Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] News about sequencers (not my own though!)
From: David Olofson (audiality_AT_swipnet.se)
Date: la tammi 22 2000 - 13:34:53 EST
On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Fredrik wrote:
> I don't doubt that this system could be made to work, but it's not
> backwards-compatible. So why use MIDI?
Exactly. If you need boxes to convert from the new *physical*
interface to MIDI (which requires a microcontroller at the very
least), those boxes might as well do a protocol conversion while
they're at it.
<rant>
I think a replacement that really makes a difference to many users
has a greater chance of being accepted. And as any significant change
here means no backwards compatibility anyway, why bother using stuff
from the protocol of the older standard?
Either MIDI is good enough for external devices - and in that case
we'll just do as we do now; convert from our internal formats to MIDI
- or there will be a new standard. What difference would that make
to the way software is designed? If it actually *does* makes a
difference, it's because the software's design is based on low level
technicalities rather than a sensible abstraction of what it's
supposed to operate on. This is unfortunately the case with most
sequencers I've seen so far...
What I would like to see is a useful protocol designed from the
ground up for the kind of flexibility that native processing systems
provide. If it wasn't for that flexibility, native processing
wouldn't be all that much point! Dedicated DSPs still give better
price/performance, (at lest when you use the system for only one
thing,) and they don't have the timing problems that most workstation
OSs have.
So, I think it kind of makes sense to stop emulating old crap, and go
for a new protocol that fits into the new way of designing multimedia
systems. Or do we still want the 100%-200% extra overhead of MIDI
event parsing, the MSB/LSB problem that Paul described, and still
have protocol extensions to take care of new features, when most of
the "machines" are virtual, or sitting on cards in the workstation?
</rant>
My guess is that it will take longer until we can use native
processing solutions as a real alternative to dedicated hardware, if
emulation of nearly obsolete protocols is cutting away part of the
advantages with native processing. Why emulate the restrictions of
older hardware?
//David
.- M u C o S -------------------. .- A u d i a l i t y ----------------.
| A Free/Open Multimedia | | Rock Solid, Hard Real Time, |
| Plugin & Integration Standard | | Low Latency Signal Processing |
`------> www.linuxdj.com/mucos -' `--> www.angelfire.com/or/audiality -'
.- D a v i d O l o f s o n ------------------------------------------.
| Audio Hacker, Linux Advocate, Open Source Advocate, Singer/Composer |
`----------------------------------------------> audiality_AT_swipnet.se -'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:23:26 EST