On 03/22/2014 11:38 AM, Johannes Lorenz wrote: > 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
Several reasons. - usability: having one massive synth is complex to use and learn. If you just want to create a simple sound and know what you need, it's inconvenient to go through tabs and tabs and subwindows and dialogs ... also, new users would scare away. - resources: having to use one massive synth for each instrument would mean that this massive instrument would need to be loaded in memory several times. Some of our synths already take a lot of CPU power to run (organic, vibed) - imagine mashing all these together, it'd be horrible. Memory usage too. - code complexity: this would be a nightmare to maintain - compatibility: implementing new features in a backwards compatible way would become a nightmare - modularity: it's good to use a modular design because it allows the user to mix and match components to create the kind of functionality they need on a case-by-base basis. A big monolithic beast is much less flexible. Think about the swiss army knife. It's a nice tool if you're like out camping or something, but if you're at home, you don't want to use it in place of all your tools. You want the right tool for the right job. > Examples: > > * "Vibed" allows to simulate vibrating strings. But you can only select very > few waveforms. Vibed actually has a wavegraph, and allows loading samples as waveforms. You can use any waveform you want in Vibed. > * 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). ZASF uses additive/substractive synthesis. It's very different from wavetable synthesis and is good if you want to create authentic sounding analog-like sounds. Wavetable synths are cool, but you don't necessarily want them for all your sounds. They tend to cause aliasing, which makes them unsuitable for creating analog-like sounds. > * 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. We can use our plugins in a modular way. Chaining together instruments, controllers and effects, you can get much more complex sounds than any single VST can achieve. > So I'd ask to start working at one synth that includes the features that all > other synths have. What's your opinion? If you want to create a synth that has tons of features, by all means - go nuts! Create the most awesome synth there is. That'd be great! But that doesn't mean we should remove our existing instruments. Sometimes you only need a small, simple instrument. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
