Re: MIDI through ...or Out/Through

[Matthias Grob <matilists@gmail.com>]

you are right Andy, I did not sell the without version at all :-)

sure I will merge the input to the output just like the EDP
I must that this ads a delay, which is small compared to laptops and older 
gear with slow processor or new gear that often runs with Linux because we 
have a 500MHz ARM processor without OS (they call bare metal programming 
now what we naturally did in the past, the EDP was even bare assembler 
:-), 
[  I hope we can treat everything within 8 audio samples = 180us (the EDP 
used 32, the laptops usually 64 or more)
still, we need to let the 3 bytes come in to analyse and then send out 
again. MIDI is 1MHz: 1us/bit, 24us/message
so its 24us to read, 180us to treat and 24us to write and we should stay 
below 0.25ms right?  ]

but tradition says that in to out adds delay and it will be difficult to 
convince everyone with such calculations :-)

another good argument for the thru might be that the out is ocupied
for example: 
in - the pedal
thru - to another unit that is controlled by the same pedal
out - sync to some drum machine

the cost is not shocking. parts with drilling, soldering, testing probably 
adds less than 5$ to the end price
its a rather big connector, I asked because I wanted to save space.
but it looks like the lack of the connector hurts more people than a 15mm 
longer box :-)

thank you!
Matthias

On 12.Apr, 2014, at 10:06 AM, andy butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> well,
> there *will* be a bunch of yes answers for a question put like this.
> 
> Lets remember that every feature has a cost, either $$$
> or in terms of *other features*.
> 
> Question:-
> 
> For Evoloop, is there good reason why the midi Thru function.
> can't be handled by merging the input to midi Out?
> 
> Is there a real need for a *dedicated* Midi Thru socket?
> 
> 
> andy
> 
> On 11/04/2014 23:17, Louie Angulo wrote:
>> Yes yes yes midi thru!
>> 
>