Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Repeater and sync from midi in

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.


----- 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
> > >
> > > no, they did it right. You should have your drum machine on a
> > > midi channel from the repeater. clock is global, so it doesn't matter
> > > 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 
> >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
> 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 
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.


> >(like the multitude of FCB1010 users might be
> >doing, and I would be doing if I hadn't taken the 1010 back)? They are
> >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 

> >Yes, it WORKS, and there's somewhat of a justification for NOT dealing
> >this, if for no other reason, COST, but since they chose not to do this
> >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 
> 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 
> 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
> >where things have to work correctly and robustly (high end commercial
> >systems).
> So how come when I use Unix I have to remember all these arcane commands?
> always forget them. The designers of unix clearly did it wrong. I should
> able to type in whatever I think the command is and unix should know what
> 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