The ordering of the indicators is
left - sustain (CC 64)
middle - sostenuto (CC 66)
right - soft (CC 67)
(and an extra one on the far right) (CC 69)
I don’t know if someone uses the indicator for the fourth pedal (CC 69), but I could live without it. The indicators then would make even more sense.
When I use the pedals I often have to look twice, as the indicators show the opposite of what I would expect (especially when using both sostenuto and sustain pedal).
So, I would suggest changing the order, but perhaps there are other views on this so I’m asking here first.
I like the idea of ordering the pedals to match real life layout. I originally positioned them logically, ordered by increasing CC number but you are right, they are only there because they represent pedals (we don’t show other CC) and these 4 CC do have specific recommended or assigned use. I would be happy to see their order changed to match physical pedals, but I don’t really use them much so have a small voice in this conversation.
FYI CC69 represents “Hold 2” which has this description according to this site:
Another way to “hold notes” (see MIDI CC 64 and MIDI CC 66). However notes fade out according to their release parameter rather than when the pedal is released.
OK! I couldn’t find any of our current engines using CC69 as “Hold2” controller.
PIanoteq doesn’t map this CC nor any other engine. This seems legacy stuff from older times.
Gemini says:
No, MIDI CC69 (Hold 2 Pedal) is not commonly used in modern music production. It is one of the most obscure legacy controls in the official MIDI specification.
Unlike CC64 (Sustain/Hold 1), which forces a note to ring indefinitely by ignoring Note-Off commands, CC69 (Hold 2) lengthens the Amp Envelope’s Release Time instead. When CC69 is active, lifting your hands off the keys causes the notes to fade out naturally over an extended time rather than being held open at full sustain.
Because modern virtual instruments handle sound decay through sophisticated scripts, sample layers, or physical algorithms, they rarely rely on the antiquated CC69 implementation.
@jofemodo have you also removed the pedal behaviour of CC69 in zynmidirouter? These pedal indicator are shown because these CC are treated differently to other CC.
In that case I think we should restore CC69 indication. I don’t see the advantage in removing this (it doesn’t show if not asserted) and it has a specific purpose.
[Edit] Although modern pianos have two or three pedals, there after many other pedal options, e.g. Pianotec has four pedals assignable to many pedal emulations and other engines may benefit from more pedals. Let’s put the 4 back.
Pianoteq uses CC69 to control its Harmonic Pedal and any user can map their pedals to any CC. Just because most pianists use 2 or 3 pedals does not mean we should limit to this. Some users use 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 pedals. We don’t limit for them.
If you insist on removing this indication then we must also change the behaviour of CC69 but I think that is wrong. CC69 is defined as a pedal which is why we designed its behaviour and it had an indicator. The width of the indicator depends on the width of the fader which depends on the screen size and the user configurable quantity of faders so the indicator size varies anyway.
I really don’t see why we have made this change just because one person said it didn’t align with their setup. What if that user had said they only had 2 pedals and showing more than that seemed wrong? (This would be a far more common user setup - only talented pianists tend to have 3.) What if someone said they only have one pedal? (This is even more common.) There are 4 pedals defined for MIDI so showing just 3 is blatently wrong.
I don’t see the problem. The number of indicators shown is independent of the number of pedals that are defined. You can keep the pedal definition but don’t show the indicator (because that is never used).
The issue is that we treat CC64, 65, 67 & 69 different to all other CC. They are treated as pedals with associated logic to support holding and releasing as you change chain, etc. There is the possibility of having a pedal asserted when you are not expeciting it and vice versa - hence the indications. They are primarily there to indicate the state of these 4 CC to support users who may be caught out by the behaviour and to reinforce this behaviour to the user. The fact that someone with three pedals gets a nice onscreen tally of what (I hope they know what) their feet are doing is an additional benfit. If we have this special behaviour for CC69 then we should reinstate the indication which has almost no impact on users who don’t use it in the same way that having indications for the other 3 pedals has no impact on users who don’t use them. If we insist on removing this indication then we must remove the functionality behind it, i.e. exclude CC69 from the pedal handling in zynmidirouter. I feel this is the wrong solution. It acrtually impacts users, unlike restoring the previous indication which had zero complaints until now and now. I like the indications. I implemented them I think they are great. I think they should do their job which means showing 4 or changing zynmidirouter. I strongly recommend showing 4 and retaining zynmidirouter behaviour. I can’t really see why we are arguing. What great benefit does changing an occsionally displayed blip on the screen that almost no one seems to have mentioned/noticed?
