Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Catching up with XAP
From: David Olofson (david_AT_olofson.net)
Date: Thu Jan 16 2003 - 21:54:59 EET
On Thursday 16 January 2003 18.39, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
[...]
> 2. A poly synth. Here normally 'a new note is a new note', and
> things like the effect described above are not possible because
> the synth does not know the relations between the existing set
> of notes and any new ones. Anther example, you play a 3-note chord,
> and then a second one, and you want notes to slide individually
> from the first chord to the second. Once your masterpiece is in
> MIDI format it't impossible to find out which notes are related.
>
> If course, if you try to play this on a keyboard, you can not even
> express what you want, but that only a limitation of the the
> interface, and should not imply that it can't be done.
Right. With a guitar synth, you generally have individual control of
6 channels, so that would be one controller you can use for this. A
tablet with two tools and/or using X and Y as two pitch controls
would be another alternative.
> If you look
> beyond the traditional 'pop' music scene, lots of composers are
> using other means to enter their scores, such as scripts or even
> algorithms.
Yes, that's a good point.
I also think it's important to note that score editors, piano rolls
and the like can make use of this rather easilly. The easiest way is
to have an optional feature that reuses the released VVID with the
closest pitch. You could also insert that information manually.
(Obviously, both methods work even if the data was recorded from a
keyboard or other controller.) In a piano roll, you could just link
notes with "rubber band" lines from the end of one note to the start
of the next, or something like that, to mark them as chained.
> What should be clear from this, is that as a results of the
> limitations of MIDI, a poly synth is *not* the same thing as a set
> of mono synths.
>
> If you want that (polyphony by a set of mono synths) the only way
> to get it is by abusing the channel mechanism. This forces you to
> work in a way that is completely different from normal poly mode,
> which is extremely unpractical.
Yes... Especially if you have a braindead sequencer that won't let
you edit multiple channels at once in the piano roll. :-(
> Anyway channels are not meant for
> this, they are meant to multiplex data intended for different
> devices over a single cable.
Exactly. Using multiple channels with the same patch might even
result in significant waste of resources, unless the synth is smart
enough to share data internally. If the synth has internal channel
insert effects, you may not even be able to avoid running multiple
instances of any effects you use.
> The explicit use of VVIDs would allow us to unify the interface to
> the 'normal' (in the MIDI sense) polyphonic synth, and the 'set of
> of monophonic synths'.
Yes.
> And it would indeed allow the player to take the normally automatic
> voice assignment into his own hands, but it does *not* force him to
> do so.
Right. You have broken MIDI style polyphony (can't tell notes with
the same pitch apart), completely individual notes as well as chained
notes, all with the same interface.
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. |
| RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. |
`---------------------------> http://olofson.net/audiality -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jan 16 2003 - 21:56:12 EET