Re: [Rosegarden-devel] Program Changes and Bank Selects

[D. M. M. <ros...@gm...>]

On 11/02/2014 10:09 PM, Ted Felix wrote:

>     Those checkboxes allow the user to disable the sending of bank
> selects and program changes on specific tracks.  This is what would move
> to the studio (device).

I see now.

>     The key example for me is my DX7 which goes silent whenever rg talks
> to it.  This is because the DX7 can't handle bank selects.  So, I have
> to remember to uncheck "Bank" on every DX7 track.  Not a big deal, but
> it would be convenient if the DX7 device file were capable of
> understanding that the DX7 doesn't like bank selects.

I see the why, but I wonder about the how.

No matter what device definition I have loaded, I might actually be 
using something completely different.  Say I load your file put together 
for a DX7, and I want to control some piece of kit that doesn't lend 
itself to any device definition, like Aeolus?

Now instead of just using the readily available controls to send 
whatever I want to Aeolus (understanding that what I see is not what I 
will get, due to the mismatch), I've got to go pick some other, equally 
incorrect device definition to use instead, and I've got to find a 
device that has this stuff enabled.

It really points at the fact that Rosegarden doesn't have any good 
support for having NO device defined, and just working with absolutely 
raw MIDI by the numbers.  I've attempted to hack around this in various 
ways over the years, and there really isn't a good solution.  We don't 
let you transmit bank n or program n or whatever n unless it's defined 
in the studio.  The way around that is to make a device that defines all 
127 banks of 127 programs and all 127 controllers as numbers, but that 
ends up being an ENORMOUS device definition that swallows oceans of 
memory for no good reason, and it's ridiculously unwieldy and 
practically impossible to use as such.

Get around the latter problem, it obviates the need to worry about the 
former problem, and then having device definitions that precisely match 
a given piece of kit make perfect sense, including being able to specify 
that using bank changes or program changes or whatever with this 
particular device is forbidden, and should be disabled.

Hmm...  Thinking off the cuff, not analyzing...  Food for thought.



>     Maybe the best approach would be to give the author of the device
> file the power to specify the exact order in which the patches will
> appear in the combobox?  That would allow them to organize things
> appropriately to match the synth's front panel.

There are definitely pieces of kit out there where the user just sees 
buttons that count from 0 to 1099 in sequential order across innumerable 
banks and programs.  Those things don't map well in any MIDI sequencer 
I've ever used, and Rosegarden is no better and no worse than everything 
else in this regard.

There are tasty things about the idea, but I'm not much in favor of 
getting into that.  Since you weren't going there anyway, I'll just 
whistle right along on that one.
-- 
D. Michael McIntyre