[gmpi] Re: Parameters / controls / GMPI event system - refreshment

  • From: Chris Grigg <gmpi-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:34:25 -0800

Well, any plug writer can break any rule or recommended behavior at any time, so I don't really see why you're a bit stuck on that point.

The question, I guess, is whether the spec should include a default, preferred practice for how plugs respond to vpid's. I would say yes, and that the rule should be that the same vpid should be associated with a given allocated real voice until the note dies.

And on the second question, whether instrument patches should be able to emit hints to the host about non-default vpid handling within the plug, for possible transmission back to a HW controller, so it knows when operating in various modes makes sense, again I would say yes. Unsolved is what the mechanism would be to transmit that hint to a controller; seems to me like a good purpose for a GMPI message.

        -- Chris G.

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:01:22AM -0800, Chris Grigg wrote:
 Tim, the problem has to do with one thing you keep saying without
 supporting:
 >What the plugin chooses to do with *REAL* voices doesn't matter from the
 >host's side.  Assume it will do The Right Thing for the patch in question.
 >...
 >And I think the sender owning the decision is wrong - it's dependant on
 >>the patch.

 IMO this really is the wrong assumption.  The sender -wants- to be in
 control.  It's -good- to allow the sender to be in control.  The
 sender is, after all, the musician.  Ron's right, a given plug may do
 something stooopid like losing the ID on a given note during release,
 but that's just a sign of a lame plug, not a well-designed system.

Whether you call it stoopid or not, it's allowed - that's really my point. If you take sequence written for a monosynth and route it to a polysynth, it will work just fine. If you take a sequence written for a polysynth and route it to a monosynth, you will get a mono performance, not too surprising. If you have some other style of instrument which has more finely-tuned (pardon the pun) voice detailing, then you may get a surpirse.

That's ok and not unexpected.

 The preferred/default plug behavior should be to respect the voice
 allocation hints that the sender provides in the IDs, so therefore to
 get mono performance the sender can re-use the same ID for subsequent
 notes, and to get poly performance the sender can ++ID at each new
 note.

I think we're in agreement, except I am a bit more forgiving about plugins doing what they want with VPIDs than you. :)

Now, do instrumnets need to provide a preferred voice allocation hint?

(how did we get on this topic?  I'm still thinking about plugin structural
enumeration :)

Tim

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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


----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: