Re: [linux-audio-user] status of ams

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 03:06:37AM +0100, Esben Stien wrote:

> Fons Adriaensen <fons@email-addr-hidden> writes:
>
> > do you think there is a place for a softsynth that would be modular
> > but with a fixed set of modules, everyhing controlled from one
> > window, no patch cables, only 'hardware controls' such as sliders
> > and switches, each one assignable to MIDI, and of course
> > uncompromising audio quality ?
>
> This is more an interface.

If you meant 'an interface issue' I disagree. The impact of the
suggested restrictions goes much deeper than only the interface.

> I think it's really bad if the synth
> interface is not separated from the core.

They have to be in separate threads or processes of course.
But in the case I proposed the interface would directly reflect
the nature of the core and would not try to hide or generalise it,
so no further separation would be required or even wanted. It's a
very specific core, and the idea is to have an interface that fits
very closely to it. This allows to do things in the interface that
would be very hard in a more abstracted approach.

> Projects like smash and
> build tools like khagan are the right way to design such interfaces
> while still not excluding power users who wants to dig deeper.

If you want a separate interface OSC is the way to do it. The
tools used don't matter. But there is no 'deeper' in this case
- that's the whole point of it.
 
> The belt wheel controller on ardour is a very nice controller, btw;)

True, and it's one I would use for such a project.

-- 
FA
Lascia la spina, cogli la rosa.