4 Jan
2004
4 Jan
'04
6:45 a.m.
davidrclark(a)earthlink.net wrote:
Mark,
Thanks for your reply.
Previously I had asked if anyone would be interested in my packaging
some of my work so that others could use it. As you may know, this can
be a daunting task, and I wanted to know whether or not anyone would
find the "capability" useful before dumping a lot of time in creating
a useable "program." It's like before I build you a car, I ask you
if you have any need for transportation.
If everyone is happy with the second (and fourth) clip, then I won't
bother trying to write the requisite GUI interface and docs that
I need to convince everyone to look at.
hmm. *of course* they sound a lot better than the monophonic stuff, but
that's because the quality of the synthesizer is better. i don't see the
point of this comparision. from my pov the relevant question is: does
the (rather crappy imho) monophonic example (1st and 5th clip) improve
when processed(3rd and 6th)? my answer is yes.
so yes, i do want to play with that code! :)
as a sidenote, even though i like the roland output better, it is not as
good as the processed mono stuff in terms of avoiding
in-head-localization, but hearing that takes a lot of abstraction
because it's so much slicker in other respects.
as to writing a gui, i don't think you should bother yet. let people
play with command-line tools, and if it needs a complex gui, wrap it up
as a jack program later, or better yet, if the gui is simple (which i
think it is), make it a LADSPA plugin and let the host app take care of
the gui.
regards,
jörn
--
In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- Homer Simpson
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Kurfürstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany
http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server)
http://www.linuxaudiodev.org (Linux Audio Developers)