26 Apr
2010
26 Apr
'10
8:47 a.m.
Hey guys!
I was wondering about the following.
On Windows we have lots and lots of plugins and synthesizers and effect
racks. On Linux the selection is much less variable.
However, am I correct in understanding that the variety of the Windows
synths and plugins merely means that people take several core modules and
just rearrange them into different GUIs?
Am I correct in understanding that there are only several major algorithms
for things like filters, delays, reverbs and choruses?
Louigi Verona.
26 Apr
26 Apr
9:35 a.m.
Louigi Verona wrote:
Hey guys!
I was wondering about the following.
On Windows we have lots and lots of plugins and synthesizers and
effect racks. On Linux the selection is much less variable.
However, am I correct in understanding that the variety of the Windows
synths and plugins merely means that people take several core modules
and just rearrange them into different GUIs?
Am I correct in understanding that there are only several major
algorithms for things like filters, delays, reverbs and choruses?
Louigi Verona.
Regarding to commercial software you are mistaken. Keep in mind that
coders for commercial software get paid, hence they've got the
resources, time and money to work on software more intensive. Software
such as a synth choir that is able to sing lyrics written by you aren't
just an assembly of filter and similar algorithms. Virtual Orchestras
aren't just sample players, there is code that emulates a lot more, it's
comparable to hardware such as the Yamaha Clavinova for piano sounds,
it's not only generating a sound and using some filters etc., but a lot
of development for very special algorithms.
And because Windows has got more users, that means coders too, as Linux
has got, there's also more shareware.
Do you know that you can use VSTs on Linux too?
2 Cents,
Ralf
9:52 a.m.
Interesting, what you say!
Yes, I know about VST on Linux, but my aim of switching to Linux was to use
free technology, not switch an OS and then get back to emulating Windows
stuff.
But my question is not to put Windows down or anything, but just to
understand the general situation.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>wrote;wrote:
Louigi Verona wrote:
Hey guys!
I was wondering about the following.
On Windows we have lots and lots of plugins and synthesizers and effect
racks. On Linux the selection is much less variable.
However, am I correct in understanding that the variety of the Windows
synths and plugins merely means that people take several core modules and
just rearrange them into different GUIs?
Am I correct in understanding that there are only several major algorithms
for things like filters, delays, reverbs and choruses?
Louigi Verona.
Regarding to commercial software you are mistaken. Keep in mind that coders
for commercial software get paid, hence they've got the resources, time and
money to work on software more intensive. Software such as a synth choir
that is able to sing lyrics written by you aren't just an assembly of filter
and similar algorithms. Virtual Orchestras aren't just sample players, there
is code that emulates a lot more, it's comparable to hardware such as the
Yamaha Clavinova for piano sounds, it's not only generating a sound and
using some filters etc., but a lot of development for very special
algorithms.
And because Windows has got more users, that means coders too, as Linux has
got, there's also more shareware.
Do you know that you can use VSTs on Linux too?
2 Cents,
Ralf
6:44 p.m.
On 04/26/2010 08:47 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Hey guys!
I was wondering about the following.
On Windows we have lots and lots of plugins and synthesizers and effect
racks. On Linux the selection is much less variable.
However, am I correct in understanding that the variety of the Windows
synths and plugins merely means that people take several core modules and
just rearrange them into different GUIs?
Am I correct in understanding that there are only several major algorithms
for things like filters, delays, reverbs and choruses?
in my view, the situation is mixed. there is a lot of utter bullshit
going on, eqs and "mastering" compressors seem to have the greatest
voodoo factor. then some people sell you simple convolvers as
oh-so-great emulators of vintage stuff... i think it's justified to say
that these basic building blocks are widely understood, with little room
for ground-breaking improvements.
it's either in great user interfaces or cutting-edge (and patented)
technology that proprietary stuff kicks our collective asses (which is
fine in my book).
