9 Jun
2004
9 Jun
'04
4:57 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 07:53:43PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Steve Harris hat gesagt: // Steve Harris wrote:
What I meant with "nice" is more in the vein of this here:
http://www.propellerheads.se/products/reason/img/closeup/redrum/closeup-red…
I mean, it looks like a nice piece of hardware, but what good is that
on screen. You don't even know which button is more important that
others. And why are there srews? And Reason gets especially terrible
if you look at the moving cables on the back. Ah well, I could go on
for hours on how terrible I think this is... ;)
the moving cables are quite distracting.
but you can right click on every jack and connect it to another jack via
the menu. and you can see the connections in the menu too.
reason also does a very good job at connecting everything for you.
this is of course only possible, because the reason building blocks are
really big. how should pd know how you wanted to have your objects
connected ?
i consider the eyecandy RACK part of reason only for playing (fooling)
around with the effects. so that you get to know them.
you can rightclick on every control, and add a control track to the
sequencer.
and that is what makes reason a nice tool. the sequencer is integrated
with the rack part.
imagine you got muse sequencing pd and you can add a control track to
muse with one mouse click on a pd control. (not to mention, that you can
record automation from pd to muses control track)
this is why i am still tempted to implement a full sequencer into galan
someday. But it would be much better to define some API to make this
possible in the UNIX way.
if reason had a schematic behind the rack i would be quite happy with
it. (well should run under linux and be jackified :)
--
torben Hohn
http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language
