On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:27:30 +0200, Atte Andre Jensen <atte.jensen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Brent Busby wrote: > >> No, actually it just sounded like Atte was trying to assess whether >> debugging problems with MIDI i/o in the apps was worth doing anymore, >> now that we have Jack connections within the software. > > In a way I was. Of course we need midi support (and we have). But the > "not worth" in this case really just reffers to my specefic application > which is syncing chuck on one laptop with sooperlooper on another. > > While midi being important and all, I still feel (and I really mean > *feel*, I, as mentioned, don't have much to back this up) that there > seems to be some "hacks" or confusion within the midi implementations. > At least I guess it's never gonna be as good sync-wise as jack > transport, where it's software to software and the central piece (jack) > has it's source code open for all client developers to look at. > > I think I mentioned this before, but I tried syncing ardour and renoise > through jack transport, and they sync perfect to the point you feel it's > the same program, except that you have two windows open! > > Basically I'm not trying to discard the midi standard or anything just > getting my feet wet with midi time code, that's all :-) Hi, I've been trying to decipher this thread, and I still don't understand its purpose. Is there an actual problem to be solved here or is this just some subtle freestyle ranting ? Cheers, Marc-Olivier Barre XMPP ID : marco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.MarcOChapeau.org _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