there are many truly revolutionary algorithms and interface designs that
have no free software equivalent, nor will they for the forseeable
future. stuff like ableton live or the waves reverbs come to mind, or
(gasp!) melodyne. or advanced restauration tools like really good
denoises and declickers. then there's adaptive convolvers that can
tackle non-linear stuff (like the "liquid" gear marketed by focusrite) -
no ready-to-use free equivalents exist for this. whether you need it or
not is another question. as it stands now, we can't emulate an UREI, the
closed source folks can. but sampo s. is hot on their tracks :)
the audio fundamentals (controlling spectrum, delay, frequency response,
and space), i.e. the basic things you mentioned that you need to get a
mix done, is all there, in varying degrees of usability and slickness,
and i have never looked back.
then again, i'm not tied into a workflow that needs maximum efficiency.
stuff like protools does have its uses - it's hard to envision an
environment where a seasoned engineer could be faster and more
productive. but often, all that you get for your money is a fake brushed
aluminum widget with huge, wasteful and incorrectly modelled VU meters
and fake rack ears... caveat emptor.
but in all fairness, open source is covering ground in this area, too. :-D
best,
jörn
7:50 p.m.
********************************************
2010/4/26 Jörn Nettingsmeier <nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de>
On 04/26/2010 08:47 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
HI jörn
I totally agree here.
We can, and do produce music that is a s good as any thing in the comercial
sector.
We may work a different way to some of the more commercial offerings but we
still achieve the same level of professional sounding music.
Cheers
Bob
_______________________________________________
Hey guys!
I was wondering about the following.
On Windows we have lots and lots of plugins and synthesizers and effect
racks. On Linux the selection is much less variable.
However, am I correct in understanding that the variety of the Windows
synths and plugins merely means that people take several core modules and
just rearrange them into different GUIs?
Am I correct in understanding that there are only several major
algorithms
for things like filters, delays, reverbs and
choruses?
in my view, the situation is mixed. there is a lot of utter bullshit
going on, eqs and "mastering" compressors seem to have the greatest
voodoo factor. then some people sell you simple convolvers as
oh-so-great emulators of vintage stuff... i think it's justified to say
that these basic building blocks are widely understood, with little room
for ground-breaking improvements.
it's either in great user interfaces or cutting-edge (and patented)
technology that proprietary stuff kicks our collective asses (which is
fine in my book).
there are many truly revolutionary algorithms and interface designs that
have no free software equivalent, nor will they for the forseeable
future. stuff like ableton live or the waves reverbs come to mind, or
(gasp!) melodyne. or advanced restauration tools like really good
denoises and declickers. then there's adaptive convolvers that can
tackle non-linear stuff (like the "liquid" gear marketed by focusrite) -
no ready-to-use free equivalents exist for this. whether you need it or
not is another question. as it stands now, we can't emulate an UREI, the
closed source folks can. but sampo s. is hot on their tracks :)
the audio fundamentals (controlling spectrum, delay, frequency response,
and space), i.e. the basic things you mentioned that you need to get a
mix done, is all there, in varying degrees of usability and slickness,
and i have never looked back.
then again, i'm not tied into a workflow that needs maximum efficiency.
stuff like protools does have its uses - it's hard to envision an
environment where a seasoned engineer could be faster and more
productive. but often, all that you get for your money is a fake brushed
aluminum widget with huge, wasteful and incorrectly modelled VU meters
and fake rack ears... caveat emptor.
but in all fairness, open source is covering ground in this area, too. :-D
best,
jörn
******************************
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
9:08 p.m.
Jorn! Thanks, very informative answer.
What can you say about stuff like this:
1. vocoder
2. grnulizer
3. slicer (when a file is sliced into pieces)
4. beat matching
L.V.
2010/4/26 Jörn Nettingsmeier <nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de>
On 04/26/2010 08:47 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Hey guys!
I was wondering about the following.
On Windows we have lots and lots of plugins and synthesizers and effect
racks. On Linux the selection is much less variable.
However, am I correct in understanding that the variety of the Windows
synths and plugins merely means that people take several core modules and
just rearrange them into different GUIs?
