Re: Multitimbral Music Devices - Question and Proposal
Re: Multitimbral Music Devices - Question and Proposal
- Subject: Re: Multitimbral Music Devices - Question and Proposal
- From: Frank Hoffmann <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:09:08 +0200
On Mittwoch, Juli 16, 2003, at 09:57 Uhr, Philippe Wicker wrote:
On Wednesday, July 16, 2003, at 02:16 AM, Bill Stewart wrote:
I guess I have to say something :)
On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 09:51 AM, Urs Heckmann wrote:
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...
As I said above I began developing some AUs, one of them being a
"multi-instrument" MusicDevice. I say "multi-instrument" because I'm
not sure of what people exactly mean when mentioning mono-timbral and
multi-timbral plugins. In my understanding, both mono-timbral and
multi-timbral plugins are able to play parts (a part = an instrument +
a midi channel + some parameters), a multi-timbral plugin being able
to play several parts at the same time.
This is not the strict definition of multitimbral, but the definition
relevant here. multitimbral means only that an instrument can produce
more than one sound at a time. This can be in one part and on one midi
channel. For example a drum machine is usually multitimbral. But there
is also no real definition of parts afaik. You can say a drum machine
has several parts that listen to a note range on the same midi channel.
This points out that multitimbral is not a problem, but multi parted
(by seeing a drum machine as only one part).
I agree with folks saying that it would be much simpler (for the host
and probably also for the plugin designers) to consider that an
instance of a multi-timbral plugin behaves like a mono-timbral
MusicDevice and that if a user wants to play at the same time another
part, then he does this by instantiating the MusicDevice one more
time. However, it remains that each instance is still a
multi-instrument plugin and a user may want to change the instrument
of the part played by that instance on the fly. When I was doing a lot
of music (a few years ago) I was using Cubase version 5 and 2 external
sound generators (SC88 and Akai S2800). Each midi track provided a
popup menu allowing to select the destination device, and another
popup allowing to change the instrument on the fly (while the
sequence is playing). It was very handy, particularly when you're
prototyping your song (as James Chandler Jr says in one of his
postings).
But isn't it more a problem of the host application that prototyping is
difficult. I would blame Cubase and not ask for multitimbral
instruments. IMHO it is not a good idea to adjust the standard and
invent workarounds because of flaws of the host app. This will produce
more problems on the long run than solving anything.
To sum up. Yes for a new plugin instance for each part intended to be
played concurrently with the others. No new instance if you "simply"
want to replace a part by another (I should say to be more accurate if
you want to change the instrument and the parameters within a given
part).
Again, the problem is the host.
Philippe Wicker
email@hidden
Frank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
frank hoffmann mailto: email@hidden
ableton ag
http://www.ableton.com
_______________________________________________
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.