Hi,
I'm working on a new MIDI app which shares some features with a
sequencer, but in other ways is more like an arpeggiator, but also
somewhat different to both.
It's like a sequencer in that the user will be able to create rhythmic
patterns which lack pitch and velocity data, and almost like an
arpeggiator in that it will automatically generate the pitch and
velocity data from an algorithm - and unlike either a sequencer or
arpegiattor, it uses a 2d window-placement like algorithm to generate
pitch/velocity (mapping these to x/y).
Basically, I am after opinions from a potential users on the following:
1) a basic 'timebase master' implementation which lacks tempo maps,
signature changes, etc, just enough to fire the app up and play around
with ideas (currently it does this).
2) no timebase master at all, (just like arpage), you must have some
other sequencer running.
3) a full feature time base master with tempo/meter changes etc.
The case for 1 is just as it says, ease of use for playing around
with, and only for playing around with.
The user would be expected to run a fully featured sequencer/daw for
features such as tempo and meter changes.
Would having 1) just confuse users? (but if they're confused by that...)
The case against 3 is other apps like ardour, rosegarden, already do
this, and probably better than I can get my app to.
Cheers,
James.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Fri Jul 2 00:15:02 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jul 02 2010 - 00:15:02 EEST