Am I correct in understanding that there are only several major
algorithms
for things like filters, delays, reverbs and
choruses?
in my view, the situation is mixed. there is a lot of utter bullshit
going on, eqs and "mastering" compressors seem to have the greatest
voodoo factor. then some people sell you simple convolvers as
oh-so-great emulators of vintage stuff... i think it's justified to say
that these basic building blocks are widely understood, with little room
for ground-breaking improvements.
it's either in great user interfaces or cutting-edge (and patented)
technology that proprietary stuff kicks our collective asses (which is
fine in my book).
there are many truly revolutionary algorithms and interface designs that
have no free software equivalent, nor will they for the forseeable
future. stuff like ableton live or the waves reverbs come to mind, or
(gasp!) melodyne. or advanced restauration tools like really good
denoises and declickers. then there's adaptive convolvers that can
tackle non-linear stuff (like the "liquid" gear marketed by focusrite) -
no ready-to-use free equivalents exist for this. whether you need it or
not is another question. as it stands now, we can't emulate an UREI, the
closed source folks can. but sampo s. is hot on their tracks :)
the audio fundamentals (controlling spectrum, delay, frequency response,
and space), i.e. the basic things you mentioned that you need to get a
mix done, is all there, in varying degrees of usability and slickness,
and i have never looked back.
then again, i'm not tied into a workflow that needs maximum efficiency.
stuff like protools does have its uses - it's hard to envision an
environment where a seasoned engineer could be faster and more
productive. but often, all that you get for your money is a fake brushed
aluminum widget with huge, wasteful and incorrectly modelled VU meters
and fake rack ears... caveat emptor.
but in all fairness, open source is covering ground in this area, too. :-D
best,
jörn
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
9:27 p.m.
On 04/26/2010 09:08 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Jorn! Thanks, very informative answer.
What can you say about stuff like this:
1. vocoder
2. grnulizer
3. slicer (when a file is sliced into pieces)
4. beat matching
i hate to admit it, but i don't have the slightest idea about any of
those. but i'm sure the more experimental electronic musicians here can
chime in.
9:41 p.m.
Here's my impression of a Granulizer:
Chops a piece of audio up into many little "granules" (segments), ususally
each granule is smaller than 20ms in duration, and then reorganizes these
granules to
form new sounds. There is a method of synthesis based around this approach.
-Harry
2010/4/26 Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>
Jorn! Thanks, very informative answer.
What can you say about stuff like this:
1. vocoder
2. grnulizer
3. slicer (when a file is sliced into pieces)
4. beat matching
L.V.
2010/4/26 Jörn Nettingsmeier <nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de>
On 04/26/2010 08:47 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Hey guys!
I was wondering about the following.
On Windows we have lots and lots of plugins and synthesizers and effect
racks. On Linux the selection is much less variable.
However, am I correct in understanding that the variety of the Windows
synths and plugins merely means that people take several core modules
and
just rearrange them into different GUIs?
Am I correct in understanding that there are only several major
algorithms
for things like filters, delays, reverbs and
choruses?
in my view, the situation is mixed. there is a lot of utter bullshit
going on, eqs and "mastering" compressors seem to have the greatest
voodoo factor. then some people sell you simple convolvers as
oh-so-great emulators of vintage stuff... i think it's justified to say
that these basic building blocks are widely understood, with little room
for ground-breaking improvements.
it's either in great user interfaces or cutting-edge (and patented)
technology that proprietary stuff kicks our collective asses (which is
fine in my book).
there are many truly revolutionary algorithms and interface designs that
have no free software equivalent, nor will they for the forseeable
future. stuff like ableton live or the waves reverbs come to mind, or
(gasp!) melodyne. or advanced restauration tools like really good
denoises and declickers. then there's adaptive convolvers that can
tackle non-linear stuff (like the "liquid" gear marketed by focusrite) -
no ready-to-use free equivalents exist for this. whether you need it or
not is another question. as it stands now, we can't emulate an UREI, the
closed source folks can. but sampo s. is hot on their tracks :)
the audio fundamentals (controlling spectrum, delay, frequency response,
and space), i.e. the basic things you mentioned that you need to get a
mix done, is all there, in varying degrees of usability and slickness,
and i have never looked back.
then again, i'm not tied into a workflow that needs maximum efficiency.
stuff like protools does have its uses - it's hard to envision an
environment where a seasoned engineer could be faster and more
productive. but often, all that you get for your money is a fake brushed
aluminum widget with huge, wasteful and incorrectly modelled VU meters
and fake rack ears... caveat emptor.
but in all fairness, open source is covering ground in this area, too. :-D
best,
jörn
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
27 Apr
27 Apr
4:27 p.m.
