On Thursday 16 September 2004 12:44 pm, Chris Cannam wrote: > On Thursday 16 Sep 2004 16:55, Matthias Neeracher wrote:
> > - Going fully native. Using CoreAudio is not all that hard. That > > would lose the inter-application pluggability of Jack, though, and > > I'm not sure how important that is. > the pluggability of JACK is a really dramatically impressive thing, > but then the platform I use doesn't have so much commercial audio > software ready to do impressive things without it. I couldn't have said that better. It really brings up a question of what role Rosegarden is to play on OS-X. If the idea is to bring a free alternative to all the very capable (and expensive) proprietary stuff that is already abundantly available, then it seems JACK, and with it, the host of satellite apps like Hydrogen, Ardour and friends might indeed be desirable enough to make it worth porting JACK. > > to get a feeling for how important Audio is vs. MIDI, but my > > current instinct is to see it as primarily a MIDI based tool > > My personal feeling has always been that the most useful aspect of > audio in Rosegarden is for synth plugins. I always thought the audio > support we had was rather half-cocked before we managed to get synth > plugins going. Obviously a MIDI-only version wouldn't be able to use > those. I had never heard of such a thing until you implemented that. (Of course the last sequencer I used was a win16 version of Cakewalk.) I look at audio in Rosegarden as being just usable and just flexible enough to allow me to do the kind of kind of thing I might have done with a four-track tape recorder in another era, except with rather more control. It isn't Ardour, and it's commensurately more approachable. When I first migrated to Linux, Ardour looked like the only choice I was going to have for this kind of work. It was very young then, just before JACK was invented, and just after. I had enormous difficulty compiling it, and even more difficulty trying to do anything with it. I've looked at it more recently, and I did manage to record something with it, finally, but I'm very glad to have Rosegarden as an alternative. These cool new synth plugin things are mere icing to me, although I might feel differently if I ever got the VST plugins working. (I never did hear back from you after that last round of trying to get it to go, I don't think.) Anyway, looking toward Macs, I think that Garage Band thing probably has the audio-for-dummies side licked, so that probably doesn't give Rosegarden much purpose in that area. To that extent, I'd agree with you that synth plugins would be the most important reason for Rosegarden to have audio on that platform. -- Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621 http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/ http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170 Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
