[gmpi] Re: [OT] Re: 3.15 MIDI
- From: Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:15:39 -0400
>Yes, this is OT.
For sure.
>It doesn't, which is why we have the MIDI Implementation Chart, to
>encourage MIDI gear developers to publish how their devices respond
>to MIDI messages. Then the -sender- can be configured to transmit
>what the receiver wants to see.
actually, these don't address the issue martijn raised, which is a
deep problem in the MIDI spec concerning 14bit CC messages.
>>If only MSB or MSB+LSB is allowed, why did they not choose
>>MSB or LSB+MSB?
>
>I wasn't around at that time, couldn't tell you for sure.
Its just a bit an egregious assumption in the MIDI spec. There seems
to be an assumption that installing a few-msec timeout on receipt of
MSB messages is cheap. For h/w implementations, thats probably
true. For s/w, its often not cheap. There is nothing in the MIDI spec
that even suggests what the timeout should be. If its zero, you will
get zipper noise, if its some other value, you get latency and
computational cost of the timeout. Not to mention extra complications
for parsing (i.e. new bytes cancel the timeout ... or maybe not ... etc)
AFAICT, its a design weakness, perhaps even a flaw - I've never seen
or heard anything yet to contradict this conclusion.
--p
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
