Re: [fluid-dev] Propose changes for drum channels support

[jimmy]

--- On Wed, 1/26/11, Matt Giuca <address@hidden> wrote:
> I didn't mean to suggest you shouldn't be using
> fluid-dev. I was just disclaiming that when you read my
> reply, you shouldn't consider it to be representative of
> the opinion of the FS devs (for example, just because I like
> it does not mean it will be accepted). However, David is
> (one of?) the lead developers, so he has a good idea of what
> it will take to get a patch included, and he seems to like
> it too.

I got your point originally, no problem.


> Ah, good point. Well FluidSynth mail archive seems to
> include attachments; for example:
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/fluid-dev/2010-10/msg00007.html
> 

I'll keep that in mind.



> So isn't there still the potential need for FluidSynth
> to ignore bank changes when in GM mode or go out of GM
> mode?

I think, by default, FS really does not enforce strict GM-mode at all (ignore 
all bank changes).  I believe that FS, by default, allows bank changes.



> So the first half of the comment is handled by this patch,
> the later part of that comment is a wash.
> 
> You mean "Shouldn't hard code bank selection for
> channel 10." How does your patch handle it? Does it
> hard code bank selection for all drum channels now?
> Or does it not hard-code it at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Matt

I mean that the (channel==9) has been the hard-coded hack at the time, and is 
now replaced by the new hack "is_drum_channel" field.  At initialization, the 
new code still hard-code a 9, but not anywhere else as they were previously.

The later part of the comment on ignoring bank select is "comment in the code" 
that can be implemented either way, based on what I can understand from various 
bit and pieces of GM-spec docs and related documents.  Basically, FS can do 
whatever in this case.  GM specs, and official stand on this issue is a wash, 
water under the bridge, nothing, nada.

Jimmy