On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 18:45 +0300, Juhana Sadeharju wrote: > Well, you're basically saying that the Linux audio is not > professional enough yet. This information is great. Now > you should tell the ZynAddSubFX author (Paul?) what his > software is missing. Does it matter which colour you paint your walls? Or do you pick the paint which is available? I care what my apartment looks like. I take care in choosing the correct floor material, the colour on the walls. That is not saying that the paint or floors I didn't choose is bad in any way. It's just not the paint for this apartment. You cannot cram all possible synths into one. For synths, the UI is instrumental in what sounds come out. With clever design, it is very easy to manipulate an analog synthesizer (Zyn). On the other hand, that UI will not be usable as an organ synth (=Aeolus). These are instruments. You can't make a Telecaster sound like a Les Paul. We shouldn't try to make Zyn something which it isn't. And no: no software synth in the world, on any platform, can sound exactly like a rhodes, a moog, a theremin. If one prefers the sound of his/her 80's rompler, you'd better use that synth. > If musicians avoid using Linux software synths and other similar > software, we simply don't face the problem. It does not help > if only non-musicians try to use these software. We need > a demo made by professional musicians, not by non-musicians. Nobody is avoiding using Linux software synths. Like I said, there is some advertisement value in doing 100% linux production, but it isn't really that important. The musicians we would be trying to impress with our 100% linux productions use hw synths too. They would never switch their beloved vintage gear for software synths, regardless of how good the sw synths are. They would be impressed by a good work flow, the quality of applications (synths, sequencers, daw's, audio editors), availability of hardware, efficiency. -- Sampo Savolainen <v2@xxxxxx>
