Open Sound Control

Open Sound Control (OSC) is a protocol for networking sound synthesizers, computers, and other multimedia devices for purposes such as musical performance or show control. OSC's advantages include interoperability, accuracy, flexibility and enhanced organization and documentation.^[1] Its disadvantages include inefficient coding of information, increased load on embedded processors,^[2] and lack of standardized messages/interoperability.^[3]^[4]^[5] The first specification was released in March 2002.

^ "Introduction to OSC". opensoundcontrol.org. 7 April 2021. Retrieved 11 September 2021.
^ Fraietta, Angelo (2008). "Open Sound Control: Constraints and Limitations". doi:10.5281/zenodo.1179537. S2CID 5690441. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
^ "Home · fabb/SynOSCopy Wiki". GitHub. Retrieved 2022-12-31. one of the reasons OSC has not replaced MIDI yet is that there is no connect-and-play … There is no standard namespace in OSC for interfacing e.g. a synth
^ Supper, Ben (October 24, 2012). "We hate MIDI. We love MIDI". Focusrite Development. Retrieved 2023-01-01. OSC suffers from a superset of this problem: it's anarchy, and deliberately so. The owners of the specification have been so eager to avoid imposing constraints upon it that it has become increasingly difficult for hardware to cope with it. … More severely, there is an interoperability problem. OSC lacks a defined namespace for even the most common musical exchanges, to the extent that one cannot use it to send Middle C from a sequencer to a synthesiser in a standardised manner
^ "OSC-Namespace and OSC-State: Schemata for Describing the Namespace and State of OSC-Enabled Systems" (PDF). OSC also introduces new obstacles. First, since there is no fixed set of messages, each participating server needs to know what messages it can send to the servers it intends to communicate with. Currently the OSC standard does not provide for a means of programmatically discovering all messages a server responds to

[osc_org-1] "Introduction to OSC". opensoundcontrol.org. 7 April 2021. Retrieved 11 September 2021.

[:0-2] Fraietta, Angelo (2008). "Open Sound Control: Constraints and Limitations". doi:10.5281/zenodo.1179537. S2CID 5690441. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

[3] "Home · fabb/SynOSCopy Wiki". GitHub. Retrieved 2022-12-31. one of the reasons OSC has not replaced MIDI yet is that there is no connect-and-play … There is no standard namespace in OSC for interfacing e.g. a synth

[4] Supper, Ben (October 24, 2012). "We hate MIDI. We love MIDI". Focusrite Development. Retrieved 2023-01-01. OSC suffers from a superset of this problem: it's anarchy, and deliberately so. The owners of the specification have been so eager to avoid imposing constraints upon it that it has become increasingly difficult for hardware to cope with it. … More severely, there is an interoperability problem. OSC lacks a defined namespace for even the most common musical exchanges, to the extent that one cannot use it to send Middle C from a sequencer to a synthesiser in a standardised manner

[5] "OSC-Namespace and OSC-State: Schemata for Describing the Namespace and State of OSC-Enabled Systems" (PDF). OSC also introduces new obstacles. First, since there is no fixed set of messages, each participating server needs to know what messages it can send to the servers it intends to communicate with. Currently the OSC standard does not provide for a means of programmatically discovering all messages a server responds to

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]