6 May
2017
6 May
'17
9:18 a.m.
On Sat, 06 May 2017 14:31:57 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
This again is an untrue claim.
This is what you've written [1] and this is what I've written [2].
We, not only I, tried to explain why jack doesn't provide what you want.
hdspmixer controllable by a MIDI remote would be very pleasant, even a
newer release of "TotalMix" for Linux, without MIDI features, would be
welcome. Consider to ask RME why they don't support Linux. While you
are at it and wish to be able to replace audio interfaces, ask other
vendors as well.
I won't reply to anything else, even if you should continue writing
polemic untruth, but the following question:
Is there any DAW for a Microsoft or Apple based platform available,
that provides the combination of DAW mixer and audio interface mixer
you want to get?
Regards,
Ralf
[1]
On Sat, 06 May 2017 13:08:03 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
If access to hardware mixers were as useful as a flying
car, one has to
wonder why the ALSA programmers bothered providing it for a lot of
cards.
You have got access to the audio device's mixer if somebody did the
reverse engineering or got the required information from the vendor and
wrote the needed driver and additional software. I never claimed that
access to the hardware mixer of an audio device is useless. You are
polemic. You could use hdspmixer, we already pointed this out.
At any rate, your point of "nobody should want
that or talk about it"
is abundantly clear without all the flowery comparisons you make.
Putting together something for producing sound using Midi controllers
for controlling more than a single part of the sound setup is not
exactly outlandish. That's what digital controllers are for in the
first place.
I never claimed this either, it could be useful to control the DAW's
mixer as well as the audio interface's mixer with a remote control.
This is another animal than having one DAW mixer to control both in
one mixer, with fallback options, if you change the audio interface.
You are again polemic.
Since you
claim that Linux audio isn't for professionals,
You are the one who claims that Jackd should not be allowed to control
hardware monitoring because professionals use other hardware. What _is_ obvious is that nobody appears to be actively
working on any
of what I was suspecting --hwmon to be useful for.
For explained reasons, even by quoting the original developer of jack1.
feel free to post a link to a mailing list archive or forum where
somebody else, but you, wanted the same as you want. Your wish is very
unusual.
and why there
are tendencies to use hdspmixer, other audio
interface's mixers and/or mixing consoles for hardware monitoring.
Because nobody bothered implementing stuff. That's not the same as
that there would be no point to implementing it. Sure, and professionals don't use Ardour or
GNU/Linux (or Windows 10)
either but custom hardware and systems.
But this is "jack-devel" so it does not matter what "professionals"
do
but rather what users of Jack do.
[2]
On Sat, 6 May 2017 13:56:57 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
in regards to hardware monitoring there shouldn't
be a big difference
between professionals, semi-professionals and amateurs. Most important
is the purpose, not the level of profession.