On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Emanuel Rumpf <xbran@web.de> wrote:
> Am 3. März 2012 23:29 schrieb Paul Davis <paul@linuxaudiosystems.com>:
>>
>>> OSC
>>
>> this general language is the whole problem.
>>
>> you can't send OSC to "an OSC capable plugin" or "an external OSC
>> application" in any generalized sense, because there is no shared
>> format for the messages.
>>
>> the sequence of messages that you record may make sense to Pure Data,
>> but make absolutely no sense to, say, CSound.
>>
>> the motivation to develop the infrastructure for recording, playback,
>> disk storage and editing of such messages is not very strong when any
>> given sequence can only target one particular OSC receiver. the
>> motivation isn't zero, to be clear. but it just isn't that strong.
>>
>>> I don't know if it's of practical use for anyone else, but time and again I
>>> would have had good use for this apparently simple feature. If anyone knows
>>> a sequencer or DAW which can do what I sketched out above, please do tell
>>> me. OSC has been around since 1997, for crying out loud. It's about time
>>> that sequencers do more with it than just automatizing the transport
>>> controls. ;-)
>>
>> then its about time that people using OSC start defining some
>> standardized messages. MIDI did this from the start, and for all of
>> its limitations, its been a wild success. the OSC community has
>> self-consciously avoided doing this - lets queue up another pointless
>> argument about how to represent notes/frequencies/intervals - and as a
>> result is still only a niche protocol with every transmitter and
>> receiver defining their own messages. double fail ...
>>
>>
>
> I totally agree.
> Actually OSC missed the point of MIDI.
> (Or there was no intention to acctually become a replacement !? )
>
> There should at least be an accepted, standardized
> way for transmission of MIDI data over OSC !
>
> I've started a draft:
> http://wiki.linuxaudio.org/wiki/user/emrum/midi-osc-map
>
Yes, OSC is useless as it comes out of the box. So is TCP. So is
access to audio hardware. It's a transport mechanism. Look to
libmapper for a way to make it generally useful. I've implemented
something similar for useful OSC signaling in Non-*, but it's
conceptually the same as libmapper and (currently imaginary) JACK OSC
ports. Generic Input and output signals which can be connected to one
another without requiring each party to be separately configured. And,
for the record, liblo defines a MIDI datatype for transport of midi
over OSC--although I don't see much point to doing that, as it merely
combines the deficiencies of both.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Mar 4 12:15:01 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 04 2012 - 12:15:02 EET