The following is a cross-post of an exchange that took
place on the rosegarden-devel mailing list. I'm posting
it here because I think it hints at something fairly
serious with the current state of open audio specifications
and issues with their implementation.
It is not my intent to start a flame
On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 14:04 +0100, yikyak wrote:
> The following is a cross-post of an exchange that took
> place on the rosegarden-devel mailing list. I'm posting
> it here because I think it hints at something fairly
> serious with the current state of open audio specifications
> and issues with
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 14:04 +0100, yikyak wrote:
>> The following is a cross-post of an exchange that took
>> place on the rosegarden-devel mailing list. I'm posting
>> it here because I think it hints at something fairly
>> s
On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 18:49 +0100, Chris Williams wrote:
[ a lot of stuff ]
are you seriously asking me to pull out my examples from vst-plugins
over the last 5 years? yes, VST doesn't have the particular problem you
are facing, but it has plenty of others. you want the most egregious?
you tell m
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 08:18:39PM +0200, Paul Davis wrote:
> most of
> us do not have the time or inclination to focus on "newbies to audio
> programming on linux", even if we recognize that this is a problem and
> wish it was otherwise.
I spend on average something like the equivalent of half
a
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> First, why should a complete instrument, taking in
> MIDI and producing audio, be a plugin in Rosegarden
> or any other sequencer ? It would be much more useful
> as a standalone app, and probably *a lot* easier to
> develop. I wouldn't think for even a fraction of a
> seco
On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 22:06 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> First, why should a complete instrument, taking in
> MIDI and producing audio, be a plugin in Rosegarden
> or any other sequencer ? It would be much more useful
> as a standalone app, and probably *a lot* easier to
> develop. I wouldn't t
On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 16:35 -0400, Darren Landrum wrote:
> Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > First, why should a complete instrument, taking in
> > MIDI and producing audio, be a plugin in Rosegarden
> > or any other sequencer ? It would be much more useful
> > as a standalone app, and probably *a lot* ea
Paul Davis wrote:
> something must be going wrong with the world darren. we're in agreement
> with each other twice in the same month :))
It must be something in the water. :-P
So... Why couldn't session states be saved as part of JACK? I realize it
can be argued that it isn't within the scope of
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 10:39:32PM +0200, Paul Davis wrote:
> Fons, you know I broadly agree with you, but a substantial fraction of
> the world's software instrument developers appear to feel otherwise. I
> can't think of a single major "out-of-the-box" software instrument for
> windows or OS X t
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> Well, a 'rich' plugin standard has to provide almost
> everything that the operating system provides: audio,
> midi, GUI, network,... So why not use the system as
> your host ? All it takes is a good session manager.
This is clearly a repeating theme here. Is LASH the so
Darren Landrum wrote:
> I'd still like to think that there is still an innovative solution to
> this problem, and that we are the ones destined to find it. Time for
> some brainstorming, perhaps?
Sorry for replying to my own message.
If something like this is to be solved, it should be tied to
On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 19:03 -0400, Darren Landrum wrote:
> Darren Landrum wrote:
> > I'd still like to think that there is still an innovative solution to
> > this problem, and that we are the ones destined to find it. Time for
> > some brainstorming, perhaps?
>
> Sorry for replying to my own me
Paul Davis wrote:
> i ran into quite a lot of really significant problems
> which could only be solved using google-fu
As is natural. I have no problem with this and did a great
deal of it myself. When I say the information wasn't
mentioned anywhere, I mean *anywhere*. I suspect that,
because of t
On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 14:30 +0100, Chris Williams wrote:
> As regards the merits or not of writing an instrument as
> a plugin, that's been addressed by some other respondents.
> The fact is that an instrument does *not* need OS-levels
> of interaction; it needs timing and midi data and output
> a
Chris Williams wrote:
> There's a reason that ReWire (*loosely* a jack equivalent)
> slowly became deprecated in favour of VSTIs on Windows.
Propellerheads won't even give you the time of day unless you're a
registered for-profit corporation with a real product. Even then, they
give trouble. Jus
Paul Davis wrote:
> It might suprise you that I probably agree with this point even more
> than you do :) JACK exists primarily because there was not a suitable
> plugin API on linux and because several of us felt it unlikely that
> there ever would be one. The biggest obstacle of all was the
> sti
On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 11:23 -0400, Darren Landrum wrote:
> Paul Davis wrote:
> > It might suprise you that I probably agree with this point even more
> > than you do :) JACK exists primarily because there was not a suitable
> > plugin API on linux and because several of us felt it unlikely that
> >
This isn't entirely addressed to Paul; I've just used his
comments as a jumping point.
Paul Davis wrote:
> Chris Williams wrote:
>> As regards the merits or not of writing an instrument as
>> a plugin, that's been addressed by some other respondents.
>> The fact is that an instrument does *not* ne
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 06:18:14PM +0100, Chris Williams wrote:
> ... but also the idea that the plugin
> should implement the Widget interface while the host should
> already be running the gtk main loop. Ouch.
There should not be any problem with that, even
if the host and plugin use different
"Chris Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul Davis wrote:
>> The biggest obstacle of all was the still-unsolved issue
>> of GUI toolkit compatibility.
[snip]
> LV2 seeks to solve this via the extension mechanism. This
> is one of the areas I'm really not happy about, especially
> the curre
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Chris Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't see this as being anything other than a specification bug. I
> don't think the rosegarden developers have implemented the spec
> correctly, necessarily, but the spec gave them ample room to do what
> they did.
So
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Chris Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DSSI, IMO, *attempted* to get this right. Implicit in the
> DSSI spec is an acknowledgment that a plugin spec can't be
> in the business of mandating gui solutions on a platform
> with many to choose from, so they tried to
23 matches
Mail list logo
