[LAU] [ken@email-addr-hidden: Re: [LAD] Descent synth as dssi]

From: Ken Restivo <ken@email-addr-hidden>
Date: Tue Mar 09 2010 - 21:56:34 EET

On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 07:04:26PM +0100, Burkhard W??lfel wrote:
>
>
> Am 06.03.2010 um 07:19 schrieb Ken Restivo <ken@email-addr-hidden>:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:16:51AM -0600, Josh Lawrence wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Gerald Mwangi <gerald.mwangi@email-addr-hidden>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi, does anyone know a synth powerfull like zynadd, phasex or
>>>> bristol,but in dssi format? I need something I can load into
>>>> Rosegarden,
>>>> since I dont want 10 Standalones running, until ardour, rg and the
>>>> synths support LASH, if that ever happens.
>>>
>>> I have no idea why, but I have a warm, fuzzy soft place in my heart
>>> for DSSI plugins. they always seem to just work. whysynth has
>>> already been mentioned, but be sure to check out the calf monosynth,
>>> which can be run as a DSSI plugin:
>>>
>>> jack-dssi-host calf.so:Monosynth
>>>
>>> check out the DSSI home page too, for a lot of other options.
>>>
>>> I'm hoping this thread will reveal some that I don't know about! we
>>> really need something like specimen in DSSI format.
>>>
>>>> I think LASH should be integrated into Jack, to make it mandatory
>>>> for
>>>> linux audio apps. The missing LASH support is one of the main issues
>>>> disturbing me, when working with linux audio. Now I've said it, ha.
>>>> I'm thinking of having Jack require a Load/Save callback, prior to
>>>> activating the client. How feasible is that?
>>>
>>> why oh why oh why did you throw this paragraph in? now no one wants
>>> to talk about DSSI anymore... :(
>>>
>>
>> +1 for Calf Monosynth and WhySynth. They, in addition to AMS and
>> PHASEX, are the synths I've used most.
>>
>> Zyn is kind of old and doesn't do RT; the new thing is Yoshimi, and I
>> dunno if it supports LASH or ladish, but I'd guess both.
>>
>> For the record, I *HATE* session management and I don't run LASH at
>> all when I can avoid it (IIRC, there's some synth that I use or used
>> which requires LASH, so I occasionally have to start it up).
>> I generally can't stand technologies that try to be "smart" and do
>> things I don't explicitly instruct them to do. Frustrates the hell out
>> of me.
>>
>> FWIW, I am also the kind of guy who turns off autocomplete and
>> spelling checkers whenever I can.
>>
>
> How would you share a complicated production setup, aka session, with
> other users? Script, or text explanation? Screenshot? Ardour audio
> project only?
>
> I'd love to have a rather bullet proof way to make my sessions available
> to non-geek collaborators really fast and easy. And vice versa.
>
>
> Software trying to outsmart the user can be painful. On the other hand,
> there are users out there waiting to hop on the linux audio boat as soon
> as there is an obvious way to save and restore complex setups without
> scripting. I'd love to make music with them.
>
> It's good that you are happy with your way of using your DAW and so am
> I. But it makes me a little sad sometimes that for remote collaborators
> the learning curve is so steep.
>

My setup is not designed for remote collaboration.

However, the Packet-In project (http://packet-in.org) found a reasonably workable process for doing remote collaboration. It's been a few years, but IIRC it involved FTP'ing ogg files around.

Also, there are collaboration websites that offer a lot of that infrastructure in a convenient and slick interface-- doesn't matter what DAW or synths or tools each participant uses. You could be collaborating with people using Logic or ProTools or Ableton or just a random collection of command-line synths like I use-- and it all works smoothly. I don't remember the name of the site, but Drew pointed me to one last year, and I found it a really a cool collaboration tool, kind of like GitHub for music.

So, for remote collab, I think the most portable and flexible solution would be to move a lot of the collaboration functionality out of the DAW or synths, and out into the Web 2.0 cloud instead. Then it becomes DAW-agnostic.

And yes, the average non-techie user wants a monolithic app that just saves/restores and gives them an all-in-one user experience. I prefer working in a more unix-y way: small daemons and tools glued together with scripts. But that's just my personal workflow.

-ken
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Wed Mar 10 00:15:03 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 10 2010 - 00:15:03 EET