On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:42:58PM +0100, Nick Copeland wrote:
> I think there is a bit of confusion on this thread (and said so in one of my replies)
I think you're absolutely right about the confusion, and
it's not just you being confused.
For me, MIDI is just 1) a way to encode data, and 2) to
get it from A to B. It has some severe limitations, one
of them being that it has no credible semantics for
continuous control. The only way is to send a stream of
parameter updates, and then it all depends on the receiver
if this results in a 'staircase' or a smooth trajectory.
The advantage of a defined rate (audio or sub-audio) 'CV'
style data type is that at least that interpretation is
defined - it is bandlimited by its sample rate and that
more or less imposes the only valid way to interpret it.
Another limitation of MIDI is its handling of context,
the only way to do this is by using the channel number.
There is no way to refer to anything higher level, to
say e.g. this is a control message for note #12345 that
started some time ago.
As far a I can see, any application dealing with control
data should offer MIDI only as one possible I/O format,
but certainly not use it internally, or be based on it.
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
Linux-audio-dev mailing list