W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-audio@w3.org > December 2010

RE: Music Notation on the Web

From: Tom White \(MMA\) <lists@midi.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:21:29 -0800
To: <public-xg-audio@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1C18079FFB134D99BD888AEEC5B775A3@MMANotebook>
Dan,

> Perhaps (given the focus of this list) also worth throwing in a
> mention of the old .mod format,
[...] 
> "Module files also give a list of the order in which to play the
> patterns. However, the biggest advantage of MOD family over standard
> MIDI files is that MODs include their own audio samples and should
> sound exactly the same from one player to another (barring
> interpolation methods and any errors in players)."
> 
> Is this still the case?  Looking again to Wikipedia (I hope these
> pages are accurate...:)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_Instrument_Digital_Interf
> ace#File_formats
> lists a variety of MIDI-derrived formats, including one for "MIDI
> Karaoke (.kar)" which is perhaps another use case to note here: song
> lyrics, plus several that address 'downloadable sounds'. For lyrics,
> the closest relevant W3C specification I know of is the Timed Text
> format (http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/), which may be directly or
> partially applicable here.

Mod files all contain sound samples, but also have many limitations
compared to the MIDI alternatives (e.g. polyphony and sound quality). 

Standard MIDI Files do not contain sound samples, but variants such
as RMID files and certain XMF files do. It takes some work to be able
to distribute and then playback MIDI files with custom sound data, but
it is not impossible. For example, Apple and Windows operating systems
come with MIDI File playback engines that use replaceable sound sets
(in MMA's DLS format).

Tom White
MMA
Received on Sunday, 12 December 2010 21:22:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:37:59 UTC