Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] OSC vs MIDI
From: Steve Harris (S.W.Harris_AT_ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 01 2004 - 11:52:40 EEST
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 01:43:31 -0600, martin rumori wrote:
> AFAIK in the beginning it was never meant as a midi replacement, but
> should -in opposite to midi- not make any assumptions on the musical
> meaning of the data being sent. especially in the field of new music
> or sound art, MIDI is next to completely irrelevant as carrier for
> musical data (but is still used for control data like sensor stuff
> etc, since you can build such a thing with a small pic uC).
>
> however, an "official" way of encapsulating midi in osc would maybe
> push especially some commercial developers to osc, but i guess the
> CNMAT folks don't want to have it in their official spec.
As Dave pointed out there is the 'm' type, but that doesnt fix any of
MIDIs problems, jsut a way of wrapping it in OSC.
I dont really think OSC needs to replace MIDI, if your doing 12 tone,
limited polyphony, bandwisth etc. stuff, which most people are, its fine.
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Sep 01 2004 - 12:40:49 EEST