From: D.B. M. <db...@ho...> - 2008-05-15 11:09:36
|
Greetings, I'll be doing a bit more on the docs tonight - I just want to put this thought out here to make sure everyone agrees. (if you've read my earlier 'first draft' posting, you'd have probably guessed I was headed tis way.. ;-) In one section of the -debug page- text, I mention the fact that people in the devel team have real MIDI hardware, but that a lot of current development is being tested using softsynth instead. On that same page, I also state that it might be of help to developers, if people finding problems (with replay currently) using externally connected MIDI equipment, to fallback to the softsynth position and try again, and report if that fixed their problem or not. I'm conscious of hardware layers. What works correctly on the softsynth path may not (yet) work when that extra layer is used to get I/O to that externally connected MIDI hardware. If users fallback to softsynth in these early testing days, it will A>effectively test their current jazz installation against current development trends and models, B> possibly give us an early heads up that issues do exist at this level, so creating a pointer for the TODO list in that happy future you see me talking about a lot ;-) (and there will be issues here, I'll guarantee it...but I'll voice those thoughts later in their own threads} To finish off some of the documentation 'in context' , I'm assuming the following things as current 'defacto testing standards' - 1. On linux, the softsynth setup using the jack/fluidsynth/qsynth method is the current default for testing. 2. On Mac, it's the same. 3. On Windows, the softsynth setup facilitated by shipped soundcard drivers in conjunction with the Windows midi/sound API is the default. As always, let me know, comments, thoughts, etc etc etc... Regards, Donald B _________________________________________________________________ Never miss another e-mail with Hotmail on your mobile. http://www.livelife.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=343869 |