On Sunday 08 December 2002 23.54, Paul Davis wrote:
Well, I think
means trouble for mixers, synths with sophisticated
"master sections" and that kind of stuff. You want to use the same
controls for busses as for strips?
personally, i think ardour is an excellent proof-by-implementation
that yes, busses are really just a special class of strip, with no
basic difference in the kinds of controls you'd want for each.
But what happens inside a "simple" synth, where you'll generally have
no insert slots, but rather hardcoded, built-in plugins, which must
be mapped to controls...?
these days, an AudioTrack in ardour is derived from
the object that
defines a Bus. the only differences are that a Bus takes input from
"anywhere", whereas an AudioTrack takes input from its playlist
(via a DiskStream) and can be rec-enabled. other than, they are
basically identical.
Well, in Audiality, I don't even *have* strips. Instead, busses can
send to each other between each insert slot. Remains to see how hairy
that gets when I start making real mixes... :-)
slightly off-topic, but your question leapt out at me.
Well, I considered this when I wrote that post, but I assumed that it
was obvious that synth plugins with integrated mixers being FX plugin
hosts would not be the normal case. Thus, you'd most probably have
more and heavier FX built right into the busses, than you would have
in the strips or "channel output sections". Different sets of
controls, that is.
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. |
| RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. |
`--------------------------->
http://olofson.net/audiality -'
.- M A I A -------------------------------------------------.
| The Multimedia Application Integration Architecture |
`---------------------------->
http://www.linuxdj.com/maia -'
---
http://olofson.net ---
http://www.reologica.se ---