<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
> ralf.mardorf wrote<br>> I would like to have one, especially because I fear that one of the CME <br>> microchips someday will go west, but I guess that the CME microchips <br>> make the big difference to virtual analog synth.<br><br>Yeah, those CME chips do make a difference. With all the emulators I say that<br>they can only approximate the sound but give you the control features, the mod <br>routing, etc. No way do I think that the analogue monsters are where digital <br>technology exists at the moment. I don't even have a start on the filter modes <br>of the Matrix for example, but it's mod routingis something I would really like<br>to have a go at.<br><br>I think there is a bit of confusion on this thread (and said so in one of my replies)<br>regarding MIDI vs CV. I still see them as separate where MIDI defines parameters<br>of a component such as oscillator tuning, waveform, transpose, and MIDI handles <br>them perfectly. Then there are modulators which are signals that change the osc<br>frequency and can have many sources (LFO, Env, S&H). I feel that native rate, <br>floating point CV is best for these. The oscillator is just an example, gain, filter<br>cutoff, etc, are others.<br><br>Perhaps it is just me that is confused but I still see a dichotomy where on one <br>side there are parameters that can be automated/quantised and on the other side<br>there is modulation that needs to be exact and smooth. This is the difference <br>between CV and control automation but the thread seems to me to be discussing <br>both at the same time. Automation can be used for MIDI parameters but I still feel <br>that CV should be used for modulation. The Tuxfamily crosses that barrier by the<br>way it can apply CV to any control which is a very interesting approach and <br>possibly a good reason to have a look at their apps for some musical styles.<br><br>So anyway, if a new port does get defined I would personally not like to see it called<br>a CV port. Automation (CA) maybe, but not CV, that confuses the issue.<br><br>Kind regards, nick<br><br>"we have to make sure the old choice [Windows] doesn't disappear”.<br>Jim Wong, president of IT products, Acer<br><br><br><br><br>> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:56:21 +0100<br>> From: ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net<br>> To: nickycopeland@hotmail.com<br>> CC: jens.andreasen@comhem.se; louigi.verona@gmail.com; linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org<br>> Subject: Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)<br>> <br>> Keep in mind that there are hardware MIDI control panels that anyway <br>> would need a bridge for MIDI in to internal Linux cv. Pushing virtual <br>> knobs is a pain because of several issues, e.g. because of the mouse <br>> resolution.<br>> <br>> > I still want to build an emulator for one of these<br>> <br>> I would like to have one, especially because I fear that one of the CME <br>> microchips someday will go west, but I guess that the CME microchips <br>> make the big difference to virtual analog synth.<br>> <br>> A nice Feature is a vector control. Just having a kind of MIDI vector <br>> mixer that would use 4 already existing Linux synth would be nice, e.g. <br>> 2 instances of fluidsynth and two instances of a polyphonic calf monosynth.<br>> <br>> Btw. <br>> http://www.dv247.com/news/Dave%20Smith%20Instruments%20(DSI)%20at%20Digital%20Village/131825<br>> <br>> <br> <br /><hr />Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. <a href='https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969' target='_new'>Sign up now.</a></body>
</html>