On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:35:10 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Ralf Mattes <r...@mh-freiburg.de> writes: > >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:46:59 +0200, Nils wrote: >> >> >>> Yes. 16 sounds because we have 16 channels max. >> >> No. Channels (as the name implies) are a way to address more than one >> sound over a communication channel (used to be a serial cable). Think >> of bus architecture. But the OP doesn't need to use cables (who does >> these days?). With a decent player you can assign a different sound to >> each track (actually you _could_ use up to 16 simultaneous addressable >> sounds per track). >> >>> And you can double two >>> horns on one channel but you can't pan one to the left and one to the >>> right. So in the end its 16 instruments + tricks like sharing one >>> instrument patch for all strings. >> >> You can do all this _per track_ .... > > Patch or it doesn't happen.
??? But it already _does_ happen ;-) Just add \set Score.midiChannelMapping = #'instrument to your score definition and you get a track per instrument. Now it _would_ be nice if Staff.instrumentName would somehow end up in the midi track name (so assigning instruments to the track in the player/sequencer would be easier) N.B.: you can of course assign 'Staff.midiInstrument' but that lets you only specify GM instrument names, which IMVHO are absolutely inappropriate for anything but,erm, 80th midi musak .... ;-) Cheers, RalfD > Seriously: theoretic arguments will not get us far. Whatever the theory > might be, it needs to get folded into LilyPond, and the results still > have to work under practical circumstances. > > I have no clue about the Midi area myself. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
