From: Werner S. <ws...@se...> - 2004-02-28 12:32:18
|
latest checkins bring you: - more icons from Joachim Schiele - fixed crash with mouse wheel events in arranger track list - fixed some routing related crashes (memory corruption bug) - show mixer strip in trackinfo window for audio tracks (this feature is incomplete; the gui is not synced with mixer yet) as usual it will last some time until this changes show up on sourceforge anonymous cvs. Werner |
From: Robert J. <rj...@sp...> - 2006-05-22 19:20:52
|
http://spamatica.se/~ddskrjo/mac-muse.png -- http://spamatica.se/musicsite/ |
From: Joachim S. <js...@la...> - 2006-05-22 19:41:51
|
On Monday 22 May 2006 22:22, Robert Jonsson wrote: oh that's nice!! > http://spamatica.se/~ddskrjo/mac-muse.png |
From: Robert J. <rj...@sp...> - 2006-05-23 09:15:30
|
On Monday 22 May 2006 21:39, Joachim Schiele wrote: > On Monday 22 May 2006 22:22, Robert Jonsson wrote: > oh that's nice!! Indeed :-) Though as I said before, it does not actually work. But it sure looks like it ;) I think the audio subsystem is working, but I haven't checked with an actual audio file yet. Known things that need fixing: - cannot build dynamic files due to some build system issues (managed to build s1 softsynth by hand) - Some wierd gui issue, MusE refuses to gain focus - Complete CoreTimer driver - Complete CoreMidi driver (as you said this will be easier with jack-midi, but muse does not support this yet, and probably not jack for os x either) /Robert > > > http://spamatica.se/~ddskrjo/mac-muse.png > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job > easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache > Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Lmuse-developer mailing list > Lmu...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmuse-developer |
From: Mathias L. <mat...@br...> - 2004-02-28 12:42:24
|
lör 2004-02-28 klockan 13.22 skrev Werner Schweer: > latest checkins bring you: > > - more icons from Joachim Schiele > - fixed crash with mouse wheel events in arranger track list > - fixed some routing related crashes (memory corruption bug) > - show mixer strip in trackinfo window for audio tracks > (this feature is incomplete; the gui is not synced with mixer yet) > > as usual it will last some time until this changes show up > on sourceforge anonymous cvs. > > Werner > Just wanted to say I really like the mixerstrip in the trackinfo. New muse will really be an improvement. I tried amSynth yesterday, and I'm quite fond of it's sound, so I'm thinking of wrapping it in a Mess. Haven't checked out the source yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it would be easier to wrap than fluidsynth, since it's one instance per channel. Has anyone else tried amSynth, what are your opinions of it? /Mathias |
From: Lalit C. <lc...@ya...> - 2004-02-28 18:21:46
|
At 13:30:55, 28/February/2004, mat...@br... wrote: > I tried amSynth yesterday, and I'm quite fond of it's sound, so I'm > thinking of wrapping it in a Mess. Haven't checked out the source yet, > but I wouldn't be surprised if it would be easier to wrap than > fluidsynth, since it's one instance per channel. Has anyone else tried > amSynth, what are your opinions of it? Hello again! I apologize for my ignorance, but is there a reason not to run fluidsynth/amsynthe/others as stand alone applications and make them talk to MusE through alsa midi port routers (e.g. aconnect)? That way MusE is simpler and one can use any soft synth which supports alsa midi. Is there a performance benefit in "integrating" these applications with MusE? Thanks and regards, Lalit |
From: Robert J. <rob...@da...> - 2004-02-28 19:12:19
|
On Saturday 28 February 2004 19.11, Lalit Chhabra wrote: > At 13:30:55, 28/February/2004, mat...@br... wrote: > > I tried amSynth yesterday, and I'm quite fond of it's sound, so I'm > > thinking of wrapping it in a Mess. Haven't checked out the source yet, > > but I wouldn't be surprised if it would be easier to wrap than > > fluidsynth, since it's one instance per channel. Has anyone else tried > > amSynth, what are your opinions of it? > > Hello again! > > I apologize for my ignorance, but is there a reason not to run > fluidsynth/amsynthe/others as stand alone applications and make them > talk to MusE through alsa midi port routers (e.g. aconnect)? That way > MusE is simpler and one can use any soft synth which supports alsa > midi. Is there a performance benefit in "integrating" these > applications with MusE? > > Thanks and regards, > Lalit Hi, I thought I'd comment on that. There is probably a performance hit by having the synths externally, but that would not stop me from using external synths. For me the main reason for integrating synths would be that usability is increased greatly. MusE does definitely support using external softsynths, all the necessary buzzwords are supported so you are in no way left in the cold. If you want to use synthXYZ that is not an internal synth of MusE it will work just fine, but you won't get the extra benefits that the internal synths can give you. To give an example: When you create a song in MusE and use an external softsynth you need to connect and load the patch you want for the external softsynth manually, whereas when you have it internally in MusE everything is done automatically when open the song-file. Now, in the long run, things like LADCCA will take care of this problem for _all_ apps connected to LADCCA. But it's gonna be a while until this is a reality... MusE is one of very few apps that support LADCCA (and MusE's implementation is currently broken). Until more apps support LADCCA...(and...I suspect... LADCCA gets more mature), this isn't a usable approach. It's a chicken and egg problem. Regards, Robert |
From: Mathias L. <mat...@br...> - 2004-02-28 23:00:36
|
lör 2004-02-28 klockan 19.11 skrev Lalit Chhabra: > At 13:30:55, 28/February/2004, mat...@br... wrote: > > I tried amSynth yesterday, and I'm quite fond of it's sound, so I'm > > thinking of wrapping it in a Mess. Haven't checked out the source yet, > > but I wouldn't be surprised if it would be easier to wrap than > > fluidsynth, since it's one instance per channel. Has anyone else tried > > amSynth, what are your opinions of it? > > Hello again! > > I apologize for my ignorance, but is there a reason not to run > fluidsynth/amsynthe/others as stand alone applications and make them > talk to MusE through alsa midi port routers (e.g. aconnect)? That way > MusE is simpler and one can use any soft synth which supports alsa > midi. Is there a performance benefit in "integrating" these > applications with MusE? > > Thanks and regards, > Lalit I'll have to agree with Robert. Before LADCCA is widely used and supported by most apps (and works seamlessly with them), I'll prefer having synths internal with MusE. And there's no risk to be left out, you can always use the external versions instead. I don't know if integrating amSynth is very easy either, it might be very difficult. Anyways, these are plans for the future. To get Fluidsynth to work with unstable MusE is the first step, which will hopefully be done soon... /Mathias |