Last seen: Jul 11, 2025
I don't think there should not be a question on whether I have a use case or not, but it should rather be a specification design consistency. If I w...
So, what happens when a host receives two control definitions (properties) from the connected device, control A with priority with 3 and another contr...
Ah, okay I noticed that you have updated the schema in a newer commit after the latest release tag (v1.5.6p):
A UMP endpoint does cover multiple legacy ports (most of real world MIDI 1.0 devices would have at least one input and one output). Note that one Fu...
Regarding [2], the UMP specification says (at P.104): > MIDI 1.0 Protocol Increment (CC 96) and Decrement (CC 97) messages are translated to ...
I support the current specification and the overall strategy that the specification implements regarding backward compatibility in CC index. DAWs do n...
I guess you are taking the mentioned number differently. "The Number of Groups Spanned" is not the number of MIDI 1.0 ports. The number of spanned gro...
It is good to know that my Q is not kind of dumb 😉 > If the Device supports ChCtrlLIst/AllCtrlList PE messages then you could compare the incom...
Hi, Could you please elaborate on this - > for simplicity and interoperability reasons. I do not see any particular need for interoperability...