On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:37:00 +0100 Lukas Degener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >that isn't actually part of LADSPA. > > > Ah ok, i mixed that up. sorry. > > >there actually isn't really any commonality between what, say, pd > >versus beast do. or between jMax and gAlan. the similarity exists only > >on an abstract conceptual plane, which is where algorithms > >live. however software isn't abstract - its always instantiated. the > >problem here, i think, is that we look at different systems, note > >their abstract conceptual similarities and wonder why they need to > >both exist when they appear so similar. yet they are not similar as > >software, only as ideas. and its the software that is being worked on > >- the ideas were worked out years ago - and its the software that is > >where the fun is. > > > Hmm...good point. > > >i've said many times before: i don't believe that "the desktop" is > >something that developers of "music" apps should concern themselves > >with. > > > another good point. That's why i said i don't care. :-) > It was ment as an example. see below again. > > >>And if you think of it, the situation with all those modular synth apps > >> > >> > > > >the situation is no different to the one in the h/w world. > > > actualy there is a difference. we don't have to be afraid of each other, > since we don't have to compete for market shares. > Oh well... forget it. > > >i don't > >hear anyone suggesting that doepfer should quit because moog is making > >modular stuff again, or even that they should work together. > > > Just for the records, i never would be so bold to suggest anyone to quit. > Actualy i would be the first to quit if i felt that what i am trying to > achieve has already been achieved. > Thats part of the reason why i am asking this. There just has to be a > way of making sure that what i am doing does make any sense at all. The > last weeks, there were discussions about redesigning ams from scratch, > and how to do this. But it seems so pointless sometimes, to spend night > after night, thinking about problems that have already been solved > nicely in some other project. > > Man, i hate this. every time i try to give smart answers to your posts > on some list, i run out of arguments. :-))) > > Guess i better stop now and think it all over. > > Kind Regards, > Lukas > > Well, each synth has it's own goals and design (UI design is significant too), so defining any common scheme that synths must use will make them a twins for each other. But I think that some compatibility must exist. As the LADSPA is common API for filters and FXes (and it is supported by many of existing synthesizers), maybe it's time for designing a similar API for softsynth only, that would have abilities of using such features as "voltage controlling", polyphony, etc. Roman.
