Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Sorry about that reply thing Chris ... -----Original Message----- From: Chris Muir [mailto:cbm@well.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:08 AM To: m.lameyer@verizon.net Subject: Re: music networking - ZIPI and OSCP (was RE: new HW/SW trend?) At 3:39 PM -0500 1/21/03, Michael LaMeyer wrote: [re: ZIPI and OSCP] >Implementing this protocol would require manufacturers to broadly accept >this as a standard and essentially abondon MIDI altogether, if I'm not >mistaken. Seems unlikely given the immense investment everyone's already >put into MIDI. mLAN is essentially an attempt to get around some >limitations with MIDI without asking everyone and their mother to toss >MIDI >out the window. Alas, I wish we would. ;-) Much of the discussion regarding MIDI gets muddied because no distinction is made between transport layer issues (e.g. MIDI is slow) and the music description language (e.g. MIDI's note on message locks together three parameters that should be separate: time, pitch and loudness). For example, in the MMA (MIDI Manufacturers Association) there is a Transport Layer Working Group, that deals with sending MIDI messages over other transports (e.g. USB, Ethernet, Firewire). While transport layer problems do need addressing, the hard problem is in addressing the deficiencies of MIDIs music description. At the time of ZIPI's introduction the MMA's response to ZIPI was something along the lines of "How do we deal with the ZIPI threat?". At this point in time I feel that the MMA is mature enough to embrace any serious effort to improve it. There is a new effort underway, OpenMuse, to discuss and create solutions to both these problems. I'm hoping that a community builds around OpenMuse. The website is still pretty vacant, but more information is on its way <http://openmuse.org/> Chris -- http://www.xfade.com/ | In theory, there is no difference between cbm@well.com | theory and practice. In practice, there is.