Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Anyone planned a GTK2-based Multitracker?
From: Dave Robillard (drobilla_AT_connect.carleton.ca)
Date: Sat Apr 10 2004 - 10:09:38 EEST
On 04/10/04 02:10:43, Richard Bown wrote:
> Well if you can get over your gtk fixation then there's also Rosegarden of
> course. Which offers JACK transport and hence "Ardour sync" (sic).
Rosegarded depends on KDE. Don't get me wrong, I'm not militantly anti-qt (or
KDE, or anything without good reason), but I simply can't afford to be running
two desktop environments worth of crap at the same time, especially just for
one app. Plus Rosegarden has a bunch of audio stuff in the way.
Oh, and Ardour can sync via Jack transport, MTC, or MMC. Hence "Ardour sync
through some means". I'm sorry, I suppose I should have said "the possibility
of syncronization with ardour utilising the appropriate technologies"?
> > (Random thought) A MIDI sequencer where you can draw control curves over
> > the tracks (like ardour volume and whatnot) would be very cool.. esp. for
> > electronic music (like, say, trance) when the control parameters are as
> > important as the notes themselves
>
> Both MusE and Rosegarden support this.
... are you sure about MusE? I can't find any reference to such a thing, or
find said feature myself (I do use MusE, if not very heavily). (Yes, MusE has
a control editor of some sort of course, but that's not what I'm talking
about). MusE /also/ has a bunch of audio stuff in the way.
> The ideal is that just because MIDI data is simple, writing a MIDI sequencer
> is somehow a trivial effort. You'd notice from the lack of contenders to
> that crown that it evidently isn't. I'd suggest before anyone attempts to
> reinvent the wheel that they fully understand what's trying to be
> accomplished elsewhere and join forces.
I fully understand that writing a MIDI sequencer is anything but a trivial
task. I don't know why you would assume otherwise, since I didn't say a
single thing even suggesting that was my 'ideal'.
> Anyway, what about BEAST? That's gtkmm or GTK and does MIDI does it not?
No alsa seq support AFAIK. Plus BEAST is pretty much the polar opposite of a
"pure" MIDI sequencer. (I'm beginning to think you didn't even read my
message)
Although tearing the MIDI sequencer stuff out of beast and adding alsa seq
support and jack sync wouldn't be a half bad idea...
> It's amazing actually - I take a six month break from LAD after the peak of
> those horrendous soft synth "architecture" discussions (whatever that
> acronym
> was) and I find the same old (I'm afraid to say) ill-informed arguments
> banging around. It reminds me of the USENET days. Death of the internet
> predicted etc.
>
> Do you think, just like the old USENET days, someone should write a LAD FAQ
> and post it monthly? I think it'd greatly increase the clue quotient.
... Are you serious? The CLUE quotient? What, because I think a MIDI
sequencer that's simply focused on being a good MIDI sequencer is a good idea
I need a CLUE? (This coming from a guy who has taken a "six month break" from
LAD, and is impying that _I_ need to read a FAQ)
I'll keep my opinion of you and your comments to myself for obvious reasons.
I will however suggest trying to not be so blatently RUDE and INSULTING, and
maybe contributing something useful to the discussions at hand. (Not to
mention basing your comments on what people actually say instead of outlandish
assumptions on your part)
Anyway, since I apparently have to specifically ask for agruments or facts out
of you, instead of just ignorant uninformed bashing of my intelligence with no
justification, what exactly was ill-informed about my 'argument'?
-Dave (who is flat-out offended and throughly unimpressed at the moment)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Apr 10 2004 - 10:06:54 EEST