=20--_fe464955-0268-4e1b-9fc9-5074c29e2aba_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable> ralf.mardorf wrote
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
--_fe464955-0268-4e1b-9fc9-5074c29e2aba_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=3B ralf.mardorf wrote>=3B I would like to have one=2C especially =
because I fear that one of the CME >=3B microchips someday will go we=
st=2C but I guess that the CME microchips >=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&=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>=3B Date: Mon=2C 22 Mar 2010 22:56:21 +0100&=
gt=3B From: ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net>=3B To: nickycopeland@hotmail.=
com>=3B CC: jens.andreasen@comhem.se=3B louigi.verona@gmail.com=3B li=
nux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org>=3B Subject: Re: [LAD] automation =
on Linux (modular approach)>=3B >=3B Keep in mind that there ar=
e hardware MIDI control panels that anyway >=3B would need a bridge f=
or MIDI in to internal Linux cv. Pushing virtual >=3B knobs is a pain=
because of several issues=2C e.g. because of the mouse >=3B resoluti=
on.>=3B >=3B >=3B I still want to build an emulator for one o=
f these>=3B >=3B I would like to have one=2C especially because=
I fear that one of the CME >=3B microchips someday will go west=2C b=
ut I guess that the CME microchips >=3B make the big difference to vi=
rtual analog synth.>=3B >=3B A nice Feature is a vector control=
. Just having a kind of MIDI vector >=3B mixer that would use 4 alrea=
dy existing Linux synth would be nice=2C e.g. >=3B 2 instances of flu=
idsynth and two instances of a polyphonic calf monosynth.>=3B >=
=3B Btw. >=3B http://www.dv247.com/news/Dave%20Smith%20Instruments%20=
(DSI)%20at%20Digital%20Village/131825>=3B >=3B =
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft=92s powerful SPAM protect=
ion. Sign up now.
=
--_fe464955-0268-4e1b-9fc9-5074c29e2aba_--
LINUX® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the USA and other countries.
Linuxaudio.org logo copyright Thorsten Wilms © 2006.
Hosting provided by the Virginia Tech Department of Music and DISIS.