-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 09:47:23AM +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote: > On Wed, April 11, 2007 09:03, Ken Restivo wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Since when has been linuxsampler OSCified ? Nope. I'm pretty sure is has > no OSC support whatsoever. Linuxsampler certainly uses MIDI for input > control. > > Confusion must come from that it uses some dedicated administrative and > control protocol, LSCP, which runs on straight client-server fashion, on > top of bare TCP sockets (and not UDP as in OSC, I think). > Thanks. I was indeed confusing LSCP with OSC. Sorry about that. - -ken -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGHaDve8HF+6xeOIcRAmtmAJ91N1wTWKqRERq/0gNqBaV4fTHjkQCfVICt PX9CG3jQcm2/7y/O1yL2kXw= =3PBK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
