An interesting discussion in the mailing list was at the end of 2012 when I wrote this article:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=linux_progress
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2012-October/087434.html
Many people say what they think.http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=linux_progress
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2012-October/087434.html
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Harry van Haaren <harryhaaren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just some thoughts to share <snip>Nice perspective, informative. I think it would be a great resource to get feedback like what you said from a wide range of linux-audio musicians, as a kind of "probe" to find the most significant lacking elements. Perhaps I'll be told "we know that already", but what harm in confirming our suspicions?
Anybody know how to best gather up such info? (I'm not experienced in that kinda thing)Re workflow, if some type of OSC protocol could be established between a synth ("client"/"automate-able") and an automation program ("host"/"automater"), twisting the knob on the synth client could inform the host which parameter to show in the editor...?
Perhaps its a bit of a hack, and it would require wide-spread implementation to become useful, but it is a *workable* solution. Perhaps not the neatest, but I think worth mentioning.
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
