Am Do., 12. Dez. 2019 um 12:03 Uhr schrieb Tom M. via fluid-dev <fluid-dev@nongnu.org>: > Here, we are talking about a corner-case, when events have the same > timestamp. [...] Implementations are subject to change. And because this > corner-case hasn't been communicated to the user, I don't really consider it > to be a change in behaviour.
Ok, that sounds reasonable. > I was thinking about how to turn this undefined behaviour in a well-defined > one (at least for fluidsynth). That also sounds good. I think we only differ in our idea of what would be the best or most natural behaviour. :-) > Attached is a (simplified) MIDI file illustrating the problem. It starts two > different notes at the same time. After some delay it starts the same note > pair again, after that but still at the same tick, it turns off the notes. > After another delay, it starts the same two notes again and turns them off > right at the same tick. > When playing it with fluidsynth you will only hear the first note pair > sounding, ie. after 8 sec. there'll silence. When you import the MIDI in an > editor like rosegarden, qtractor or MuSE, they correctly recognize that there > are two note pairs, making the MIDI file sound for 16 sec. (The treatment of > the zero length notepair at the end differs between the programs though... > not of interest to us anyway). LMMS however, only recognized the first note > pair. Thanks, very interesting, especially the MuSE, Rosegarden et al. behaviour! Still... I don't understand how their behaviour is "correct" and Fluidsynths behaviour isn't. It seems like we simply have different "gut feelings" about what's right here. As I mainly deal with real-time MIDI, the event order makes absolute sense to me. Doing custom orderings in the synth just feels wrong. But this is such a small change and in a part of Fluidsynth that I don't really use, so let me just register my -0 for this change and then I'll shut my mouth :-) > In case somebody is interested in my progress with the C++ implementation, > here's the current dev branch: > https://github.com/FluidSynth/fluidsynth/commits/new-seq2 Looks nice and clean... but I don't speak C++ so I can't really comment in any detail. And that is also a reason I'm -0 to -1 on adding the C++ dependency and (more importantly) C++ code to Fluidsynth. Cheers Marcus _______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list fluid-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
