18 Feb
2010
18 Feb
'10
7:47 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 2:34 PM, torbenh <torbenh(a)gmx.de> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:18:54PM +0300, alex stone
wrote:
We have midi for automation or controlling synths, plugins, etc,
because that's been the malnstream path for development. As far ease
of use, midi is inefficient is certain use cases.
I don't doubt that with great implementation, midi could do better
than it does, but i've yet to see that.
Again, this a personal user experience, based on all the previous
years of having to use midi for such tasks, and the refreshing change
to CV in a software format, that has saved me hours of time already,
and ongoing.
Alex.
--
www.openoctave.org
midi-subscribe(a)openoctave.org
development-subscribe(a)openoctave.org
I will clarify here that i'm talking about a
user experience, before
the discussion gets into jousting with white papers.....
ok. so you basically say that midi channels are annoying ?
how about several CC controllers flowing through the same midi connection ?
you think thats bad too ?
i mean for complex synths this could quickly end up in 20 CV lines
controlling one voice.
:)
Alex.
--
www.openoctave.org
midi-subscribe(a)openoctave.org
development-subscribe(a)openoctave.org
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
--
torben Hohn
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev