[snipped] > And if it's a completely pointless idea, let me know also ;) Ok, you asked for it... ;) I'm sorry to say that but I personally think it's a completely pointless idea. - the raw count of external MIDI equipment used in professional music productions has passed its high watermark years ago. Most external gear is replaced by softsynths these days [this is to say the requirement for large racks of external gear which needs to be controlled via MIDI is diminishing] - IMO if you are interested in tight MIDI timing you use a multiport MIDI interface and won't chain snyths on a single port. Cost is not an issue because multiport interfaces are cheap these days (or at least WAY cheaper than decent external synths or other gear). - why would there be demand to switch channels dynamically in the first place anyway ? Ignoring the additional delays (and the resulting timing issues) introduced by the suggested switching procedure I don't see why you'd need to dynamically reallocate ports and channels. A single port gives you 16 channel, 2-/4-/8-port interfaces give you 32/64/128 channel for external MIDI. How much equipment are you going to connect ? And how complex will your music be that this isn't sufficient ? Last not least why don't you daisychain two or more of the better 8-port interfaces ? -- w/r to tight timing a better idea anyway ! Last not least I never used the Windows MIDI mapper and to the day I think it is useful only for very special cases. Best, Michael -- Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ Michael Gerdau email: mgd@xxxxxxxxxxxx GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
