On Tuesday 09 March 2010 14:56:34 Ken Restivo wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 07:04:26PM +0100, Burkhard W??lfel wrote: > > Am 06.03.2010 um 07:19 schrieb Ken Restivo <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:16:51AM -0600, Josh Lawrence wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Gerald Mwangi <gerald.mwangi@xxxxxx> > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>>> Hi, does anyone know a synth powerfull like zynadd, phasex or > >>>> bristol,but in dssi format? I need something I can load into > >>>> Rosegarden, > >>>> since I dont want 10 Standalones running, until ardour, rg and the > >>>> synths support LASH, if that ever happens. > >>> > >>> I have no idea why, but I have a warm, fuzzy soft place in my heart > >>> for DSSI plugins. they always seem to just work. whysynth has > >>> already been mentioned, but be sure to check out the calf monosynth, > >>> which can be run as a DSSI plugin: > >>> > >>> jack-dssi-host calf.so:Monosynth > >>> > >>> check out the DSSI home page too, for a lot of other options. > >>> > >>> I'm hoping this thread will reveal some that I don't know about! we > >>> really need something like specimen in DSSI format. > >>> > >>>> I think LASH should be integrated into Jack, to make it mandatory > >>>> for > >>>> linux audio apps. The missing LASH support is one of the main issues > >>>> disturbing me, when working with linux audio. Now I've said it, ha. > >>>> I'm thinking of having Jack require a Load/Save callback, prior to > >>>> activating the client. How feasible is that? > >>> > >>> why oh why oh why did you throw this paragraph in? now no one wants > >>> to talk about DSSI anymore... :( > >> > >> +1 for Calf Monosynth and WhySynth. They, in addition to AMS and > >> PHASEX, are the synths I've used most. > >> > >> Zyn is kind of old and doesn't do RT; the new thing is Yoshimi, and I > >> dunno if it supports LASH or ladish, but I'd guess both. > >> > >> For the record, I *HATE* session management and I don't run LASH at > >> all when I can avoid it (IIRC, there's some synth that I use or used > >> which requires LASH, so I occasionally have to start it up). > >> I generally can't stand technologies that try to be "smart" and do > >> things I don't explicitly instruct them to do. Frustrates the hell out > >> of me. > >> > >> FWIW, I am also the kind of guy who turns off autocomplete and > >> spelling checkers whenever I can. > > > > How would you share a complicated production setup, aka session, with > > other users? Script, or text explanation? Screenshot? Ardour audio > > project only? > > > > I'd love to have a rather bullet proof way to make my sessions available > > to non-geek collaborators really fast and easy. And vice versa. > > > > > > Software trying to outsmart the user can be painful. On the other hand, > > there are users out there waiting to hop on the linux audio boat as soon > > as there is an obvious way to save and restore complex setups without > > scripting. I'd love to make music with them. > > > > It's good that you are happy with your way of using your DAW and so am > > I. But it makes me a little sad sometimes that for remote collaborators > > the learning curve is so steep. > > My setup is not designed for remote collaboration. > > However, the Packet-In project (http://packet-in.org) found a reasonably > workable process for doing remote collaboration. It's been a few years, but > IIRC it involved FTP'ing ogg files around. oggs and lossless wavpack files. there were some scripts to bring them back to wavs in an ardour project too iirc. > > Also, there are collaboration websites that offer a lot of that > infrastructure in a convenient and slick interface-- doesn't matter what > DAW or synths or tools each participant uses. You could be collaborating > with people using Logic or ProTools or Ableton or just a random collection > of command-line synths like I use-- and it all works smoothly. I don't > remember the name of the site, but Drew pointed me to one last year, and I > found it a really a cool collaboration tool, kind of like GitHub for music. Probably kompoz.com > > So, for remote collab, I think the most portable and flexible solution > would be to move a lot of the collaboration functionality out of the DAW or > synths, and out into the Web 2.0 cloud instead. Then it becomes > DAW-agnostic. doing things this way takes certain things out of play though doesn't it? One of the things I need to get to real soon now is putting songs from such collabs into traverso project form. I have been meaning for a long time now to try an experiment of distributing songs as multitrack projects ready to load and go. I am choosing traverso for the first pass as it runs on linux, mac, and windows. One problem even with this is that the effects only exist for linux at the moment. And now, after the ramble, I get to the point. One of the reasons for doing this is for instruction and learning. A person could get a project complete with effects, panning and the whole nine yards. Different people could even supply different takes on the mix, effects, etc. So far, I haven't seen how to do something like this in the cloud. Perhaps one day. > > And yes, the average non-techie user wants a monolithic app that just > saves/restores and gives them an all-in-one user experience. I prefer > working in a more unix-y way: small daemons and tools glued together with > scripts. But that's just my personal workflow. > > -ken drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
