davidrclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Mark, > > Thanks for your reply. > > Previously I had asked if anyone would be interested in my packaging > some of my work so that others could use it. As you may know, this can > be a daunting task, and I wanted to know whether or not anyone would > find the "capability" useful before dumping a lot of time in creating > a useable "program." It's like before I build you a car, I ask you > if you have any need for transportation. > > If everyone is happy with the second (and fourth) clip, then I won't > bother trying to write the requisite GUI interface and docs that > I need to convince everyone to look at. hmm. *of course* they sound a lot better than the monophonic stuff, but that's because the quality of the synthesizer is better. i don't see the point of this comparision. from my pov the relevant question is: does the (rather crappy imho) monophonic example (1st and 5th clip) improve when processed(3rd and 6th)? my answer is yes. so yes, i do want to play with that code! :) as a sidenote, even though i like the roland output better, it is not as good as the processed mono stuff in terms of avoiding in-head-localization, but hearing that takes a lot of abstraction because it's so much slicker in other respects. as to writing a gui, i don't think you should bother yet. let people play with command-line tools, and if it needs a complex gui, wrap it up as a jack program later, or better yet, if the gui is simple (which i think it is), make it a LADSPA plugin and let the host app take care of the gui. regards, j?rn -- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics! - Homer Simpson J?rn Nettingsmeier Kurf?rstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server) http://www.linuxaudiodev.org (Linux Audio Developers)
