> OSC doesn't define one set of messages with standard semantics Not true: that's what the SYN namespace is for. See https://github.com/fabb/SynOSCopy/wiki. OSC and MIDI approached this from opposite directions. MIDI began with a standard set of commands, then added a mechanism for vendor specific extensions. OSC began with a generic transport protocol then added a standardized set of commands later. But the result is basically the same.
> About using OSC with FluidSynth, the fact is that FluidSynth is a SoundFont > synthesizer, and SoundFonts (along with DLS) are also MIDI technologies. SoundFonts are much more flexible than MIDI. For example, here are some of the advantages of OSC over MIDI that I particularly care about: - You can have an effectively unlimited number of channels. - You aren't restricted to an equal tempered tuning system, or any tuning system at all. You can specify an arbitrary pitch for every note. - You can freely change the pitch of a note after it begins playing, which makes slurs and portamentos possible. - Pressure is specified per note, not per channel. I don't believe there's anything about SoundFonts that prevents you from doing these things. It's just that there's no way to express them with the MIDI protocol. > I'm not sure if your message means that you offer yourself as a volunteer to > work in the subject and you want to ask if it would be a good idea Yes, that's always the issue, isn't it? :) Ok, I may regret this, but sure. I'd be willing to help implement it. Peter _______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list fluid-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
