Oops, indeed I meant video monitors. *blush* On 2 May 2017 at 15:44, Moshe Werner <moshwe(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/antgel http://about.me/antonygelberg

I used to have 3 displays, the center one is a 16:10 display (1440x900), while the laterals were 5:4 (1280x1024). For normal usage I used the right one (which was slightly bigger than the left one) for web navigation, the center for other programs, video/streaming, and programming IDEs, the left for system audio mixer (jack_mixer, I always have jack running), shells and system monitoring; for audio I used the central display for the Ardour main track window, the left for the mixer strip/qjackctl/qsampler/plugin GUIs, with jack connections in the background with Patchage, while the right one was for other programs (music notation or sequencing, Hydrogen, Renoise, scripting, etc). Some months ago the right display broke down and, while I think I'll replace it someday, the setup remained pretty similar, with programs that usually run on the right splitted between central and left, according to the size needed. I started using virtual desktops much more than in the past (I use fluxbox with 4 virtual desktops), so the second desktop is usually dedicated to music players, social networks and chat apps, with the third and fourth used as "backup" spaces when I need to access to a program easily without activating it from the taskbar, for example when using virtualization softwares (I configured the shortcut Win key+mousewheel to cycle between virtual desktops). 2017-05-03 18:32 GMT+02:00 Brent Busby <brent(a)keycorner.org>rg>: -- È difficile avere una convinzione precisa quando si parla delle ragioni del cuore. - "Sostiene Pereira", Antonio Tabucchi http://www.jidesk.net

Antony Gelberg <antony.gelberg(a)gmail.com> writes: Not too bad.. It's a high res screen.. :) -- - Brent Busby + =============================================== + With the rise of social networking -- Studio -- + sites, computers are making people -- Amadeus -- + easier to use every day. ----------------+ ===============================================

Two is fine, but I really miss the third sometimes. Btw, just yesterday I had to rent what was going to be the new third display, because a friend got his second monitor burn too, after his first one broke some months ago... So, it could be worse ;-) I really prefer Patchage over QjackCtl's patchbay (actually, I don't even use QjackCtl anymore) because it allows you to have everything on one viewport, Jack audio, and both ALSA and Jack midi, and place everything where you need, allowing you a better graphical organization of the patchbay. When you have projects with more than 30-40 ports, that could be a mess in QjackCtl. Well, does programming count? :-) PS This is the first time I've participated meaningfully on a mailing list I know, I don't like that too, and I usually do that for work messaging or when my answer is clear enough without the need of citing the original message. Beyond that, I still love old-style bottom posting. Cheers, Maurizio -- È difficile avere una convinzione precisa quando si parla delle ragioni del cuore. - "Sostiene Pereira", Antonio Tabucchi http://www.jidesk.net

On Thu, 4 May 2017 11:15:54 -0700 (PDT), Len Ovens wrote: IMO QjackCtl is the second best tool to organize connections. The best way isn't to use a separated tool at all. In my experiences there's no need to use QackCtl, when using Ardour. However, Qjackctl follows a patchbay approach and Patchage simulates messy placed gear. In the real world we are using a patchbay, to easily connect messy placed gear.In short, QjackCtl does the right thing, while IMO the approach of Patchage is (to put it politely) absurd. -- "Access to all language versions of Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey on 29 April 2017." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_censorship_of_Wikipedia#Turkey

2017-05-05 9:42 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Wilms <self(a)thorstenwilms.com>om>: And, also, the ability to split/join client ports, which actually can allow you to have a layout similar to that QjackCtl offers. I tend to agree with Thorsten on this matter. The fact is, there's obviously no better software at all, it all depends on your needs and your habits. For me, QjackCtl's patchbay isn't good enough for my workflow, expecially when working with a lot of clients and with completely different setups per project. And I don't even use the automatic layout, since I really need to put clients where I want. Also, comparison to physical gear makes sense only in certain situations: even in the real world, I always use completely different setups and patching, I really wouldn't do much with a "standard" patchbay, which is usually intended for pretty standard (and, possibly, always similar) layouts. I once had an orchestral setup with 10 virtual instrument clients (with 16 audio output ports each), a couple of custom made mididings script (each of them with 8-10 ports), external effects and, finally, ardour. Trust me, in QjackCtl that would have been a mess of intersected bezier-curves. Not that the Patchage visualisation was perfect, but, at least, I was able to organize clients according to their role and connections; it wasn't easy to work with that project, but, at least, everytime I looked at the Patchage window everything was clear at the first glance. That wouldn't have happened with QjackCtl. I also don't like very much Ardour's patchbay layout: while it makes sense, it takes a lot of space and you have to do a lot of scrolling and eye-searching when you have a lot of clients active. But, then again, what's important is that you feel right about the tool you use, so, that doesn't matter: they're completely different approaches, they work fine and make sense in their workflow concept. Maurizio -- È difficile avere una convinzione precisa quando si parla delle ragioni del cuore. - "Sostiene Pereira", Antonio Tabucchi http://www.jidesk.net

2017-05-07 23:37 GMT+02:00 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>et>: Since when graphical display is a direct symptom of professionalism? Professional means that *you* are the professional, you know your tools and how to use them to get the best results against the minimum effort need to achieve them. What's your problem in having different needs for production than yours? No, you don't. You use that workflow if, and only if, you are using a permanent setup. I don't. Keep it simple and straightforward! Or... keep it as it meets your needs. :-) I never said that QjackCtl is not valid, it just isn't right for *my* needs (again, MY needs, which are different than yours or than anyone else), and I think that having complex routing layouts it actually doesn't work right. Again, according to MY needs, MY workflow and MY - always different and mutable - setups. Regards, Maurizio -- È difficile avere una convinzione precisa quando si parla delle ragioni del cuore. - "Sostiene Pereira", Antonio Tabucchi http://www.jidesk.net

Single fairly high res monitor here, and switching workspaces. Usually, one for Yoshimi, another for Rosegarden and a third for any other soft synths etc. The qjackctl window I make sticky and top dead centre. I usually do one-pass recording to Audacity, and depending on exactly how I'm working I'll either have that on the rosegarden workspace (as that's where I usually trigger it) or if I'm doing something more complex I'll make that sticky too. -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.