On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:34:35 +1000
cal <cal@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> Folderol wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > Here be dragons!
> >
> > While I would agree in general that a log scale would be better, both
> > from a usability point of view, and consistency with the rest, how is
> > this going to effect existing patches?
> >
> > I have a *lot* of patches. Apart from Paul's default set, I've gathered
> > over a hundred from other people as well as creating about the same
> > number myself - I would be less than delighted if these all started to
> > misbehave!
> >
> > I would be happy with apparent log behaviour without changing the
> > software's interpretation of the actual stored numbers, although this
> > might give a rather strange 'feel'. It would depend on how fine-grained
> > the actual numbers were.
> >
> > The only other practical possibility I can think of would be build
> > in a parameter file conversion utility (I think this was done in Zyn's
> > early days) and put an ID tag in new files (this was not done!) so that
> > appropriate loading behaviour could be done.
> >
> > To go this way would also need agreement with the main Zyn branch
> > otherwise we'd end up with two incompatible systems.
> >
> > All in all, I wonder if it would bring enough benefits to be actually
> > worth the effort.
>
> Thanks, I think that closely parallels my own fears, dreads and reservations.
> End of story.
>
> cheers,
It seems that Mark is looking at a similar issue on the main Zyn site.
-- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-userReceived on Sun Sep 20 20:15:08 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 20 2009 - 20:15:08 EEST