[gmpi] Re: NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to make

  • From: "Didier Dambrin" <didid@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:10:44 +0100

NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to makeFrom what I've read in this mailing 
list, some were interested in having the plugin system 'own' voices, being able 
to change their parameters on the fly (allowing host-handled portamento & 
arpeggiators), while it ended up working with MIDI internally.

I can understand the need to work with MIDI internally for sequencers that have 
a strong MIDI background, but still I find it more interesting for the host to 
own the voices, and not just trigger them (1-way communication). 




  >>>
  And I didn't mean not 'talking MIDI' (in & out), but working with MIDI 
internally, which is limiting things just like VST is limited. 
  <<<

  I'm not suggesting that we use MIDI internally.  After some very long 
discussion during the summer we agreed that internally we should use something 
else, but that whatever we use should interoperate with MIDI with a minimal 
amount of pain.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. gmpi
  3. Archive
  4. 01-2005