On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 07:53:54PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote: > > Ah, okay. It seems you look at it from a hardware model. As I never > used electronic sound hardware this is often hard to follow for me. > (ALthough now my standard rant on software designed after hardware > could follow... ;)
Glad you left that out, since I could write it myself ;) The model was developed on specialized hardware, but for me the hardware model is not the point, but solely the benefits of a fixed architecture: easy to understand, fast to handle. I'm all for the flexibility of modular systems, but often enough I want rather common sounds, that can be achieved with fixed systems much faster, without the danger of getting lost in buidling up complicated structures. > Okay, to me a sampler is much more general: It's something which plays > back recorded sounds. Note and velocityi, filters and all this don't > belong to the sampler in my model - they are just one way to use a > sampler there, whereas there could be hundreds of others, the most > widely known of it probably are DJ-scratching and sample arranging in > Ardour. Clearly the modular system definition of sampler, and it's more to the point. --- Thorsten Wilms