[LAU] Time of music in a seqennser

[Cesare Marilungo]

Paul Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 14:33 +0100, Hartmut Noack wrote:
>
>   
>> So one might call me a zelot - I am with Linux because it is GNU. And I
>> dislike to have interactive applications running, that do not fit into
>> the free ecosystem of GNU/Linux. So I think solutions like LV2 need much
>> more attention then they get now.
>>     
>
> >From who? The non-zealots don't seem to care. The zealots don't seem to
> be writing the NI plugins :)
>
> --p
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
>
>   
VST plugins (especially soft synths) are designed to be limited. 
Especially those who emulate old synthesizers are mostly all the same. 
The only difference is in the GUI (and obviously in the limited set of 
oscillators, filters and so on of that particular synth).

I can only speak for myself, but I guess that most people using open 
source software are not interested in such kind of tools. There's no 
reason to limit possibilities in the open source world because you don't 
have to sell the same synth again and again.

I thought a lot of times about starting to write a soft synth similar to 
those available in the VST world. But - again, at least for me - there's 
no motivation, since I can fire up csound and create any kind of sound I 
would imagine with a bunch of lines. Of course I don't have the shiny 
graphical interfaces with rendered knobs. Instead I have unlimited 
possibilities (as much oscillators as I want, connected in any possible 
way, filters, effects, and so on).

It's all about marketing.

Yes, there are also commercial modular synthesizers which are versatile 
as well. But, again, I can express much more (and more quickly) with a 
bunch of lines in csound than using virtual patch cords. The main reason 
to have virtual patch cords is marketing.

Moreover, even if we had VST plugins working perfectly on Linux, most 
people wouldn't switch anyway. Linux is free, so it can't be as good as 
an o.s. that costs money. Most musicians don't pay for software anyway, 
but they perceive commercial software as better, because of its value in 
money.

This is less true for a web browser, for instance. Everybody like 
Firefox. But it's crucial for most kinds of software. Especially in art 
and music - where a lot has to do with irrationality and subjective 
perception - most people don't trust open source software.

Just my 2 cents.

-c.