Re: [Linuxsampler-devel] LS future, multiengine , audio channels

[Vladimir S. <ha...@so...>]

Mark,

I'm not suggesting that everything MUST be done on the same PC all the 
time :)
Although i'd like to think that eventually linux will have enough apps 
so you could do it (by just adding another harddrive for "output").
So, the point is . . . it's a functional problem, not performance. I 
fully agree with your "functional" part of the argumentation but on 
performance i'm not so sure.

I personally would like to see LS as modular as possible and as easy to 
use with other tools as possible.
I was hoping that mixing could be put outside the sampler itself and 
something like jack could be used to interface into that. But maybe this 
is not efficient enough and there needs to be more "mixing points". I 
simply don't know.

BTW, if LS supported audio over Ethernet would that help (in terms of 
reducing the number of cables and interfaces)?

Careful with those eggs . . .
I've just seen on TV some kids were looking for eggs and found two 
loaded guns instead :)

Regards,
Vladimir.

Mark Knecht wrote:

>On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 10:49, Vladimir Senkov wrote:
>  
>
>>Mark,
>>
>><SNIP>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>For instance if 
>>you have a hardware raid on 64bit wide PCI running at 133Mhz with 
>>several good SCSI drives 
>>    
>>
><SNIP>
>  
>
>>Regards,
>>Vladimir.
>>
>>Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
><SNIP>
>  
>
>>you'll need an audio mixer of
>>    
>>
>>>some type as most people won't have enough hardware to get all of that
>>>audio to the hard disk recorder as separate channels.
>>>      
>>>
><SNIP>
>
>You can certainly buy hardware to meet whatever set of criteria you want
>to shoot for.
>
>My point was that most people won't have that available, nor do they
>want to. I'll state straight out that I won't be using a Linux-based DAW
>for the foreseeable future. I'm far more likely to dump $50K into a Pro
>Tools HD-Accel system than attempt to run a Linux recorder and a sampler
>on the same box. For this reason, since Pro Tools and LS by definition
>do not even run on the same OS, to me the point is moot.
>
>Really the question is whether you want the mixer in the app, or require
>people to hook up 32 audio outputs using Jack and then do it all by hand
>somehow. I think that's not a good use of my time, and I think that
>almost no GSt user coming from Windows to try this out would think so
>either, but I'm not arguing that LS should be some hard coded monster
>GUI that wouldn't support that model. If others want it that way I hope
>the code base supports it.
>
>Anyway, I was fairly careful in my original response to use terms like
>'How LS presents itself'. It's not of much interest to me as a user
>what's under the hood. If it's easy to use, stable and does what I need,
>then I'll us it. If not, then it's unlikely that I or many other Windows
>users would invest huge amounts of time.
>
>Looking for eggs in the back yard,
>Mark
>
>  
>