On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 08:40 +1000, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> I find it blatently ignorant for some of the posters to say that the
> jack model is not and never gonna work. That's just outright rude. For
> many of us JACK works very well already. If someone doesn't like the
> modular approach and requires a monolithic interface they have various
> options available. No need to write off jack and all the hard work that
> has been put into the apps that work within the modular framework.
If the JACK model "works" or not depends on how you define "works".
It works great for connecting sound generators, processing stages and
recorders.
It doesn't work if you want total recall. I hope Nedko succeeds there,
but it seems no 2 developers can agree on the specifics.
It doesn't work too well if you compare with an integrated solution that
happens to offer the required features all by itself. The likely
shortcoming of integrated solutions will usually be flexibility (if not,
you will likely see internal modularity ...).
Even with having JACK around, it still makes sense to have integrated
MIDI/Audio sequencers instead using 2 and fiddling around with 2
timelines and transport sync issues.
Even if you have stand-alone synths it makes sense to run plugins in a
sequencer for the most straightforward synth and patch selection and for
total recall on loading a session.
-- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-userReceived on Wed Sep 2 12:15:02 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 02 2009 - 12:15:02 EEST