Re: [LAD] Non-daw, non-sequencer (fork?) - Linux-audio-dev

james morris

30 Sep 30 Sep

4:31 p.m.

New subject: Non-daw, non-sequencer (fork?)

On 30/9/2009, "rosea grammostola" <rosea.grammostola(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Danni Coy wrote:

I have taken a look at non daw - and I have to say that I am sold on the concept (particularly using jack/lash/midi infrastructure wherever possible) there are a few extra features I would like to see added. But am incredibly busy at the moment.

Danni, That would be cool! I posted this cause it will be a lost for Linux Audio if this dies imho. Btw I think I found one disadvantage in the workflow of non-sequencer. You can choose a scale to work in, but the disadvantage afaik is that you can't choose notes outsides that scale. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm right it seems to narrow the possibilities quite a bit.

I actually found it good that you can't choose notes outside the scale - and did you know if you change scales then the notes from the old scale that are outside of the new, are not played - but *are* still there? I've not played enough with it yet to really take advantage of it, but as the notes are still there - just not visible or audible, I think this opens up possibilities rather than narrowing them? james.

Reply

rosea grammostola

7:18 a.m.

New subject: Non-daw, non-sequencer (fork?)

Danni Coy wrote:

...

I am kind of work till after midnight every day in my day job busy at the moment. I would like to get back into open source development when I have a bit of breathing room. I like the modular approach taken by non daw... I would like to see the pro audio infrastructure in linux get to the point where it can support an application like this really well. I have in mind perhaps a few small improvements and I would like to see it be able to use the new LADI infrastructure... I took a quick peak at the sequencer (sequencers are not normally part of my workflow - or rather I haven't found one that really suits me yet). With regards to not being able to put in out of scale notes it seems you can get around that by choosing a chromatic scale type.

Ah I was thinking about such a solution, but it's already there, cool. \r

Reply

rosea grammostola

8:25 a.m.

New subject: Non-daw, non-sequencer (fork?)

rosea grammostola wrote:

...

rosea grammostola wrote:

Danni Coy wrote:

I am kind of work till after midnight every day in my day job busy at the moment. I would like to get back into open source development when I have a bit of breathing room. I like the modular approach taken by non daw... I would like to see the pro audio infrastructure in linux get to the point where it can support an application like this really well. I have in mind perhaps a few small improvements and I would like to see it be able to use the new LADI infrastructure... I took a quick peak at the sequencer (sequencers are not normally part of my workflow - or rather I haven't found one that really suits me yet). With regards to not being able to put in out of scale notes it seems you can get around that by choosing a chromatic scale type.

Ah I was thinking about such a solution, but it's already there, cool. \r

and in View use can choose for 'compacted', which makes the notes outside the scale visible/invisible. Non-daw doesn't work here with recent jack1 and jack2

Sorry for the flood.... I'm just brainstorming ;) Non-Daw: Paul Davis says that the Ardour backend is independent of it's gui. With other words, you can make Ardour as simple as you want. I don't know how non-daw is build, but I can imagine the fast and simple interface on a Ardour backend... Non-Sequencer: Recording midi seems to be ok. I'm not sure if or how quantize works. About the 'fork'... don't know if we would need another name or other project... Maybe 'we' can just work on the existing project, cause the starter of this project was pretty open for contributions afaik. A problem might be that we can't get contact with the author... \r

Reply