> no, silly because if QTractor wants to control JACK transport, its not
> going to plan on doing it by sending MMC.
That's true, but if JACK transport should send/receive MMC by MIDI
to/from an external device, there is the need to connect the ports, that
transmits/receive the MMC commands, to the hardware MIDI out/in ports.
So it would be fine, if this is possible by the Qtractor GUI, resp. it's
silly, because I didn't know that Qtractor is transmitting MMC by itself
and that's why there isn't the need to do this by Qtractor. BUT if JACK
will be the source and receiver for MMC, than applications like Qtractor
don't need to be able to know MMC by them self. If this is only done by
JACK and it's fine, than nobody has to fear, that an application is a
broken MMC master/slave. Also it's silly to run more than one
application, that is able to know MMC, if they all are JACK transport
compatible. It's antithetic to say Linux is flexible, because we can
choose the applications that we need, without running things we don't
need and on the other side, we run more than one application, that is
MMC able. JACK should be the instance that knows MMC and not the HD
recorders and sequencers.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 25 2008 - 04:15:05 EET