On 04.01.2025 12:14, Will Godfrey wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 11:37:39 +0100
Kristian Amlie <krist...@amlie.name> wrote:
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.
Overall I'd be quite happy with this. However, I still have questions.
How would it relate to MIDI-Learn?
What effect would it have on Vector control - or indeed, any of 32 or 64 parts?
These come before any of the normal routing. Indeed, MIDI-learn has the ability
to block any further access to a CC/CH pair.
For MIDI learn, it's simple: It's unaffected. It already has its own
MIDI selector, which already includes an "All" option. Everything that
has to do with the part level Omni mode is handled only by MIDI messages
that make it through MIDI learn first, without being blocked.
Vector is a feature I've never used personally, so I'm much less
familiar with it [1]. However, given that it controls more than one
part, it probably has to act the same as MIDI learn, IOW it does not
respect Omni mode, but respects its own base channel instead.
[1] However, I like it! Maybe I'll us it more now that I took the time
to figure out how it works.
--
Kristian
_______________________________________________
Yoshimi-devel mailing list
Yoshimi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/yoshimi-devel
