Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <ralf.mardorf@...>, <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Monday, March 22, 2010 - 10:43 pm

--_fe464955-0268-4e1b-9fc9-5074c29e2aba_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> ralf.mardorf wrote

=20

Yeah=2C those CME chips do make a difference. With all the emulators I say =
that
they can only approximate the sound but give you the control features=2C th=
e mod=20
routing=2C etc. No way do I think that the analogue monsters are where digi=
tal=20
technology exists at the moment. I don't even have a start on the filter mo=
des=20
of the Matrix for example=2C but it's mod routingis something I would reall=
y like
to have a go at.

I think there is a bit of confusion on this thread (and said so in one of m=
y replies)
regarding MIDI vs CV. I still see them as separate where MIDI defines param=
eters
of a component such as oscillator tuning=2C waveform=2C transpose=2C and MI=
DI handles=20
them perfectly. Then there are modulators which are signals that change the=
osc
frequency and can have many sources (LFO=2C Env=2C S&H). I feel that native=
rate=2C=20
floating point CV is best for these. The oscillator is just an example=2C g=
ain=2C filter
cutoff=2C etc=2C are others.

Perhaps it is just me that is confused but I still see a dichotomy where on=
one=20
side there are parameters that can be automated/quantised and on the other =
side
there is modulation that needs to be exact and smooth. This is the differen=
ce=20
between CV and control automation but the thread seems to me to be discussi=
ng=20
both at the same time. Automation can be used for MIDI parameters but I sti=
ll feel=20
that CV should be used for modulation. The Tuxfamily crosses that barrier b=
y the
way it can apply CV to any control which is a very interesting approach and=
=20
possibly a good reason to have a look at their apps for some musical styles=
.

So anyway=2C if a new port does get defined I would personally not like to =
see it called
a CV port. Automation (CA) maybe=2C but not CV=2C that confuses the issue.

Kind regards=2C nick

"we have to make sure the old choice [Windows] doesn't disappear=94.
Jim Wong=2C president of IT products=2C Acer

> Date: Mon=2C 22 Mar 2010 22:56:21 +0100

v@lists.linuxaudio.org
=20
=20
h.
al%20Village/131825
=20
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft=92s powerful SPAM protection.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=3D60969=

--_fe464955-0268-4e1b-9fc9-5074c29e2aba_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

&gt=3B ralf.mardorf wrote&gt=3B I would like to have one=2C especially =
because I fear that one of the CME &gt=3B microchips someday will go we=
st=2C but I guess that the CME microchips &gt=3B make the big differenc=
e to virtual analog synth.Yeah=2C those CME chips do make a differe=
nce. With all the emulators I say thatthey can only approximate the sou=
nd but give you the control features=2C the mod routing=2C etc. No way =
do I think that the analogue monsters are where digital technology exis=
ts at the moment. I don't even have a start on the filter modes of the =
Matrix for example=2C but it's mod routingis something I would really like<=
br>to have a go at.I think there is a bit of confusion on this thre=
ad (and said so in one of my replies)regarding MIDI vs CV. I still see =
them as separate where MIDI defines parametersof a component such as os=
cillator tuning=2C waveform=2C transpose=2C and MIDI handles them perfe=
ctly. Then there are modulators which are signals that change the oscfr=
equency and can have many sources (LFO=2C Env=2C S&amp=3BH). I feel that na=
tive rate=2C floating point CV is best for these. The oscillator is jus=
t an example=2C gain=2C filtercutoff=2C etc=2C are others.Perha=
ps it is just me that is confused but I still see a dichotomy where on one =
side there are parameters that can be automated/quantised and on the ot=
her sidethere is modulation that needs to be exact and smooth. This is =
the difference between CV and control automation but the thread seems t=
o me to be discussing both at the same time. Automation can be used for=
MIDI parameters but I still feel that CV should be used for modulation=
. The Tuxfamily crosses that barrier by theway it can apply CV to any c=
ontrol which is a very interesting approach and possibly a good reason =
to have a look at their apps for some musical styles.So anyway=2C i=
f a new port does get defined I would personally not like to see it called<=
br>a CV port. Automation (CA) maybe=2C but not CV=2C that confuses the issu=
e.Kind regards=2C nick"we have to make sure the old choice =
[Windows] doesn't disappear=94.Jim Wong=2C president of IT products=2C =
Acer&gt=3B Date: Mon=2C 22 Mar 2010 22:56:21 +0100&=
gt=3B From: ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net&gt=3B To: nickycopeland@hotmail.=
com&gt=3B CC: jens.andreasen@comhem.se=3B louigi.verona@gmail.com=3B li=
nux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org&gt=3B Subject: Re: [LAD] automation =
on Linux (modular approach)&gt=3B &gt=3B Keep in mind that there ar=
e hardware MIDI control panels that anyway &gt=3B would need a bridge f=
or MIDI in to internal Linux cv. Pushing virtual &gt=3B knobs is a pain=
because of several issues=2C e.g. because of the mouse &gt=3B resoluti=
on.&gt=3B &gt=3B &gt=3B I still want to build an emulator for one o=
f these&gt=3B &gt=3B I would like to have one=2C especially because=
I fear that one of the CME &gt=3B microchips someday will go west=2C b=
ut I guess that the CME microchips &gt=3B make the big difference to vi=
rtual analog synth.&gt=3B &gt=3B A nice Feature is a vector control=
. Just having a kind of MIDI vector &gt=3B mixer that would use 4 alrea=
dy existing Linux synth would be nice=2C e.g. &gt=3B 2 instances of flu=
idsynth and two instances of a polyphonic calf monosynth.&gt=3B &gt=
=3B Btw. &gt=3B http://www.dv247.com/news/Dave%20Smith%20Instruments%20=
(DSI)%20at%20Digital%20Village/131825&gt=3B &gt=3B =
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft=92s powerful SPAM protect=
ion. Sign up now.
=

