Re: MIDI Bank Select proposal (was Re: [fluid-dev] Re: Son of ticket #65)

[David Henningsson]

2010-08-10 08:01, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas skrev:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2010, Elimar Green wrote:
>> It seems simple enough to revert the behavior to 1.0.9 functionality.
>> This should work fine in most cases, as far as the whole MSB is
>> actually LSB when only the MSB is received.
>>
>> I can understand David wanting to release ASAP, since he has been
>> waiting for a while to do so.  But I think the behavior of the bank
>> switching should be dealt with, since I see it as being pretty trivial
>> to fix and a significant enough of an issue.  This doesn't mean
>> implementing the MIDI mode setting at this time.  It simply just needs
>> to be reverted to the previous behavior, which means that if only the
>> MSB is received prior to a Program Change, then it should be
>> interpreted as LSB.  If both MSB and LSB are received, they should
>> combine to select the bank (once the Program Change is received) as
>> MSB * 128 + LSB.  In cases where a MIDI file or device is expecting GS
>> behavior, I don't think it would ever send an LSB message.  So this
>> logic should work in all MIDI modes.  There were no complaints about
>> this in 1.0.9 and previous.
>>
>> Lets put off the MIDI mode switching logic, SYSEX interpretation, etc.
>>  The code has already been implemented and could be taken from SVN
>> history, but it would need to be integrated with the new code base,
>> tested, etc.
>>
>> How does that sound?
>>
>> Elimar
> 
> I agree that we can leave the SYSEX stuff for a future release, avoiding the  
> risk of spend too much time implementing and testing this feature. In 
> addition to your code, I've included similar functionality in kmidimon.
> 
> I disagree with simply reverting to 1.0.9, because adding a new  
> setting "midi.bank-select" with several options is easy enough, and may be 
> needed for accurate playback of different songs. In my opinion, the default 
> should be the awe32 mode, as recommended by the appendix 1 of the SF2 
> standard.

Fair enough, go ahead. I would say we skip the "awe32" alias though, I
think it causes confusion to have two setting values doing the same thing.

// David