fluid-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MIDI Bank Select proposal (was Re: [fluid-dev] Re: Son of ticket #65


From: David Henningsson
Subject: Re: MIDI Bank Select proposal (was Re: [fluid-dev] Re: Son of ticket #65)
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:50:33 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.0.6

2010-08-08 23:42, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas skrev:
> On Sunday, August 8, 2010, David Henningsson wrote:
>>>>> SF2 (SoundFont) files (like GeneralUser, FluidR3,...) have bank numbers
>>>>> < 127 for melodic sounds and 128 for Drum kits, as recommended by the
>>>>> SoundFont specification [5]. It is necessary to map the MIDI Bank
>>>>> Select numbers to the SF2 bank numbers, because they won't always
>>>>> match. The sf2 spec says that "The special case of a General MIDI
>>>>> percussion bank is handled conventionally by a wBank value of 128. If
>>>>> the value in either field is not a valid MIDI value of zero through
>>>>> 127, or 128 for wBank, the preset cannot be played but should be
>>>>> maintained."
>>>
>>> I want to remark the above quotation from the SF2 specification. SF2 bank
>>> numbers for melodic channels are numbers in the range 0 to 127, 7 bits.
>>
>> 128 for wBank. I saw nothing about that in your proposal, or if the drum
>> MIDI channel should be handled in another way than the rest of the
>> channels, could you elaborate on that?
> 
> Melodic channels means all channels except the drum channel. Channel#10 is 
> the 
> MIDI drum channel number reserved in the GM specification, and all the other  
> extensions.

This is not true according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MIDI_standards - neither GS,
XG and GM2 specify channel #10 as the one and only drum channel.

> SF2 Bank 128 is only intended to be applied on the MIDI drum 
> channel, not on melodic channels. It is well explained in the SF2 
> specification and appendix documents.

I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Is your proposal that we ignore
CC0 and CC32 for channel #10 and hard-code it to 128?

// David



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]