--_fe464955-0268-4e1b-9fc9-5074c29e2aba_--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), alex stone, (Fri Mar 19, 9:09 am)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), rosea grammostola, (Fri Mar 19, 9:47 am)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), alex stone, (Fri Mar 19, 9:57 am)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), rosea grammostola, (Fri Mar 19, 10:07 am)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Mar 19, 11:53 am)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Mar 19, 7:22 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Tim E. Real, (Fri Mar 19, 7:22 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Paul Davis, (Fri Mar 19, 8:00 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Mar 19, 9:47 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Mar 19, 9:32 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Mar 19, 9:54 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 3:05 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Tim E. Real, (Sat Mar 20, 1:30 am)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), alex stone, (Sat Mar 20, 8:06 am)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), rosea grammostola, (Sat Mar 20, 10:36 am)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 3:00 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Louigi Verona, (Sat Mar 20, 9:43 am)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 3:00 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Gene Heskett, (Sat Mar 20, 4:45 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Paul Davis, (Sat Mar 20, 8:19 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 3:00 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Gene Heskett, (Sun Mar 21, 12:05 am)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 3:05 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 3:05 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Louigi Verona, (Sat Mar 20, 7:48 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 2:56 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Louigi Verona, (Mon Mar 22, 2:50 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 3:00 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Harry Van Haaren, (Mon Mar 22, 4:04 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Louigi Verona, (Mon Mar 22, 3:02 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Louigi Verona, (Mon Mar 22, 6:37 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 6:51 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), James Morris, (Tue Mar 23, 1:44 am)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Tue Mar 23, 6:13 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Gene Heskett, (Tue Mar 23, 6:59 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), James Morris, (Thu Mar 25, 12:10 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), rosea grammostola, (Thu Mar 25, 10:45 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), rosea grammostola, (Sun Mar 28, 6:56 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Tue Mar 23, 7:33 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 3:00 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Nick Copeland, (Mon Mar 22, 3:48 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 4:36 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 4:44 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Jens M Andreasen, (Mon Mar 22, 4:25 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Nick Copeland, (Mon Mar 22, 5:22 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 5:53 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Nick Copeland, (Mon Mar 22, 9:21 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 9:56 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Nick Copeland, (Mon Mar 22, 10:43 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Tue Mar 23, 5:52 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Nick Copeland, (Tue Mar 23, 8:06 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Tue Mar 23, 9:44 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Nick Copeland, (Tue Mar 23, 8:58 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Paul Davis, (Tue Mar 23, 10:05 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Tue Mar 23, 6:02 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 3:05 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Mar 22, 3:06 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Folderol, (Sat Mar 20, 11:19 am)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Arnold Krille, (Fri Mar 19, 8:06 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Tim E. Real, (Fri Mar 19, 8:51 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Paul Davis, (Fri Mar 19, 9:06 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Philipp, (Fri Mar 19, 12:22 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), alex stone, (Fri Mar 19, 12:24 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Philipp, (Fri Mar 19, 11:32 am)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), rosea grammostola, (Fri Mar 19, 9:14 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Mar 19, 9:56 pm)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), alex stone, (Fri Mar 19, 11:52 am)
Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach), Ralf Mardorf, (Fri Mar 19, 11:58 am)