Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Modular synths of the world, unite and take over :-)
From: Roman Kaljakin (wormpost_AT_mail.ru)
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 08:32:42 EET
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:37:00 +0100
Lukas Degener <AFBLukas_AT_gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> >that isn't actually part of LADSPA.
> >
> Ah ok, i mixed that up. sorry.
>
> >there actually isn't really any commonality between what, say, pd
> >versus beast do. or between jMax and gAlan. the similarity exists only
> >on an abstract conceptual plane, which is where algorithms
> >live. however software isn't abstract - its always instantiated. the
> >problem here, i think, is that we look at different systems, note
> >their abstract conceptual similarities and wonder why they need to
> >both exist when they appear so similar. yet they are not similar as
> >software, only as ideas. and its the software that is being worked on
> >- the ideas were worked out years ago - and its the software that is
> >where the fun is.
> >
> Hmm...good point.
>
> >i've said many times before: i don't believe that "the desktop" is
> >something that developers of "music" apps should concern themselves
> >with.
> >
> another good point. That's why i said i don't care. :-)
> It was ment as an example. see below again.
>
> >>And if you think of it, the situation with all those modular synth apps
> >>
> >>
> >
> >the situation is no different to the one in the h/w world.
> >
> actualy there is a difference. we don't have to be afraid of each other,
> since we don't have to compete for market shares.
> Oh well... forget it.
>
> >i don't
> >hear anyone suggesting that doepfer should quit because moog is making
> >modular stuff again, or even that they should work together.
> >
> Just for the records, i never would be so bold to suggest anyone to quit.
> Actualy i would be the first to quit if i felt that what i am trying to
> achieve has already been achieved.
> Thats part of the reason why i am asking this. There just has to be a
> way of making sure that what i am doing does make any sense at all. The
> last weeks, there were discussions about redesigning ams from scratch,
> and how to do this. But it seems so pointless sometimes, to spend night
> after night, thinking about problems that have already been solved
> nicely in some other project.
>
> Man, i hate this. every time i try to give smart answers to your posts
> on some list, i run out of arguments. :-)))
>
> Guess i better stop now and think it all over.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Lukas
>
>
Well, each synth has it's own goals and design (UI design is significant too),
so defining any common scheme that synths must use will make them a twins for
each other. But I think that some compatibility must exist. As the LADSPA is
common API for filters and FXes (and it is supported by many of existing
synthesizers), maybe it's time for designing a similar API for softsynth
only, that would have abilities of using such features as "voltage
controlling", polyphony, etc.
Roman.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Mar 19 2003 - 08:28:38 EET