On Friday 06 May 2005 20:20, Chris Cannam wrote: > Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > * Why not to have another output port dedicated to the metronome ? > The current metronome is already a bit troublesome for the purpose of > adding audio/plugin metronomes, which is (I think) a more desirable > feature -- perhaps both could be addressed at once.
Thinking again, this is not very important. Defining the metronome in terms of an instrument is right. Of course, not every instrument is suitable to play as a metronome: only those capable of make drums. But if any device with such profile is in your studio, then it is probably worth to define it in the Studio window anyway. And it is easy to change the metronome routing. The audio/plugin metronome is a lot more important feature. > > * And what about the synchronization and MIDI Real Time output > > messages going by another dedicated output port ? > > That would be simpler. Is it worth it from a usability point of view? Yes, I think it is. Unlike the metronome, the destination for those events can be a device that don't understand any other kind of MIDI message. For instance: an audio/video tape recorder or any other multimedia player. Even if the destination is another hardware or SW sequencer, it probably needs only the clock/realtime messages and not any other MIDI channel messages. Rosegarden now sends a very dense MIDI stream, flooding every port connected to RG when using the MIDI clock generation. It is important to keep the MIDI streams as light as possible, specially ports connected to external devices, and also to have a simple route selection mechanism for those events, which i think it is not available now. > > * Are we ready for LASH / LADCCA, now ? > I don't think it's a very good fit for Rosegarden and the way applications > like it might be used [...] > Either way this would not be something I would have the time to work on > myself at the moment. This is something that I can live without. I was thinking on three choices for the user: 1) use the internal connection manager, 2) use LASH (which requires compiled-in support) or 3) use another unspecified external connection manager, in which case we don't care about making/saving/restoring connections. This third case was in my original proposal. One interesting external session manager can be QJackCtl's Patchbay window. It is not very usable now, because it only manages connections between clients, not ports. > > * Is there any tool out there for connection management taking into > > account the port renaming feature? > > Dave Robillard's Patchage is the closest I know. I can't build it: too many bleeding edge libraries for my Mandrake 9.2 > I'm sure Rui would be happy to take requests or patches for qjackctl. I think it is worth to help him. This program is a perfect companion for Rosegarden. Regards, Pedro ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4 opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to win an NEC 61 plasma display. Visit http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