Harry Van Haaren wrote:
Here's my impression of a Granulizer:
Chops a piece of audio up into many little "granules" (segments), ususally
each granule is smaller than 20ms in duration, and then reorganizes
these granules to
form new sounds. There is a method of synthesis based around this
approach.
In practice grains can be up to 100ms.
Some of the parameters of granulation:
- grain length (1 -100ms, but this )
- grain envelope (the envelope of each single grain, e.g. triangle,
trapezoid, gaussian etc.)
- grain density (can be measured or described in different ways but it's
the number of grains played in a certain amount of time, the more the
grains the 'denser' the sound)
etc.
There are many granular tools out there for linux. I made a
'minimalistic' one with Pd if anyone were interesterd
Best,
Lorenzo
-Harry
2010/4/26 Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com
<mailto:louigi.verona@gmail.com>>
Jorn! Thanks, very informative answer.
What can you say about stuff like this:
1. vocoder
2. grnulizer
3. slicer (when a file is sliced into pieces)
4. beat matching
L.V.
2010/4/26 Jörn Nettingsmeier <nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de
<mailto:nettings@folkwang-hochschule.de>>
On 04/26/2010 08:47 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Hey guys!
I was wondering about the following.
On Windows we have lots and lots of plugins and synthesizers
and effect
racks. On Linux the selection is much less
variable.
However, am I correct in understanding that the variety of
the Windows
synths and plugins merely means that people take
several
core modules and
just rearrange them into different GUIs?
Am I correct in understanding that there are only several
major
algorithms
for things like filters, delays, reverbs and
choruses?
in my view, the situation is mixed. there is a lot of utter
bullshit
going on, eqs and "mastering" compressors seem to have the
greatest
voodoo factor. then some people sell you simple convolvers as
oh-so-great emulators of vintage stuff... i think it's
justified to say
that these basic building blocks are widely understood, with
little room
for ground-breaking improvements.
it's either in great user interfaces or cutting-edge (and
patented)
technology that proprietary stuff kicks our collective asses
(which is
fine in my book).
there are many truly revolutionary algorithms and interface
designs that
have no free software equivalent, nor will they for the forseeable
future. stuff like ableton live or the waves reverbs come to
mind, or
(gasp!) melodyne. or advanced restauration tools like really good
denoises and declickers. then there's adaptive convolvers that can
tackle non-linear stuff (like the "liquid" gear marketed by
focusrite) -
no ready-to-use free equivalents exist for this. whether you
need it or
not is another question. as it stands now, we can't emulate an
UREI, the
closed source folks can. but sampo s. is hot on their tracks :)
the audio fundamentals (controlling spectrum, delay, frequency
response,
and space), i.e. the basic things you mentioned that you need
to get a
mix done, is all there, in varying degrees of usability and
slickness,
and i have never looked back.
then again, i'm not tied into a workflow that needs maximum
efficiency.
stuff like protools does have its uses - it's hard to envision an
environment where a seasoned engineer could be faster and more
productive. but often, all that you get for your money is a
fake brushed
aluminum widget with huge, wasteful and incorrectly modelled
VU meters
and fake rack ears... caveat emptor.
but in all fairness, open source is covering ground in this
area, too. :-D
best,
jörn
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
<mailto:Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
<mailto:Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
8:23 p.m.
Hey,
Some of the parameters of granulation:
- grain length (1 -100ms, but this )
- grain envelope (the envelope of each single grain, e.g. triangle,
trapezoid, gaussian etc.)
