Re: [linux-audio-user] Your synth wishlist?

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

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Your synth wishlist?
From: Dave Robillard (
Date: Fri Jul 30 2004 - 21:21:51 EEST

On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 05:38, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> What about clicking a "set midi control" toggle button that puts the synth in
> a mode where you waggle your midi controller at the same time as the
> corresponding software slider and they are bound togther. That way you could
> really quickly set up controls without going into menus etc.
> Thats what I'm planning for the noiseweapon synth anyway...

Hmm.. I'd say the 'best of both worlds' approach would be best, have the
menu option, and a mod key (might as well, toggle button is slower and
as long as there's an easy menu-driven way to do it I think using a mod
key is fine, it's way way faster) + click method:

hold (ie) control, click module port to hilite, move midi controller to
bind automatically (with message in the status bar)

The menu based method would need to stick around in case there's MIDI
data flying all over the place and you can't use the physical method
(live performance is the overall goal)

> FWIW this ladspa only softsynth is something I've been itching to do for ages,
> I think it's a really good idea. Maybe it would require some specialist LADSPA
> plugins that would be needed for a softsynth, but I think this is where the
> functionality belongs, rather than in client code.

Well, assuming my efforts are to your liking, you don't have to do it
anymore.. you're welcome. :D Once release time rolls around the more
developers the better.. but release time isn't here yet by any means

(That's actually a good point, I don't want to get anyone eager - this
thing is in really, really, REALLY early alpha stages, it won't be
"done" for awhile)

I agree, special module formats are a waste of effort. If we need a new
plugin format (other than waiting an eternity for GMPI), we should make
one, not just duplicate effort all over the place. It hurts current
apps, but it also hurts new app developers who have so much catching up
to do. If the modules were all universal, any client would instantly be
very useful.

> After my recent experiments I'd recommend leaving the GUI out of the picture
> for as long as possible, and implementing it in a scripting language instead
> of C++ - I find it a much more productive way of developing, plus your
> software is availible for people who don't want or can't use GUIs with no
> extra work.

Agreed. The GUI and engine are completely seperate processes (that can
talk over the network even) so that's not a problem. I'm testing right
now with little console clients, and an alsa midi client.. one of my
primary goals is to allow use in almost any way possible. The engine is
just as useful for writing a simple C/bash/whatever program to make some
noise as it is for a modular synth GUI.

FWIW, SSM is what got me in to modular synthesis (actually, synthesis in
general), so I'm in debt to you.

- The other Dave :)

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jul 30 2004 - 21:23:57 EEST