15 Jun
2004
15 Jun
'04
4:40 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 07:53:54PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Ah, okay. It seems you look at it from a hardware model. As I never
used electronic sound hardware this is often hard to follow for me.
(ALthough now my standard rant on software designed after hardware
could follow... ;)
Glad you left that out, since I could write it myself ;)
The model was developed on specialized hardware, but for me
the hardware model is not the point, but solely the benefits
of a fixed architecture: easy to understand, fast to handle.
I'm all for the flexibility of modular systems, but often enough
I want rather common sounds, that can be achieved with fixed
systems much faster, without the danger of getting lost in
buidling up complicated structures.
Okay, to me a sampler is much more general: It's
something which plays
back recorded sounds. Note and velocityi, filters and all this don't
belong to the sampler in my model - they are just one way to use a
sampler there, whereas there could be hundreds of others, the most
widely known of it probably are DJ-scratching and sample arranging in
Ardour.
Clearly the modular system definition of sampler, and it's more
to the point.
---
Thorsten Wilms