From alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz  Thu Feb 25 18:48:50 1999
Received: from smtp1.mindspring.com (smtp1.mindspring.com [207.69.200.31])
	by marvin.jcu.cz (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA18657
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:48:31 +0100
Received: from [207.205.237.90] (pool-207-205-237-90.dlls.grid.net [207.205.237.90])
	by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA04044
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:48:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199902251748.MAA04044@smtp1.mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Instrument abstract layer 
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 99 11:49:17 -0000
From: Data <data@havoc.gtf.org>
To: <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Reply-To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Sender: alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz
Precedence: list

Paul Barton-Davis

>is there a good reason for not using the same kind of model that
>several synths do ? Components:
...

Yes, quite.  The instrument spec looks interesting, but for my work at 
least, doesn't do me much good.  In my studio, we have over ten 
synthesisers, and two samplers; we do patch management with a program 
called SoundDiver, running on a Mac.  It talks to the synthesisers and 
other devices (like our effects processors) via MIDI sys-ex.  We don't 
use GS or XG specifications or formats at all, and I doubt we ever will.  
Honestly I don't know a great deal about them, except that they're an 
attempt to make system exclusive a bit less 'exclusive' - something which 
does no good for our numerous older machines.  Even some new Yamaha 
instruments have nothing to do with XG - for example, the FS1R - because 
they have very different architectures than the 
sample-playback-subtractive assumed by XG and GS.  And General MIDI is 
nothing more than a standard way of associating program changes to 
sounds, and note numbers to drum sounds.  It has nothing to do with patch 
editing etc.
  I can see this sort of thing being of great utility for games and such 
which need to generate tunes via computer soundcards.  That's the sort of 
thing for which GM, GS and XG were designed.  Beyond that soundfonts and 
other such things are not used (to my knowledge) in professional 
situations at all.  If I were writing, for example, a patch librarian for 
ALSA, and I had this instrument spec, I could do one of two things: 
ignore it and use sys-ex entirely, and not worry at all about things like 
internal soundcards; or I could add this instrument layer support as a 
separate function, and make it entirely dedicated to controlling 
soundcards, which my users would have limited interest in.
  So - if the IAL is to assume a GM/GS/XG/soundfont sort of focus, I'd 
leave it at that.  It will then be used by people writing game software; 
it will be ignored by people writing pro music apps.  Might be a good 
thing to keep in mind - I don't know who the intended users of this 
instrument layer are.  (And it's pretty hard to satisfy pro music types 
.. :) )

cheers
Michael Ashton

