Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Catching up with XAP
From: Frank van de Pol (fvdpol_AT_home.nl)
Date: Thu Jan 16 2003 - 01:18:52 EET
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:29:20PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
>
> Because that's just the way it is, even if you can "stretch" the
> concept slightly. Ever implemented a MIDI synth?
In fact I did :-)
<snip>
>
> > If you doubt, feel free to come over to my studio and hear my AKAI
> > sampler play multiple times the same sample at the same pitch :-)
>
> I have hardware that does that as well, but it doesn't demonstrate
> anything more than possibly a minor hole in the MIDI specification
> AFAIK, there is no official statement as to whether synths should do
> this or not, and either way, you'll find synths doing it in several
> different ways. "Restart" and "new voice" are just two possibilities.
> (I've mentioned other alternatives previously.)
>
> Anyway, yes, many synths and samplers allocate new voices when you
> send multiple NoteOns for the same pitch, but:
>
> 1. For many sounds, this is simply *incorrect behavior*.
> Examples would be many percussion instruments, most
> string instruments with fixed per-string tuning,
> most pipe, tube, electromechanical and other organs,...
>
> 2. What happens when you send Poly Pressure...? One of two
> things: a) the synth screws up and applies the effect
> on a "random" voice, or b) the synth applies the effect
> on all voicen playing on that pitch.
>
> 3. What happens when you send NoteOff? Well, I have yet
> to see a synth that even tries to match NoteOns and
> NoteOffs - and it would be rather random anyway. What
> happens is that the synth stops *all* notes playing
> that pitch on the channel.
>
> 4. If we were to use separate events for VOICE_ON and
> VOICE_OFF, nothing would prevent XAP synths from doing
> the same thing. (However useless it is, when pitch is
> separated from VVID.)
>
I agree with you David.
>
> > I see the use of the VVIDs but for some reason I get an
> > uncomfortable feeling seeing it; it just reminds me of over
> > engineering and adding unneeded complexity.
>
> So, how do you propose we deal with voice/note addressing? Take the
> MIDI approach, and forget about continous pitch...?
>
>
> > I'm quite glad my MIDI
> > devices are smart enough to do their voice allocation....
>
> And XAP plugins would be no different in any way. VVIDs are just a
> more powerful, but not really fundamentally different addressing
> method.
>
> This is not about voice allocation, but about voice *addressing*.
> I've stated many times before that I specifically *do not* want
> senders to have anything to do with the details of voice allocation.
>
>
> > Sorry, couldn't resist it.
> > Frank.
>
> Sorry, but I still claim that MIDI note pitch is equivalent to VVIDs
> when it comes to voice management. VVIDs are just more powerful. :-)
>
In MIDI all of this is typically worked around by using multiple channels
using the same sounds. I understand your point and must admit that the VVIDs
are indeed very powerful.
Frank.
-- +---- --- -- - - - - | Frank van de Pol -o) A-L-S-A | FvdPol_AT_home.nl /\\ Sounds good! | http://www.alsa-project.org _\_v | Linux - Why use Windows if we have doors available?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jan 16 2003 - 02:11:03 EET