• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Mutitimbral - philosophy
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Mutitimbral - philosophy


  • Subject: Re: Mutitimbral - philosophy
  • From: Richard Dobson <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:06:00 +0100

One interesting use of a multi-timbral synth is as a guitar synthesizer. In many such systems, each string is synthesized on a different MIDI Channel, in order that string-bending can be made independent for each string (many controls in MIDI are channel-wide, most significantly pitchbend). At the same time, the "whammy bar" acts on all strings together, and thus is a single parameter change sent to all relevent channels. This must therefore be exact, and it is clearly better to have a single source for this control, and a single distribution point. The neat-n-tidy way is therefore to have a multi-timbral synth to which you can send messages for each of six channels, in conjunction with other messages sent to the instrument. A single instrument that is six-channel polyphonic is not sufficient - we are talking six distinct voices here, but six voices that are very closely associated both philosophically and practically, to say nothing of physically.

As I am merely luking on this list, and therefore not in a position to be actively programming AudioUnits (yet), I am not in the best position to comment, but I do worry about sentiments (which seem to be combined with a deep sniff at anything so lotech as MIDI) which seem to suggest that users should be required/expected to change to fit the software. Maybe this will happen some of the time, but I don't see that it will happen all of the time, so an architecture that fully supports "conventional" multi-timbral instruments, and thus supports loading a single plugin that can function as a guitar synthesiser, is likely to be more popular than one that doesn't!


Richard Dobson


Brian Willoughby wrote:

..
If the only reason for complicating the MusicDevice spec with multitimbral features is to improve the user experience, then I say we do not need this. Let the application developers distinguish their product. ... or, some developers can release libraries or frameworks which implement commonly needed behavior.

If there truly is an important feature which cannot be accomplished without ganging MD units together in a multitimbral MD, then we should examine whether there is another way. ..
_______________________________________________
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.

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Mutitimbral - philosophy
      • From: "Angus F. Hewlett" <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Mutitimbral - A clarification, sort of (From: James Chandler Jr <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Mutitimbral - philosophy (From: Brian Willoughby <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Mutitimbral - philosophy
  • Next by Date: [OT] Linear PCM amplitude
  • Previous by thread: Re: Mutitimbral - philosophy
  • Next by thread: Re: Mutitimbral - philosophy
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread