Re: ANYONE KNOW THE MIDI PEDAL SCHEME FOR THE ECHOPLEX?

[buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)]

>Using program change messages for executing functions on the echoplex is
>problematic, for one thing because it would interfere with us using it for
>the intended purpose defined in the midi standard of changing programs.

Why not just have a simple global toggle:
  current behavior
and
  use-program-change-messages for general control

I can't see it being that much software work to provide both
(the usual reason why it's not worth supporting multiple
interfaces).

>Changing the interface to work with program change messages makes
>it less intuitive and harder to use, and some functions won't be available
>at all. And that's opposed to our general design philosophy for Loop. All
>of our efforts are focused on designing an interface that is musically
>useful and intuitive. We wouldn't want to release something that gives
>anyone a lesser experience with Loop.

But, the marketplace reality is that plenty of people
seem to have pedals that don't produce the needed
messages.  If those people _don't_ buy a compatible
footpedal, that is, if they buy it out of the box,
for the price you're (ok, Oberheim) selling it,
they're left with no footpedal interface at all.

Is this really "more musically useful and intuitive"?

I don't know _what_ it is you communicate with the
"missing data", but how can it be worse than what's
on the front of the rack face?  If "note-on" is used
to select a loop, and you make some use of the
velocity as well (to determine the volume of the loop?),
how does a user using the rackface or the _official_
pedalboard ever get this effect?

I guess you're missing the "note-off"s, which would
make a difference where your interface has special
meanings for "press and hold this button, then press
this other button", but eventually you remap those
to some unique "operation"--just provide one program
change for each operation, and let people program the
ones they use into their footpedal however they want.

I understand and wholeheartedly support coherent,
intuitive user-interface designs.  And I _totally_
agree philosophically with the problems with using
program-control messages for non-program-y events.
Abusing a standard (e.g. MIDI) can undermine the
success of such a standard.  But MIDI _is_ already
solidly grounded, and there's (apparently) lots of
people with such pedals, who are currently surviving
on an coherent, relatively intuitive design (actually
it sounds a bit overconstrained by the limited number
of buttons--a little too modal) which they can only
access with their hands--which in the end rather
makes it not-very-easy-to-use.

To reiterate--people are already using it in a
horribly clumsy manner, if they've got the wrong
kind of MIDI pedalboard.  Is it really an outrage
to provide a special mode and a hundred lines of
code to make it more useable?

Sean Barrett
don't look at me, I don't even own an EDP