- grain density (can be measured or described in different ways but it's
the number of grains played in a certain amount of time, the more the grains
the 'denser' the sound)
etc.
Sorry I should have phrased that differently. If your grains are less than
20ms in length,
then the ear will not detect a pitch, but hear a sonic "event". Hence grains
can be as big as
you want, but if you need to be entirely sure that there's no original audio
left percievable, > 20ms.
Thanks for the clarification though..! -Harry
6 May
6 May
12:56 p.m.
There is at least one very good granular synthesizer in Aldrin/Neil.
http://sites.google.com/site/neilsequencer/
jmmcd
27 Apr
27 Apr
9:52 a.m.
On 04/26/2010 09:08 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Jorn! Thanks, very informative answer.
What can you say about stuff like this:
1. vocoder
2. grnulizer
3. slicer (when a file is sliced into pieces)
Hello Louigi,
Smasher: http://smasher.sourceforge.net
Or a good ole tracker like MilkyTracker for even more finer grained control.
4. beat matching
That's still missing, a good FLOSS beat matching app or library. At
least, I haven't come across one yet.
L.V.
Best,
Jeremy
10:34 a.m.
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 09:52 +0200, Jeremy wrote:
On 04/26/2010 09:08 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Is beat matching different then beat slicing?
aubiocut
http://tardigrade-inc.com/index.php/En/Software
rhythm ferret in Ardour (or what is it's name)?
Freecycle
SuperCollider?
\r
Jorn! Thanks, very informative answer.
What can you say about stuff like this:
1. vocoder
2. grnulizer
3. slicer (when a file is sliced into pieces)
Hello Louigi,
Smasher: http://smasher.sourceforge.net
Or a good ole tracker like MilkyTracker for even more finer grained control.
4. beat matching
That's still missing, a good FLOSS beat matching app or library. At
least, I haven't come across one yet.
11:21 a.m.
On 04/27/2010 10:34 AM, rosea.grammostola wrote:
Is beat matching different then beat slicing?
Matching means you match one beat with another, slicing a beat means you
cut up the beat of one specific piece into smaller parts to create
something new. You can slice a beat to make it match with another beat
of course, eg. loop a piece of music and mix it with another piece of music.
Beat matching can also be interpreted as automatic beat analysing and
working with the result of that. Mixxx has this functionality in a
rudimentary form. Not very usable yet. I was referring to this
interpretation actually.
aubiocut
That's a MIDI slicer, but doesn't do beat analysing.
Looks promising, especially Tranches, but no beat analysing either.
rhythm ferret in Ardour (or what is it's name)?
That's a beat analyser apparently. I don't use Ardour, that's why I
probably didn't know about it. But to use this to match beats, I don't
think it's feasible.
Freecycle
Now that looks promising, never used it actually, thanks for the tip!
SuperCollider?
I've never used SuperCollider either, it probably has extensions or
plugins that do beat analysing/matching/slicing.
\r
Best,
Jeremy
12:14 p.m.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Jeremy <jeremy(a)autostatic.com> wrote:
On 04/27/2010 10:34 AM, rosea.grammostola wrote:
No, it's a beat slicer, nothing to do with MIDI.
Maybe the confusion arises from an incorrect summary in the man page
on the aubio website -- the first line at
http://aubio.org/aubiocut.html appears to have been cut and pasted
from the man page for aubionotes. (cc'ing the author)
Chris
aubiocut
That's a MIDI slicer, but doesn't do beat analysing. 
2:10 p.m.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Jeremy <jeremy(a)autostatic.com> wrote:
it is somewhat feasible. the currently released version really just does
analysis and then segmentation/editing to create distinct beats. there will
be code in svn soon (for ardour 3) that does the next step of realigning the
split beats onto a grid.
rhythm ferret in Ardour (or what is it's
name)?
That's a beat analyser apparently. I don't use Ardour, that's why I
probably didn't know about it. But to use this to match beats, I don't
think it's feasible.
