni" a property associated to some channel?
The MIDI messages (CC 124 and 125) might point into that direction right?
==> then it would mean that a specific channel gets connected to all input
==> while other channels still listen only to MIDI events with that channel
NOTE: with this flavour, several channels could be in "Omni" mode.
Exactly!
Another question is if we even want "Omni" to be some kind of mode,
similar to "Solo". As you know, modes are sometimes a nice concept,
but there is also a tendency for confusion, especially when a mode
has the potential to override settings made elsewhere.
Thus we could also consider to make "Omni" more like a static additional
choice in the mixer / part configuration, so that a part reacts to events
from all MIDI channels. Wouldn't that address your specific case?
Yes, it would. How I first envisioned it is that the dropdown could just
gain one additional "All Channels" choice, in addition to the existing
specific channels.
The reason I didn't advocate for this is because it conflicts with how
Omni is defined in the MIDI standard. If you set it to "All Channels",
then that part would no longer know about any specific channel, and thus
it would not be possible to implement the CC 124 and 125 correctly.
But if we made Omni a separate checkbox, then it would be compatible.
And I think that's what you meant, right?
The question is: If MIDI CC 124 and 125 are used to change Omni mode,
should it be temporary, or should it change that checkbox?
To be completely open, I don't need Omni CC 124 and 125 support for my
use case. I suggested this mainly to tie the whole feature more closely
to the MIDI standard. But I would be ok with simply omitting that for
now and implement Omni purely as a checkbox. It would still be "future
compatible", so we could add the 124 and 125 support later. The upshot
then is that we don't need an answer for the above question.
And it is less work, which I certainly won't object to either. 😄
As we all know, there is a multitude of usage styles for Yoshimi,
which are sometimes difficult to reconcile.
This hits on something I consider very important. Every musician I know has
a different preferred way of working, so with all the work I've done I've tried
to maintain as much flexibility as possible - maybe that's sometimes too much :/
Up to now, Yoshimi tried to keep out of the topic of routing and left
that to the sequencer or DAW, or Jack.
Yet still, in fact we /do/ have some kind of routing, since several strips
in the mixer (i.e. several parts) can be set to receive the same channel.
Indeed. And even caring about channels in the first place means you are
doing some kind of routing. Only pure "any channel" instruments can be
considered non-routing, I think. Yoshimi is far past that point.
--
Kristian
_______________________________________________
Yoshimi-devel mailing list
Yoshimi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/yoshimi-devel
