Hi, I'm working on a new MIDI app which shares some features with a sequencer, but in other ways is more like an arpeggiator, but also somewhat different to both. It's like a sequencer in that the user will be able to create rhythmic patterns which lack pitch and velocity data, and almost like an arpeggiator in that it will automatically generate the pitch and velocity data from an algorithm - and unlike either a sequencer or arpegiattor, it uses a 2d window-placement like algorithm to generate pitch/velocity (mapping these to x/y). Basically, I am after opinions from a potential users on the following: 1) a basic 'timebase master' implementation which lacks tempo maps, signature changes, etc, just enough to fire the app up and play around with ideas (currently it does this). 2) no timebase master at all, (just like arpage), you must have some other sequencer running. 3) a full feature time base master with tempo/meter changes etc. The case for 1 is just as it says, ease of use for playing around with, and only for playing around with. The user would be expected to run a fully featured sequencer/daw for features such as tempo and meter changes. Would having 1) just confuse users? (but if they're confused by that...) The case against 3 is other apps like ardour, rosegarden, already do this, and probably better than I can get my app to. Cheers, James. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