3:07 p.m.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:34 AM, rosea.grammostola <
rosea.grammostola(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 09:52 +0200, Jeremy wrote:
Is beat matching different then beat slicing?
aubiocut
http://tardigrade-inc.com/index.php/En/Software
rhythm ferret in Ardour (or what is it's name)?
Freecycle
SuperCollider?
any ideas/suggestions regarding how to use these or something similar for
real time beat slicing? I.e., I record some loops in say sooperlooper; while
they're playing, I slice them up and maybe rearrange the slices, add effects
etc, and then I redirect this "rearranged" loop where I want - for example
again in sooperlooper, replacing or overdubbing the original loop.
I know it's definitely possible in supercollider, but as I am still
beginning to learn it (and it seems it will be quite a long journey), I was
wondering about a quicker/user-friendlier way of doing it
cheers
Renato
On 04/26/2010 09:08 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
control.
Jorn! Thanks, very informative answer.
What can you say about stuff like this:
1. vocoder
2. grnulizer
3. slicer (when a file is sliced into pieces)
Hello Louigi,
Smasher: http://smasher.sourceforge.net
Or a good ole tracker like MilkyTracker for even more finer grained 4. beat matching
That's still missing, a good FLOSS beat matching app or library. At
least, I haven't come across one yet.
3:27 p.m.
Well, Smasher is easy to use. Its biggest problem is that it is not
JACKified.
I looked at Tranches. It is not really a beat slicer in how people
understand a beat slicer on Windows and Mac OS, it is more a loop trigger.
I played with it, but honestly, I do not understand how to use it or why
would I want to. Maybe I should spend more time working with it to
understand.
To me a beat slicer is something into which you load a sound file, it
analyzes it, divides it into portions and then those get mapped on the
keyboard as notes and you can play them as midi. I really miss that kind of
an application on Linux. Smasher seems to be it, at least it looks very
similar, but it is, as stated above, not JACKified.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Renato Budinich <rennabh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:34 AM, rosea.grammostola <
rosea.grammostola(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 09:52 +0200, Jeremy wrote:
Is beat matching different then beat slicing?
aubiocut
http://tardigrade-inc.com/index.php/En/Software
rhythm ferret in Ardour (or what is it's name)?
Freecycle
SuperCollider?
any ideas/suggestions regarding how to use these or something similar for
real time beat slicing? I.e., I record some loops in say sooperlooper; while
they're playing, I slice them up and maybe rearrange the slices, add effects
etc, and then I redirect this "rearranged" loop where I want - for example
again in sooperlooper, replacing or overdubbing the original loop.
I know it's definitely possible in supercollider, but as I am still
beginning to learn it (and it seems it will be quite a long journey), I was
wondering about a quicker/user-friendlier way of doing it
cheers
Renato
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
On 04/26/2010 09:08 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
control.
Jorn! Thanks, very informative answer.
What can you say about stuff like this:
1. vocoder
2. grnulizer
3. slicer (when a file is sliced into pieces)
Hello Louigi,
Smasher: http://smasher.sourceforge.net
Or a good ole tracker like MilkyTracker for even more finer grained 4. beat matching
That's still missing, a good FLOSS beat matching app or library. At
least, I haven't come across one yet.
5:01 p.m.
On 04/27/2010 03:26 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Well, Smasher is easy to use. Its biggest problem is
that it is not
JACKified.
Unfortunately not, I'll send them a feature request I think.
To me a beat slicer is something into which you load a
sound file, it
analyzes it, divides it into portions and then those get mapped on the
keyboard as notes and you can play them as midi. I really miss that kind
of an application on Linux. Smasher seems to be it, at least it looks
very similar, but it is, as stated above, not JACKified.
Then Specimen comes up in my mind too.
Best,
Jeremy
5265
days inactive
5275
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
18 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Chris Cannam -
Frank Smith -
Harry Van Haaren -
James McDermott -
Jeremy -
Jörn Nettingsmeier -
Lorenzo -
Louigi Verona -
Paul Davis -
Ralf Mardorf -
Renato Budinich -
rosea.grammostola