Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Mix
From: Dave Phillips (dlphilp_AT_bright.net)
Date: to elo 19 1999 - 09:34:16 EDT
Nicola Bernardini wrote:
> ...I think we should not fall into the 'integrated solution'
> trap. If we decide that Mix is a multi-track editor that basically
> handles files, I'd leave the recording/playback functions to some
> other processes, possibly callable from Mix and running in background
> while you do other things.
Hmm...Well, Mix is already designed to record/playback, and I certainly
enjoy being able to pinpoint problems visually during playback. However,
it is true that the record function is unstable. Guenter may be working
on that.
I understand your concern though, and your thoughts have got me
re-thinking plans for revising and updating Mix. Guenter stated that
he'd like to jettison the fx stuff in favor of a plug-in mode: if it can
be done and done well, I'm all for it. Actually, I'm in favor of about
anything that will lighten up mix.c !
> I can see a *fairly* easy task: build a separate previewer which accepts
> a text file prepared by Mix, reads it and runs all operations requested
> while playing (again - no guarantees on no glitches). It is easy to
> do all the volume and panning job, a little more difficult to run
> the effects - but if Mix is modularized and a library is built out
> of it, here comes the previewer with effects et al.
That part about "fairly easy"...wasn't it Wanda Landowska who observed
that there's no such thing as an easy piece of music ? (Just poking,
Nicola, don't take me seriously. You know far more about this stuff than
I do, so if you say it's fairly easy then I'll take your word for it.
But mix.c is scary stuff...)
> There are some
> good reasons, I think, to keep Mix out of real time - the first one
> I could really use is to have infinite tracks, or infinite stack
> of effects, etc. (up to memory limits of course). These are things
> no CoolEdit nor ProTools nor whatever
> can do because they always think in terms of real-time (while most
> of the time work is done offline - just previewing is done in real-time).
I guess I'm still legacy-locked by my experience with Windoze-based
editors and mixers. Nevertheless, I'm trying to find how the approach
you espouse (or the approach taken by ecasound) would work with my own
style. And I'm always willing to learn a better way...
> Now, regions are another story. I'd really like to see some serious
> region editing a` la ProTools in Mix. I've worked with ProTools quite
> a lot and if nobody has done anything about it by the end of september
> I might give it a try (god knows I should not promise anything...).
When Richard Kent and I first prepared a Linux version of Mix the most
persistent criticism I received was about its lack of support for
regions. Unfortunately the current code is not workable (so sayeth Dr.
Hammer) and should be dumped in favor of something that is. Well, the
end of September draws nearer everyday... ;)
> There's a number of things we should ask Dr.Hammer... The csound variable,
> the networking stuff: what were they meant to do? (hoping that he
> remembers - if it was me, after two months I'd already forgotten...)
I'm on it. I recently received some clarification from him regarding the
Csound variable and a few other items (the Time Machine in particular).
I've just started to looking at the networking code: there's nothing
about it in the original documentation, I'll just have to experiment.
Ditto for the MIDI stuff, unless Guenter has already figured it.
I will add the stuff re: the Time Machine and then make the updated docs
available to whoever wants them. There aren't any great surprises, I
just cleaned up some of the page's appearance and lightly edited some of
the text. As I said, there's still no documentation of the MIDI and
network functions.
== Dave Phillips
http://www.bright.net/~dlphilp/index.html
http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/Linux-soundapp/linux_soundapps.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:25:52 EST