Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] EVO spec 0.0.1, linuxsampler 0.0.5 released ...
From: Benno Senoner (sbenno_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Wed Jul 19 2000 - 18:17:05 EEST
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Richard Smith wrote:
> Last Friday I was over at Mike Bailey's house discussing what EVO's feature set needs to
> be.
BTW: is Mike reading linux-audio-dev ?
(a mailinglist dedicated to EVO would be useful (not yet), in order to avoid
boring LAD subscribers too much)
>
> Since then I have been preparing for a vacation that starts on Friday and getting
> everything squared away at work has kept me really busy.. I am just now catching up on the
> list mail.
>
> I see that Mike has already posted a few of his ideas.
>
> What became most apparent to me as we were going over all the UI blueprints that he has
> created in word is that it will take me WEEKS to transcribe it into a written spec doc.
> And
> even after I have it written down it still probally won't be as descriptive as just looking
> at the mockup he created in word.
>
> So what I think needs to happen is for all those people who were interested in working on
> the UI contact me off-list (rsmith_AT_bitworks.com) and lets see about getting you a copy of
> the word documents so that you can help us refine the interface. Also if anyone want's to
> spend the time to convert the word 2000 docs into web pages that would be really helpful.
> Word has a "Save as Webpage" option but the resulting pages it generates only marginally
> resemble the original layout.
(use wordview as said, and simply convert all the stuff using
conversion-command * (I do not remember the command name right now)
It converts all in one rush, generating the HTMLs with the needed gifs etc.
>
> Also I was thinking about createing a SourceForge project for EVO. Anyone see a reason not
> to? It will give us a list for EVO developers plus web and ftp space.
If sourceforge eases mantainance work over having the services hosted on our
own servers then I'd go the sourceforge way.
Anyone who has experience with it ?
>
> Lastly I am including what written specifications Mike did come up with before we agreeded
> that this was going to take forever. Even though it's incomplete I post it because I will
> be leaving thursday and won't really be active again until after next week. (I do plan to
> try and read the archives while out though)
>
> I left Mike's original wording in place and everything in between the <>'s are my comments.
>
[ the rest of the GByte of text elided ... :-) ]
The specs look nice, even if some of them will be quite hard to implement.
Regarding the GUI issues, as said in my previous mails the best thing to do is
to separate the GUI and the engine, and define a communication protocol/API.
But beforestarting coding on the GUI you have to define the specs of both
the engine and the communication protocol in every detail.
I will focus my efforts mainly on the engine part, and leaving the GUI issues
to others.
Another point could be that EVO could be the ideal testbed for
the much criticized rtsoundserver model.
(sooner or later we will need it to run a midi sequencer/harddisk recorder
in parallel to EVO which need to be perfectly in sync)
I hope that additional people will join to the engine team.
(first and last names please ... :-) )
Last question about AUDIO MORPHING:
- are the algorithms/math publicy available ?
(if yes, URLs with docs would be handy)
- will the realtime implementation be fast enough to still
allow 20-30 voices on PII CPUs ?
Benno.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jul 19 2000 - 22:23:03 EEST