Re: Multitimbral Music Devices - Question and Proposal
Re: Multitimbral Music Devices - Question and Proposal
- Subject: Re: Multitimbral Music Devices - Question and Proposal
- From: Bill Stewart <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:16:28 -0700
I guess I have to say something :)
On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 09:51 AM, Urs Heckmann wrote:
Am Dienstag, 15.07.03, um 18:15 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Frank
Hoffmann:
On Dienstag, Juli 15, 2003, at 04:47 Uhr, Urs Heckmann wrote:
Am Dienstag, 15.07.03, um 16:26 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Frank
Hoffmann:
Urs, sorry to insist, but multitimbral Audio Units just add another
layer of unneeded conceptional overhead. There is no need for that
and you can see how much confusion it creates with VST. And there
is still no clear concept how to handle the scenario. Neither on
the host nor on the client side. They just shouldn't. The mistake
was to allow multitimbral plugin in the first place.
The concept of multitimbral comes from hardware synthesizer, where
it made sense for cost reasons. But for the virtual studio there is
simply a lack of need for something like this. Hence somebody wants
to simulate a virtual instrument with say a drum machine and a
synthesis part, why shouldn't he create one Audio Unit for the drum
machine and one for the synthesis part? There is no disadvantage,
but it buys you a lot more flexibility. Of course the virtual
counterfeit wouldn't look exactly like the original anymore. But
this point is mood, you also can't simulate the feeling of actually
touching the keys this > way.
I agree.
But being a tech-punk, I like options.
Yes, I tend to think in the same direction. But we should focus on
User experience. And this is where the pain starts with it. Too many
options can sometimes be a bigger problem, than a clear and simple
rule.
Haha, yes. But the opposite is true as well. Too little options lead
to hassle (see multitimbral softsynths today).
People come up with unusual solutions. In this case, I bet it's hard
to prevent some people from doing so. Offering consistency would be
better. Otherwise one should say "No. Preset/Parameter based Music
Devices must not be multitimbral". Bill?
Yes - that is our strong inclination...
The DLS Synth is multi-timbral, it does respond to program and bank
selects - but this is mainly because its DATA format (whether SoundFont
or DSL banks) have these "locations" hard wired into the banks
themselves.
Now - the preset state of the DLS synth includes the sound bank that it
is using.... It *doesn't* include which parts/MIDI Channels are
currently using which instruments - but that is easily re-established
by sending the appropriate prog change/bank select messages...
As for the rest... hmmm.. still digesting the comments. I can see both
sides to this actually.
Bill
--
mailto:email@hidden
tel: +1 408 974 4056
________________________________________________________________________
__
"Much human ingenuity has gone into finding the ultimate Before.
The current state of knowledge can be summarized thus:
In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded" - Terry Pratchett
________________________________________________________________________
__
_______________________________________________
coreaudio-api mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/coreaudio-api
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.