has the midi architecture been updated?
Stromer
GermanyPosts: 55
Does the situation with the midi-cc's has changed or is it still that the midi mapping is stored within the sound xml's and that for each sound and midi-channel you have to do a new midi learning? If it's still so in version #3, it makes it impossible to work with the Deluge in a professional studio environment, where is no time to do 1584 midi learnings for all 99 default sounds (and how to do that with a limited number of 999 sounds?), where everything has to go fast and effective.
Before i degrade my Deluge for that reason being a simple loop-player, i want to ask what the philosophie is behind this architecture? It makes no sense to me but maybe to the Deluge team? Maybe i havn't understood the real reason for doing it this way and not in a way which could make the Deluge to one of the a top machines in all studios in the world? Cause the sounds of the Deluge are great, but the midi-architecture up to version 2.1.4 still sucks! I will update to version #3 when the main bugs are fixed and only if midi-cc's are becoming globally.
Comments
There's nothing new about the midi implementation in terms of CC's in 3.0.2 (the latest firmware) in the way you're referring to.
3.0.2 is however very stable, and fixes many bugs etc. If you're only gonna use Deluge as a loop player you'd still want to install the firmware.
Its not difficult to batch-copy a set of midi mappings to hundreds or thousands of xml files at once, in seconds.
You can effectively make your own custom midi implementation(s) and then copy it to all your presets.
The program Notepad++ is free, and can do this, using the Find and replace function
~ Distinguished Delugate ᕕ( ◎_◎)ᕗ
Program: https://notepad-plus-plus.org/
How to: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9j8Djan7Pm0
~ Distinguished Delugate ᕕ( ◎_◎)ᕗ
I did the batching with python but it really sucks to do it that way. And its maximum non flexible if you want to change a parameter.
Thats the way i do the midi mapping in my Arduino Control-Change Arranger box:
not def - ;CC 000
QM Mod Wheel;CC 001
not def - ;CC 002
not def - ;CC 004
QM Glide ;CC 005
not def - ;CC 006
Panpot - ;CC 010
QM Sound-Vol;CC 011
QM Inst/Wave;CC 012
not def - ;CC 013
QM Tune ;CC 014
QM VCF Drive;CC 015
QM Cutoff ;CC 016
QM Resonance;CC 017
QM EG Attack;CC 018
QM EG Decay ;CC 019
QM EG Sust ;CC 020
QM EG Releas;CC 021
not def - ;CC 022
not def - ;CC 025
QM LFO Depth;CC 026
QM LFO Wave ;CC 027
QM LFO Rate ;CC 028
not def - ;CC 029
DL OscA Vol ;CC 030
DL OscB Vol ;CC 031
not def - ;CC 032
not def - ;CC 034
DL OscA Ptch;CC 035
DL Tune/Ptch;CC 036
DL Bitcrush ;CC 037
DL Cutoff ;CC 038
DL Resonance;CC 039
DL EG1 Attck;CC 040
DL EG1 Decay;CC 041
DL EG1 Sust ;CC 042
DL EG1 Relea;CC 043
DL EG2 Attck;CC 044
DL EG2 Decay;CC 045
DL EG2 Sust ;CC 046
DL EG2 Relea;CC 047
DL Mod FX ;CC 048
DL LFO1 Rate;CC 049
DL LFO2 Rate;CC 050
DL OscA PhWi;CC 051
DL OscB PhWi;CC 052
DL Bass Vol ;CC 053
DL Bass Freq;CC 054
DL Trebl Vol;CC 055
DL Trebl Frq;CC 056
DL Noise Vil;CC 057
DL Stutter ;CC 058
DL Delayrate;CC 059
DL Delay FB ;CC 060
DL Rverb Snd;CC 061
DL Rverb Vol;CC 062
DL HPF Freq ;CC 063
DL HPF Reso ;CC 064
not def - ;CC 065
not def - ;CC 070
ET Resonance;CC 071
not def - ;CC 072
ET EG Attack;CC 073
ET Cutoff ;CC 074
not def - ;CC 075
not def - ;CC 079
ET OsC Pitch;CC 080
ET OsC Glide;CC 081
ET OsC Edit ;CC 082
ET OsC Fltr ;CC 083
not def - ;CC 084
ET Mod-Depth;CC 085
ET Mod-Speed;CC 086
ET Insert FX;CC 087
not def - ;CC 088
not def - ;CC 090
QM FX1 send ;CC 091
QM FX2 send ;CC 092
not def - ;CC 093
not def - ;CC 101
ET Mast FX x;CC 102
ET Mast FX y;CC 103
ET Insert FX;CC 104
ET MaFX send;CC 105
ET MaFX OnOf;CC 106
not def - ;CC 107
127 x parameter name + cc-number
very easy!!
What is the problem to do it with a simple config file like above?
From a development standpoint, I'm very curious about this too. Maybe it's because of my background in service-oriented architecture but it seems very odd to me that the control layer (including MIDI), and the synthesizer/sample playback layer aren't exactly two separate elements that interact, but are rather enmeshed. There's no real judgement on my part, but the lack of functionality segregation has impacted my workflow fairly significantly (and many others, as the numerous threads on related topics indicate).