>the major weakness in this setup for me is the neccesity to render the >midi before mixing. At least that means all elements of the arrangement
agreed. this is part of the reason why i was interested in supporting vst/i's on linux. whether you run them as a plugin, or as a standalone sample-synced application under JACK, the goal is the same. however, there is still the question of where the MIDI stream is coming from that drives the instrument. >parts is problematic. Even aside from the fact that it is not possible >to add tools to assist in organising parts so that the rendering >pipeline (including multiple audio->audio bounces etc) can be viewed or >stepped through in a History like fashion, global edits in Ardour would >not be reflected in Rosegarden, making rerendering potentially very this lack of integration is the chief drawback to the model JACK has brought us. its a real concern of mine. *however*, please consider that ProTools began life without any MIDI sequencing abilities, and is now the dominant tool in the audio industry. Despite its dominance, many many many people prefer to use other MIDI sequencers to handle the generative part of a piece and then switch to ProTools later. They do this, they say, because of a combination of preference for the UI of another sequencer and/or the actual quality of the sequencer aspects of PT. so, although I am seriously concerned about integrating MIDI sequencing, editing and real-time MIDI-driven synthesis in ardour, i am not concerned in the sense that i think its an absolute requirement. it will be great when we get it to that point, but even when we do, there will be people who will still choose to use rosgarden or muse or seq24 or other tools for organizing their MIDI stuff. >Despite your comment about the 'mega-application', both Rosegarden and >Ardour aim to be such things, but dont, at the current time, appear to >do anything that the 2 apps you mentioned cant. Please see ardour.org/status.html for the roadmap. --p
