Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Kim, I don't know who pissed in your wheaties, but I'm not going to spar with you other than the brief responses I gave below. I got bored after a while and gave up answering the rest. This is just one guys opinion, or did someone change the right to that and not tell me. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kim Flint" <kflint@loopers-delight.com> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 2:19 PM Subject: Re: Repeater and sync from midi in > At 08:06 AM 7/19/2003, Paul Sanders wrote: > > > At 12:51 PM 7/18/2003, Paul Sanders wrote: > > > > > The repeater will interpret any midi notes received on it's channel to > > > > > be pitch messages. > > > > > > > >I wonder if there is a way around that the developers should have used?! > > > > > > no, they did it right. You should have your drum machine on a different > > > midi channel from the repeater. clock is global, so it doesn't matter what > > > channel the devices are on for sync to midi clock. > > > >I don't consider that *right*. The RIGHT way to do it would be to >develop > >such that this like this wouldn't cause obscure problems for people who > >don't happen to know. > > no, the right way is to follow the midi spec and the standard practice that > every other company follows. If you don't understand basic aspects of how > midi works, that is something for you to correct by learning about it so > you can use midi equipment properly. Electrix shouldn't have to deviate > from the spec just to follow your own particular misunderstandings. What the hell does that have to do with the spec? There's nothing that I can find in the spec that says you can't filter unwanted midi messages. > > >What about the case where a person is sending MIDI > >program changes to the beat box via a MIDI foot controller that only > >supports one midi channel > > that person should not be trying to control two devices with that > controller. That's basic. The whole point of the channels in midi is that > each device gets its own channel. > > If you are going to use such a low end controller you can't expect it to > work for very many applications. I DON'T > > >(like the multitude of FCB1010 users might be > >doing, and I would be doing if I hadn't taken the 1010 back)? They are then > >screwed. > > the FCB1010 can transmit on different midi channels. It does have > limitations, but that is not one of them. You have a different one than I do! I seem to recall the midi channel is set globally. > > >Yes, it WORKS, and there's somewhat of a justification for NOT dealing with > >this, if for no other reason, COST, but since they chose not to do this they > >should have plastered an unmissable caveat in the manual about it! > > there is no issue of cost. It's not clear to me what you think they >should > have done other than follow the midi spec. What would they write in this > caveat? > > "Hi! We followed standard practice in our midi implementation. If you >have > developed your own personal understanding of how midi works that differs > from the MIDI standard, it is possible the Repeater will not work the way > you expect." > > >This is the perspective of a guy who's been a software developer in a world > >where things have to work correctly and robustly (high end commercial Unix > >systems). > > So how come when I use Unix I have to remember all these arcane commands? I > always forget them. The designers of unix clearly did it wrong. I should be > able to type in whatever I think the command is and unix should know what I > meant and do the right thing. Those guys must be idiots. > > kim > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Kim Flint | Looper's Delight > kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com >