On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:48:16 +0400 Alexandre Prokoudine <avp@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Rob wrote > > On Friday 25 July 2003 17:30, Rick Taylor wrote: > > > It always strikes me as strange that people in here suggest Audacity and > > > virtually ignore snd. > > > > I mean no disrespect for snd or the people who use it, but to me this is > > rather like saying "it strikes me as strange that people suggest Openoffice > > when they could be using XEmacs". > > > > Both have their places, but the more mainstream computer user (and I know > > people on this list dispute this; I myself have been trying to come up with > > ways to compose music in Perl, but by and large it's the truth) wants the > > word processor that looks like Word or Wordperfect and the waveform editor > > that looks like Cool Edit or Soundforge. > > > > I gather that scriptability (I think with Nyquist and Python) soon will be > > or already is in the development version of Audacity. Emacs seems like the ideal interface to me for composing sequences of symbolic links... If you wanted to tie perl into it you could possibly do this: http://john-edwin-tobey.org/perlmacs/src/ "a a a a aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa" {Assuming you're familiar with the interface in fruit loops Emacs has pretty nifty graphical features already. You could simulate the fruit loops interface with ansi blocks... even use bitmaps.} > Ahem, it is called Nyquist :-) > > Youe can find several plug-ins written in Nyquist in Audacity alread. > Besudes you can add your own anytime you like without recompiling Audacity > at all. And there is an intro guide for Nyquist in Audacity written by > Dominic --- http://audacity.sourceforge.net/nyquist.php?lang=en Nyquist is pretty nifty as well... > But I really like other wave editors for Linux very much - snd, sweep, > ReZound etc. In fact, I translate all of them :-)
