Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] My 2 cents
From: David Slomin (dgslomin_AT_CS.Princeton.EDU)
Date: ti elo 10 1999 - 14:06:22 EDT
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Adam Zygmunt wrote:
> Multitrack editing and realtime effects would come last, or be more
> likely handled by a decent audio sequencer.
That's the first time I've heard the term "audio sequencer", but I rather
like what it implies... all the power and then some of an audio-extended
MIDI sequencer (Jazz++, Cakewalk Pro Audio, Cubase VST, etc) without the
MIDI stuff getting in the way. The right interface for the right task,
not some half-hearted attempt to combine the two.
I'd been using the term "multitrack harddisk recorder" to refer to this,
but many of the multitrack recorders I've seen recently, especially open
source ones, have no more power than an analog 8-track. What I mean is
you really can't edit the tracks the way you can in a sequencer. Which of
the multitrack recorder projects in our community here would you folks
consider worthy of the "audio sequencer" name?
> What I would suggest would be that cutting, pasting, and copying MIDI
> events be as easy as possible. Ditto for adding/editing velocity,
> duration, and custom continuous controllers.
Here, here. For simply entering notes, the piano roll is my tool of
choice (other than live recording), but for anything advanced, you need a
well-designed, powerful event list view. The shameful thing is that this
is much easier to implement than a good piano roll, but everybody seems to
forget to do it!
BTW, this is the third task on my to do list for Songpad, my Java-based
MIDI sequencer in progress. The only things ahead of it are (1) internal
data structures (nearly completed), and (2) SMF I/O (starting tonight).
Piano roll and plugin architecture come later.
> Notation: Forget about it. It's such a complex art that to really do it
> justice requires a truly rare breed of programmer.
I'm not a Score user, but I have been using Encore extensively for years,
and have experimented with Finale, Lilypond, and numerous others. Based
on this experience, I would say that it would not be impossible for
someone from our open source community to do it properly, only difficult.
The key thing is a concept that you left out... do not limit the scope to
only simple features, but keep simple tasks simple. Encore, and almost
all sequencers which include notation capabilities fail because they only
have simple features. Score and Finale fail not from lack of features but
because they do not keep simple actions simple for the user.
My hope for the future on this front lies with Guido (see Dave's page for
a link), which is based around just what I've described. At the moment,
they've only implemented the simple features, but their design plan is
very clearly spelled out to continue to fill in the advanced stuff without
sacrificing usability at all.
Just my two centimes (use them while you can, before the Euro obsoletes
them),
Div.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:25:52 EST