Re: [linux-audio-dev] Tracker vs. sequencer

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Tracker vs. sequencer
From: David Olofson (audiality_AT_swipnet.se)
Date: su elo    29 1999 - 10:34:02 EDT


On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, David Slomin wrote:
(...)
> made up of patterns, which in turn are made up of events. A pattern is
> basically a phrase, although it could be used to represent a whole verse.

There used to be a few tracker-style programs that used single track patterns
form more flexibility, but I never found one that I liked... (For various other
reasons.) Any trackers of that kind still around?

> The two sequencers with which I've worked most are Cakewalk and Master
> Tracks Pro, neither of which is (or at least originally was, in Cakewalk's
> case) pattern-based, like a tracker. They do not impose any structure on
> the music that isn't inherent in the MIDI standard (like channels and
> tracks). However, Cubase, Vision, Logic, and more recent versions of
> Cakewalk all do their best to add pattern-based structure on top of the
> flat MIDI paradigm.

That's more like the trackers I'm thinking about, but of course, the user
interface is very different. Anyway, I find the tracks + clips system the
sequencers use a pretty efficient compromise. It's not perfect, but it's simple
and works.

//David

 ·A·U·D·I·A·L·I·T·Y· P r o f e s s i o n a l L i n u x A u d i o
- - ------------------------------------------------------------- - -
    ·Rock Solid David Olofson:
    ·Low Latency www.angelfire.com/or/audiality ·Audio Hacker
    ·Plug-Ins audiality_AT_swipnet.se ·Linux Advocate
    ·Open Source ·Singer/Composer


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:25:53 EST