22 Mar
2010
22 Mar
'10
7:43 p.m.
ralf.mardorf wrote
I would like to have one, especially because I fear that one of the CME
microchips someday will go west, but I guess that the CME microchips
make the big difference to virtual analog synth.
Yeah, those CME chips do make a difference. With all the emulators I say that
they can only approximate the sound but give you the control features, the mod
routing, etc. No way do I think that the analogue monsters are where digital
technology exists at the moment. I don't even have a start on the filter modes
of the Matrix for example, but it's mod routingis something I would really like
to have a go at.
I think there is a bit of confusion on this thread (and said so in one of my replies)
regarding MIDI vs CV. I still see them as separate where MIDI defines parameters
of a component such as oscillator tuning, waveform, transpose, and MIDI handles
them perfectly. Then there are modulators which are signals that change the osc
frequency and can have many sources (LFO, Env, S&H). I feel that native rate,
floating point CV is best for these. The oscillator is just an example, gain, filter
cutoff, etc, are others.
Perhaps it is just me that is confused but I still see a dichotomy where on one
side there are parameters that can be automated/quantised and on the other side
there is modulation that needs to be exact and smooth. This is the difference
between CV and control automation but the thread seems to me to be discussing
both at the same time. Automation can be used for MIDI parameters but I still feel
that CV should be used for modulation. The Tuxfamily crosses that barrier by the
way it can apply CV to any control which is a very interesting approach and
possibly a good reason to have a look at their apps for some musical styles.
So anyway, if a new port does get defined I would personally not like to see it called
a CV port. Automation (CA) maybe, but not CV, that confuses the issue.
Kind regards, nick
"we have to make sure the old choice [Windows] doesn't disappear”.
Jim Wong, president of IT products, Acer
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:56:21 +0100
From: ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net
To: nickycopeland(a)hotmail.com
CC: jens.andreasen(a)comhem.se; louigi.verona(a)gmail.com;
linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Subject: Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)
Keep in mind that there are hardware MIDI control panels that anyway
would need a bridge for MIDI in to internal Linux cv. Pushing virtual
knobs is a pain because of several issues, e.g. because of the mouse
resolution.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
I still want to build an emulator for one of
these
I would like to have one, especially because I fear that one of the CME
microchips someday will go west, but I guess that the CME microchips
make the big difference to virtual analog synth.
A nice Feature is a vector control. Just having a kind of MIDI vector
mixer that would use 4 already existing Linux synth would be nice, e.g.
2 instances of fluidsynth and two instances of a polyphonic calf monosynth.
Btw.
http://www.dv247.com/news/Dave%20Smith%20Instruments%20(DSI)%20at%20Digital…