From: Philip N. <pan...@ya...> - 2005-05-17 15:53:12
|
> One other thing, since you are using qsynth I suggest trying the internal > fluidsynth instead. They are identical, though with the added benefit that > all the settings are stored with the song. I'd like to comment on that statement. They are not identical. First, I love the fact that they are in muse and think the approach of making soft synths so easily accessible is great. But... - gain settings arent saved. probably a bug, but looking at the code I coudn't figure out where some of the fluid synth parameters are saved. I can see the reverb and chorus settings, but not the sound font setting and where you might save the gain. I'd be happy to fix this if it's not already done. - I was regularly annoyed by the fact that if I was using ardour to do my audio recording and mixing, that I had to setup separate outputs and routes for each soft synth in muse and set levels for each one as well. I see the wave functionality of muse as a convienience for simple types of recording, but don't see it trying to compete with ardour in the long term nor do I think muse should. Curious what others think. "All in one" vs the "jack enabled system" - There is no single gui that can appropriately accomodate even a small subset of synths, so being good at working with external synths is still a really good idea. Philip - http://blogs.xcskiwinn.org/panmanphil "There's a difference between righteous anger and just being crabby" - Barbara |
From: Robert J. <rj...@sp...> - 2005-05-17 19:00:18
|
Hi, On Tuesday 17 May 2005 17:53, Philip Nelson wrote: > > One other thing, since you are using qsynth I suggest trying the internal > > fluidsynth instead. They are identical, though with the added benefit > > that all the settings are stored with the song. > > I'd like to comment on that statement. They are not identical. First, I > love the fact that they are in muse and think the approach of making soft > synths so easily accessible is great. But... > > - gain settings arent saved. probably a bug, but looking at the code I > coudn't figure out where some of the fluid synth parameters are saved. I > can see the reverb and chorus settings, but not the sound font setting and > where you might save the gain. I'd be happy to fix this if it's not already > done. Mathias is the one who knows this inside out, but he is busy moving, he'll probably be back in a few days. Does it not save gain? Is it the gain slider in the fluidsynth gui you mean? > > - I was regularly annoyed by the fact that if I was using ardour to do my > audio recording and mixing, that I had to setup separate outputs and routes > for each soft synth in muse and set levels for each one as well. I see the > wave functionality of muse as a convienience for simple types of recording, > but don't see it trying to compete with ardour in the long term nor do I > think muse should. Curious what others think. "All in one" vs the "jack > enabled system" For me having all the "house keeping" things in one app is the only way, I'm too disorganized to be capable of anything else ;) So, MusE will definitely gain more functionality in this area, it might be a while though. You are of course welcome to help! We've been talking about atleast being able to launch an external sound editor in the short run. Do note that the above is my personal opinion. I have nothing against that other, more capable, users create usage environments on a bigger scale and we will do our best to support this scenario as well. -- Input about what the primary concerns with the current audio support is appreciated. Trimming of soundfiles perhaps? Regards, Robert > > - There is no single gui that can appropriately accomodate even a small > subset of synths, so being good at working with external synths is still a > really good idea. > > Philip - http://blogs.xcskiwinn.org/panmanphil > "There's a difference between righteous anger and just being crabby" - > Barbara > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes > Want to be the first software developer in space? > Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412&alloc_id=16344&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Lmuse-user mailing list > Lmu...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmuse-user -- http://spamatica.se/musicsite/ |
From: David M. <es...@ti...> - 2005-05-18 14:41:12
|
> > - I was regularly annoyed by the fact that if I was using ardour to do my > > audio recording and mixing, that I had to setup separate outputs and > > routes for each soft synth in muse and set levels for each one as well. > > I see the wave functionality of muse as a convienience for simple types > > of recording, but don't see it trying to compete with ardour in the long > > term nor do I think muse should. Curious what others think. "All in one" > > vs the "jack enabled system" > > For me having all the "house keeping" things in one app is the only way, > I'm too disorganized to be capable of anything else ;) > So, MusE will definitely gain more functionality in this area, it might be > a while though. You are of course welcome to help! We've been talking about > atleast being able to launch an external sound editor in the short run. > > Do note that the above is my personal opinion. I have nothing against that > other, more capable, users create usage environments on a bigger scale and > we will do our best to support this scenario as well. > > -- > Input about what the primary concerns with the current audio support is > appreciated. Trimming of soundfiles perhaps? > > Regards, > Robert > > > - There is no single gui that can appropriately accomodate even a small > > subset of synths, so being good at working with external synths is still > > a really good idea. |
From: David M. <es...@ti...> - 2005-05-18 14:48:46
|
On Wednesday 18 May 2005 15:46, David Mulcahy wrote: > > > - I was regularly annoyed by the fact that if I was using ardour to do Ooops I didnt mean to send that Sorry Dave |