On 09/06/2022 8:50 PM EDT david <[email protected]> wrote:On 9/6/22 10:50, Andrew S wrote:Just occurred to me - Rosegarden could have SysEx banks, similar in structure, XML storage, and UI widgetry, to the instrument banks it already has.They would be similarly defined per synth make & model ... and similarly bundled with the app and shared, with the distributed list gradually growing.(Probably a bit less work to add as a feature than the drag-move event band I posted about earlier today?)Hmm, aren't SysExes proprietary, perhaps even undocumented or secret?
I was going to reply off-the-cuff with a "No it's not secret," but decided to first google around
So - I poked around some sites discussing SysEx's. Did not find anything that suggests "secret".
Looked at my Korg Kross Parameter Guide again -- in particular the Appendices at the end, with system exclusive codes... five pages.
Found a downloadable PDF for Korg Kronos -- which has its SysEx specs, too. Found some Roland SysEx listings, as well as Alesis (didn't search exhaustively). Indications are - no, this info is not at all secret and not undocumented. Major brands provide it in their product's user manuals
(It *is*, most definitely, "proprietary" - ... For example: some Roland synth mode there might not even have a control parameter that might exist in a Korg)
I don't know anything really about SysExes, just going on a vague recollection about them being proprietary.
Here's my guess: linguistically speaking - I am theorizing that the word "exclusive" in "system exclusive" might have been a hasty/sloppy choice of words that stuck (don't know who actually coined the term). And caused confusion -- including the false perception that the info is off limits to the general consumer base
Perhaps the better term would have been "system-specific" ... ?
Because, (willing to bet two six packs) - in some rare cases, the codes are probably not exclusive either, but are actually shared. Out of a sea of synth models there are probably some two different models, of two different makes, for which some volume or effect control is the same code. At least there is no explicit policy (my guess) or engineering constraint that would prevent this. Which would bust up the notion that that code is "exclusive" to a make and/or models.
Perhaps a tool for the user to create their own SysEx specific to their hardware?
So... if the developers were to add SysEx banks, similar to the instrument banks, and they got usage traction, it would be like porting in and concentrating SysEx data scattered about various User manuals, into one uniform library that cuts across makes and models... (But! at the same time creates uniformity and top-level observation point for system exclusive data... yada yada, etc, etc). Might even be an original, and unprecedented (?)... and snowball... with a creative feedback loop... As in... a Rosegarden would be quickly oriented about SysEx possibilities, with the availability of such a bank... Might even, no doubt, impact further hardware purchase decisions : - ))). Might slightly shift production focus away from virtual synths and plugins to external hardware... guessing the trend these days is to move the other way... (away from external hardware to plugins)
If I have all my synth's SysEx control codes neatly organized and coherently LABELED, in a Rosegarden bank, and can easily drag and drop one into my tracks they might be more likely to be a part of the project... Awareness->availability->demand cycle (yada yada)... might snowball.
-- David W. Jones [email protected] authenticity, honesty, community http://dancingtreefrog.com "My password is the last 8 digits of π."_______________________________________________ Rosegarden-user mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user
_______________________________________________ Rosegarden-user mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user
