Good catch Israel.
More specifically, HUD works but becomes incompatible with LMMS when we
steal the menu functionality back, right?
Yes, OSX grabs the menu, and it does it properly (as good as it can at
least). Apparently the QT team cared more about OSX compatibility than
Unity... :) Can't say
I think IRC woudl be the best place for quick live support. I think we
could have multiple challenges in a given month at different times to
accomadate the different time zone regions like asia us etc.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:10 PM, davidnimmersatt wrote:
> Thanks for your feedback! All what
Hi everyone... well mainly the awesome coders of LMMS!
The only unfortunate problem with preventing Ubuntu's Unity from
grabbing the menu is that HUD no longer works. For those of you
unfamiliar with HUD, it is the app menu searching tool.
Is there some way to circumvent the movable close button
On 03/23/2014 02:10 AM, Israel wrote:
> Has anyone else experienced an automation crash?
> I am not entire sure how to reproduce it yet...
> I had 4 beat patterns (two drum, one soundfont, one ZynSub)
> I also had 2 TripleOsc and 3 SoundFont Song patterns,
> I was using Automation on Master volume
Has anyone else experienced an automation crash?
I am not entire sure how to reproduce it yet...
I had 4 beat patterns (two drum, one soundfont, one ZynSub)
I also had 2 TripleOsc and 3 SoundFont Song patterns,
I was using Automation on Master volume to fade the end out.
The track was playing and I
Thanks for your feedback! All what I've heard about my Idea seems to be
mostly positive. Reason enough for me to make it real :)
Maybe you could suggest some awnsers to some Wh- questions:
where: where should we meet? IRC, Skype, Browser chatservice? Should be a
cool place to chat, easy and easy t
So I'm still stuck on the gong-1424 related bug.
After re-reading the bugs, I'm noticing that the MacPorts team has a
"Portfile" for 0.4.15 that already works *fairly* well.
This means many of the issues I'm encountering have already been addressed,
but I'm not sure I like the approach After
On 03/22/2014 04:32 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote:
> Indeed the BitInvader plugin could be merged into
> TripleOscillator which could open a new sub-window when you click the
> "custom waveshape" button (instead of just allowing to pick an
> arbitrary wave shape).
I think we should leave bitinvader a
On 03/22/2014 04:08 PM, Johannes Lorenz wrote:
>>> * WT-sound with pulse/freq/ring modulation on top. The modulator must be
>>> able>
>>> to know the notes' frequencies (e.g. to modulate with the same frequency).
>> Doable with my new synth that I'm working on right now. Wavetable
>> synthesis w
No, we don't got too many synths. I agree on that some of them could be
merged because they sound and are somewhat similar, but imo one synth is not
better than several.
--
View this message in context:
http://linux-multimedia-studio-lmms.996328.n3.nabble.com/Do-we-have-too-many-synths-tp7211p7
As a person that produces with LMMS on daily basis, I think thats a bad
idea.
I agree with all of Vesa's statements. Also you can acheve a lot by
layering more synths one under another. I have an idea that might help with
layering. What about making some kinds of "Instrument groups" so that we
can
2014-03-22 15:08 GMT+01:00 Johannes Lorenz :
> You can of course change the waveform from square to sine or to saw, by just
> pressing the button.
...or by controlling or automation the button group (like any other
button group as well) - probably a feature not everybody is aware of
;-)
> But wha
> > * WT-sound with pulse/freq/ring modulation on top. The modulator must be
> > able>
> > to know the notes' frequencies (e.g. to modulate with the same frequency).
>
> Doable with my new synth that I'm working on right now. Wavetable
> synthesis with modulations is what it's all about.
If you
On 03/22/2014 03:26 PM, Johannes Lorenz wrote:
> I really don't know what those synths can do. But the following seems
> impossible with LMMS (as long as you don't use wine):
>
> * WT-sound with pulse/freq/ring modulation on top. The modulator must be
> able
> to know the notes' frequencies (e
> Here's a challenge: show me anything that can be done with Massive or
> any such monolithic synth that couldn't be achieved with current LMMS
> instruments/effects.
I really don't know what those synths can do. But the following seems
impossible with LMMS (as long as you don't use wine):
* WT
On 03/22/2014 03:44 AM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
@israel, I am wondering once you have things working is there a way we
can trigger off nightly builds at least for ubuntru and debian.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Tobias Doerffel
mailto:tobias.doerf...@gmail.com>> wrote:
2014-03-20
22.03.2014 18:17, Vesa пишет:
> On 03/22/2014 12:30 PM, Johannes Lorenz wrote:
>> I am not sure if this is true. Actually, I have tracks with 30 ZASF entities,
>> and lmms takes only 6 % CPU power (no matter if played, or not).
> Yes and that's ZASF as it is now. Then imagine adding all the
> funct
On 03/22/2014 12:30 PM, Johannes Lorenz wrote:
> I am not sure if this is true. Actually, I have tracks with 30 ZASF entities,
> and lmms takes only 6 % CPU power (no matter if played, or not).
Yes and that's ZASF as it is now. Then imagine adding all the
functionality of all the existing instru
> - 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.
> Mem
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
I have to agree here. why not mash everything up into a single synth then
choose what you want from a drop down menu etc.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Johannes Lorenz <
johanne...@mailueberfall.de> wrote:
> Right now, I think we have too many synths with too less features. This is
> not mea
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:
@israel, I am wondering once you have things working is there a way we can
trigger off nightly builds at least for ubuntru and debian.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Tobias Doerffel
wrote:
> 2014-03-20 3:57 GMT+01:00 Tres Finocchiaro :
> > 1. Package lmms built without wine dependencies
> > 2
How about calling it the VESA SYNTH :D
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Vesa wrote:
> Ok so here's what I've been working on for the last few days.
>
>
>
>
> It's still a bit unfinished, but it works adequately now - doesn't crash
> or hang or anything and makes sound. I think it's still maybe
On 03/22/2014 01:31 AM, giakk...@hotmail.it wrote:
>
> The very instant I saw the pic, I thought: "That's a TripleOscillator
> with customizable waveforms".
> Then I read about the two couples, A1-A2 and B1-B2... Fantastic!
> So what about a name inspired from this mix of modulation couples? A
> fu
25 matches
Mail list logo
