I would say no, at least on Linux, because no external plugins are
supported unless you want to use VSTs.
But I would say we have a shortage of effect plugins. Or add LV2.
Louigi.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:53 PM, musikbear <[email protected]> wrote:
> If existing synths are merged -what about backward-campatility? Would that
> be
> preserved withtout further work or only simple ajustments needed, or would
> it be a serious issue?
> Lmms is a wonderfull DAV, but the musclework should not be aimed at
> creating
> issues. Design-wise, only one of diiz arguments is needed to puncture the
> huge-all-in-one synth: /RAMusage!/ Its simply just overhead and RAMabuse,
> to
> only have mega-pack-synths in the lib.
> Does lmms have too many synthts? -Short answer imo : No
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://linux-multimedia-studio-lmms.996328.n3.nabble.com/Do-we-have-too-many-synths-tp7211p7811.html
> Sent from the lmms-devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Put Bad Developers to Shame
> Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration
> Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment
> Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees
> _______________________________________________
> LMMS-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
>
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Put Bad Developers to Shame
Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration
Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment
Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees
_______________________________________________
LMMS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
