No SysEx, any work around ? Malc, Stefan, Jorge, anyone

stefan · 6 Jul 2006

The only thing I can say atm is that Sysex is a PITA in Windows these days (for programmers I mean). I don't know if Malc or Jorge has been looking into it or not though. So I'm just venting... 🙂

jorge · 6 Jul 2006

SySex has been implemented and was working well in an old version of SM, we just need to migrate it to the new one. It just didn't get high priority. Might not happen before v1.0 but probably shortly after. I'll have a look at it anyway.

stefan · 6 Jul 2006

See how little I know 🙂

lalo · 6 Jul 2006

the only problem is that sysex isn't supported by the VST standard afaik... so you couldn't export your sysex schematics as VST.. UNLESS jorge found a way to access the midi ports from inside a VST wich i guess is doable 🙂

jorge · 6 Jul 2006

lalo wrote: the only problem is that sysex isn't supported by the VST standard afaik... so you couldn't export your sysex schematics as VST.. UNLESS jorge found a way to access the midi ports from inside a VST wich i guess is doable 🙂

nah, I mean sysex working in SM itself not in an exported VST.

rl · 6 Jul 2006

I wouldn't mind having SYS-EX in a VST without SYS-EX messages passing the VST interface. Think about a MIDI editor/librarian VST that directly opens the midi channels to MIDI hardware. Besides SYS-EX support it would need a midi in/out selector component that shows up in the plugin's GUI though.

lalo · 6 Jul 2006

rl wrote: I wouldn't mind having SYS-EX in a VST without SYS-EX messages passing the VST interface. Think about a MIDI editor/librarian VST that directly opens the midi channels to MIDI hardware. Besides SYS-EX support it would need a midi in/out selector component that shows up in the plugin's GUI though.

it's exactly what i was thinkn' about... what would be nice is have the parameters of the VST visible to the vst automation system...and in the osm schematic mapping the value to the relevant sys-ex strings...

magic 🙂 .. editor/librarina perfectly integrated in the host of choice 🙂

sequencer · 6 Jul 2006

Thanks for the Reply Jorge. Thanks also to Stefan, Lalo & rl for your thoughtful input. 🙂 I don't suppose that SM is going to version 1 in the next few days so that you can have a look into resurrecting the SysEx Component 🙂 Well, I guess not, but if it is not too much hassle, I would dearly love to start down the SysEx route.

In answer to Lalo: I won't be using (or rather, had not thought of) any Editor I would make as a VST export. A good old .exe would be ok though, wouldn't it ?

It's just that with modern day hardware synths (even though mine are now both over 10 years old) the sound/preset editing is usually carried via a small screen, lots of menus, buttons and a few variable controls to access 200 hundred or more parameters (in the case of my Korg, nearly 400 useful parameters). I don't think that it is very intuitive or quick to access a Synth's parameters via the controls on the keyboard. By the time you get your sound, the inspiration to play/record has long gone. I'm hoping that an Editor will help. 🙂 As it is at the moment, I'm currently building an Editor for my MS6 module but, that only uses CC's to access everything (about 65 parameters). It's a good exercise for helping me get to grips with SM. Anyhow, I digress.

I for one (and I'm sure other's would like it too) would like to see the resurrection of the SysEx component sooner rather than later, thanks Jorge... 😀

lalo · 6 Jul 2006

sequencer wrote: In answer to Lalo: I won't be using (or rather, had not thought of) any Editor I would make as a VST export. A good old .exe would be ok though, wouldn't it ?

yes..but exporting it as a vst you can do automation of your hardware stuff like you do with your vsti/vst...super-comfort 😉... isn't it?

sequencer · 6 Jul 2006

@ Lalo,

Yes. There is that string to that particular bow, but I'm not sure what impact using SysEx would have on timing problems because of the increased amount of data involved. Maybe none at all, unless you try to edit in real time on 3 differant synths by manipulating 40 differant parameters (think octopus arms) on each one... 😉

Anyhow, most of the things you would want to change in real time as you play/record are available as CC's. It's that offline editor form that I am most interested in at the moment.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't like SysEx available in a VST Editor, in some form or other, but if it comes to delaying the resurrection of the SysEx component because of the VST idea, I'd rather have the limited form first and sooner.

🙂