On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:34:35 +1000 cal <cal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Folderol wrote: > > [ ... ] > > > > Here be dragons! > > > > While I would agree in general that a log scale would be better, both > > from a usability point of view, and consistency with the rest, how is > > this going to effect existing patches? > > > > I have a *lot* of patches. Apart from Paul's default set, I've gathered > > over a hundred from other people as well as creating about the same > > number myself - I would be less than delighted if these all started to > > misbehave! > > > > I would be happy with apparent log behaviour without changing the > > software's interpretation of the actual stored numbers, although this > > might give a rather strange 'feel'. It would depend on how fine-grained > > the actual numbers were. > > > > The only other practical possibility I can think of would be build > > in a parameter file conversion utility (I think this was done in Zyn's > > early days) and put an ID tag in new files (this was not done!) so that > > appropriate loading behaviour could be done. > > > > To go this way would also need agreement with the main Zyn branch > > otherwise we'd end up with two incompatible systems. > > > > All in all, I wonder if it would bring enough benefits to be actually > > worth the effort. > > Thanks, I think that closely parallels my own fears, dreads and reservations. > End of story. > > cheers, It seems that Mark is looking at a similar issue on the main Zyn site. -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
