-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm playing around with hacking together a custom softsynth. In this case I'm building it out of "pre-fab" parts using a HLL (ChucK), but I think I'd be asking this question regardless of the level at which I was doing this or the language I was using. My question is: should I use MIDI or OSC as the control interface? OSC seems a lot more flexible, and more modern, and I've already found a few things that would be much cleaner in OSC. But I'm worried about latency in going from MIDI to OSC, or any other gotchas that might be awaiting. Then again, this is 2007, and byte-oriented protocols are so 1980's, and maybe I'm over-worrying this. But, surveying the Linux softsynth landscape, I see OM/Ingen and LinuxSampler and maybe a few others using OSC as their control interface, and everything else using MIDI. And I have to wonder if there's a reason for that other than just history. - -ken -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGHJZde8HF+6xeOIcRAg/HAJ96RRnzOa2WqOb2M9j7u5N6EN0QLACg0ILr 4n/Zhy62xnQNkgAOYGMsjXQ= =Eu0T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
