[linux-audio-dev] Sequencer Concept Addition

Thorsten Wilms t_w_ at freenet.de
Sat Apr 30 18:36:16 UTC 2005


On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 07:30:56PM +0200, Tim Orford wrote:
> 
> so, just to be clear, each tempo/meter container could
> contain a complete tempo/meter map, not just a single pair 
> of values?

Only a meter container that is not inside another meter 
container can have a tempo track, as else they couldn't 
stay in sync. But a first level meter container must (and 
automaticaly will) have a tempo track, because otherwise 
the timing of everything inside would be undefined.

Now if that sounds complicated ... in the common case 
there will be only one meter container set to 4/4 with 
tempo set to a fixed value. And the app should present 
a default empty arrangement / template on startup anyway, 
where something like that would be included. 


> yep, thats cool, but i personally still wouldnt be happy
> without the "track control" area on the left. Even if you
> consider it to just be a shortcut to managing properties of
> the containers. Also probably some of the visual container
> items would by neccesity disapear at smaller zooms anyway.  I
> think its worth remembering that versatile systems are often
> not very successful, as even if people can be bothered to
> learn them, the flexibiliy has a habit of getting in the way
> of the simple case which is in 95% of cases all that is
> needed. Hence for example the common usage of the inflexible
> one to one channel to track relationship model. This is
> a serious issue for me as i resent having to use inflexible
> systems merely for interoperability with the majority of
> people who quite rightly dont want to spend their whole life
> learning how to get an extra 2% productivity out of their
> sequencer:-)

There could be a setup like in Garageband, where you have a main 
view, and a detail view below where the selection is shown. I 
don't know if Garageband also does that, but if multiple objects 
are selected, they should all be shown there (for easily comparing 
patterns, for example).

And containers could be entered / maximized on double-click 
maybe.


If you only look at the common case and what is mainstream, 
there will be no progress. And I don't think sequencers are 
that far developed that this should be accepted.

Of course it's important to keep the flexibility and advanced 
features from getting in the way of common and simple tasks. 
I think it is possible to succesfully do so inside my concept.

A user could ignore the whole multiple meter option and use 
containers mainly like tracks and all would be fine. But if 
somebody wants to explore 3/4 in sync with 5/8, which would 
change to 7/9 later on, he could!


> I like the rounded corners. I wonder whether they would look
> as good when the boxes are smaller and there are lots back
> to back? I'm currently using rectangles, which has the
> drawback that you cannot see when containers overlap. I was
> going to try a single "cut off" corner, but perhaps will try the
> rounded corners also.

With many small boxes / zoomed far out it will not work so 
well, of course. But most containers will be rather big, 
and having round corners will be of advantage. Too small 
containers will have to be drawn with hard corners, I think.


---
Thorsten Wilms



More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list