source file: mills3.txt Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:20:17 +0200 Subject: Re: Digest 1189 From: Carter Scholz In Digest 1189, John Loffink writes: >The MIDI Tuning Dump standard certainly has deficiences, probably >because not many people contributed to its conception. Most likely. Six people contributed to original spec. A preliminary version was published in Computer Music Journal with a request for comments. One comment was received. >The greatest limitation is the insistance on handling tuning dumps >only on a full keyboard basis. This makes dynamic tuning programs >like Justonic's almost impossible as the MIDI bandwidth can't >support real-time updates. But the spec says that the full keyboard "non-real-time" dump isn't intended for performance. Instead, there's an additional 12-byte "real-time" message for retuning any individual note on the fly. I don't know exactly what Justonic is doing, but I can't imagine why it would need more than these 12 bytes per note-on. The synthesizer doesn't need to know the entire tuning table, it just needs to get up-to-date frequency data for sounding notes from its host. >The other problem is the immediate updating of sustained notes. >This is also a problem for real-time key modulations, especially >for rapid paced music. To quote from the spec: "There is some question as to whether instantaneous response to real-time tuning changes is desirable in every circumstance. In some performance situations it makes more sense if a tuning change affect only those notes which occur subsequent to the change, and not affect sounding notes. But there are also situations in which tuning changes should take place instantaneously, as specified in the standard, and should affect sounding notes without disrupting their continuity. "If the instrument responds well in the latter situation, some workaround is possible for the former. The reverse is not true. Therefore the standard requires that tuning changes immediately affect sounding notes. Manufacturers might, however, consider implementing a switchable instantaneous/next-note-on option within an instrument." I still think this is sound. An example of when immediate response by sounding notes might be desired: glissando of a tone to keep a fixed tonic during certain modulations. SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: mr88cet@texas.net Subject: Re: TUNING digest 1184 PostedDate: 27-09-97 18:18:24 SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu $UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH RouteTimes: 27-09-97 18:18:04-27-09-97 18:18:05,27-09-97 18:17:06-27-09-97 18:17:07 DeliveredDate: 27-09-97 18:17:07 Categories: $Revisions: Received: from ns.ezh.nl by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA v1.1 (385.6 5-6-1997)) with SMTP id C125651F.00598879; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:17:56 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA32762; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:18:24 +0200 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:18:24 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA32561 Received: (qmail 10021 invoked from network); 27 Sep 1997 09:18:20 -0700 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Sep 1997 09:18:20 -0700 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu