Re: Adding MIDI APIs to Audio WG Charter (was: MIDI enumeration (was: Re: getUserMedia use cases))

Robert O'Callahan said
> Other people want to be able to manipulate real-time MIDI streams and 
> synthesize output from them. Where do those applications come down on 
> system synthesizer vs consistent synthesis?

I don't think its important to guarantee that exactly the same audio 
results from playing a particular MIDI stream on different systems.

Many more application scenarios are possible if browsers allow their 
users to decide which of their installed MIDI output devices they want 
to use, by listing them in a preferences dialog. On Microsoft OSs the 
"Microsoft GS Wavetable Synth" would appear there, and would be the 
default synthesizer. But if I've got a better piano installed, then I 
want to be allowed to use it. If I want to link up with a lighting 
system, then I want to be able to do that. If I've got the Vienna 
Philharmonic installed, I may want to use that.

So even if there was a common default synthesizer across all browsers, 
there's no guarantee that users would actually be using it.

Marat Tanalin said

> It makes sense to take into account that GM standard itself defines 
> just set of general timbres and does not regulate their exact 
> sounding, so different sounding depending on specific GM device is 
> perfectly acceptable for GM. If _some_ web-applications need 100% 
> consistency across browsers and platforms, authors of that 
> applications are free to implement their own pure-script synths 
> _simultaneously_ with having ability to use universal system GM synth 
> in all other, more general usecases.
Exactly.

I don't think its too much to ask of an operating system, that it should 
supply a default software synthesizer in the way that Microsoft does. 
Perhaps Microsoft could  be persuaded to make their's open source... :-)

James

Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 10:14:50 UTC