Right now, I think we have too many synths with too less features. This is not meant bad, I think many of them are awesome. However, it looks like this to me:
Synth 1: Features: A Synth 2: Features: B Synth 3: Features: C Why don't we do it like this? Synth 1: Features A B C Examples: * "Vibed" allows to simulate vibrating strings. But you can only select very few waveforms. * ZASF has a great waveform creator (> 10 waveforms, many with parameters). But I can not modify the waveforms like in a wavetable synth. (like in BitInvader or, as I assume, Vesa's new synth). * Except ZASF, I miss a good (or any?) portamento editor in all synths. Pro arguments: * Less code duplication + The amount of bug reports decreases a lot. * One synth with 3 features is way more useful than 3 with only 1 feature. We have lots of synths that have sub-functionality of "Massive NI", but none has the full functionality. I think having many features is important to create real professional sounds. Of course, I know, everyone has different opinions about what is necessary: "I need feature XYZ" vs "Feature XYZ is useless or consumes resources". But we can use branches. Plus, a good portamento algorithm and a good waveform creator / wavetable algorithm could also be included in almost every synth. By include I mean reusing source code. So I'd ask to start working at one synth that includes the features that all other synths have. What's your opinion? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech _______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
