I wasn't planning on using NPRN's in the first version of the
software. NPRN's are supported in later MIDI hardware controllers and
very few of the early hardware controllers support NPRN's or if they
do support NPRN's, they don't it very nicely anyway.
My idea was to use MIDI CC's 23 through to 31. They are not NPRN's,
they are just unassigned MIDI controllers. So we can do whatever we
want with them.
Each one of those unassigned MIDI CC's has only 127 bit resolution,
but that's perfect for the Poly 800. So I think we are good to go there.
Mike.
--- In korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com, "zoinky420" <zoinky420@...> wrote:
>
>
> Sounds good but I just discovered my JL Cooper Fadermaster does
> handle NRPNs the same way as CC, and I think all controller boxes do,
> and I think Atom mentioned that CC only have 7-bit resolution,
> whereas I read somewhere else that NRPNs have 14-bit resolution. So
> you might want to check to see if there might be a benefit in using a
> few NRPNs?
>
> --- In korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com, "korgpolyex800"
> <korgpolyex800@> wrote:
> >
> > I am about to get serious about writing the code that implements
> MIDI
> > controllers for all of the Poly 800 parameters. The controllers
> would
> > edit the current sound parameters and would require "writing" to a
> > specific patch in order to make the current sound permanent in one
> of
> > the 64 patches.
> >
> > Some of the controllers will be set up specifically according to a
> > well known controller. VCF, resonance, portamento time, etc all have
> > assigned controllers. I will write the code so that those specific
> > MIDI controllers work for those well known controllers.
> >
> > Now, given that there are about 50 to 60 original parameters to edit
> > and another 64 potentially in extended parameters, I think it makes
> > sense for us to just assume that we'll be dealing with about 128
> > different controllers. Also, the parameters are kind of set up in
> > blocks of eight. And furthermore, global mode uses up to 64
> different
> > parameters too.
> >
> > So I was thinking about assigning controller 22 to be a parameter
> bank
> > select. Controller 22 would use a range of values from 0-16
> (anything
> > above 16 would be ignored). Then Controllers 23 to 31 would be
> > parameter controllers for parameter 0 through 7.
> >
> > For example, set Controller 22 to 4 would select the EG1 parameters
> > for editing. Then, you would edit attack, decay, bp, slope, sustain
> > and release by using controllers 23-29 (30 and 31 would not be
> active
> > because the EG parameter bank only has six parameters to edit). So
> 23
> > would edit the attack through to 29 would edit release.
> >
> > If you want to edit EG2 parameters you would send controller 22
> with a
> > value of 5. Then use controllers 23-29 to edit EG2 parameters. Once
> > again, 23 would control attack through 29 would control release.
> >
> > Using this model, we can use nine knobs on a controller to edit all
> of
> > the parameter "banks". The banks would be 0-7 for the original
> > parameters, 8-15 for extended parameters and 16 for global
> parameters.
> >
> > So just about any MIDI controller that has nine assignable knobs
> could
> > edit all of the parameters in the Poly.
> >
> > Hmm, maybe I should just leave out the global parameters.
> >
> > What does everyone think of that method?
> >
> > Mike.
> >
>