Hi all,

Just my two cents.  We use Rosegarden regularly for the creation of video,
game, and museum display, soundtracks.

We don't use LV2 plugins, and very seldom use any plugins at all.

I, personally, would prefer if Rosegarden interfaced better with Jack/MIDI
and the like as most of the synthesis we do is on other machines, often
using NETJACK in one form or another.  Work arounds exist, but they are
cumbersome and annoying.

I'm sorry that I don't contribute as much technically, and otherwise, to
the project than I used to, but my company is still a heavy Rosegarden
user and we can contribute significant resources if need be.

Best regards,

Richard A. Marschall, Ph.D.
Director, Engineering
Marschall Acoustics Instruments P/L

r...@hydrophones.com




> On 3/11/20 11:43 PM, Ted Felix wrote:
>>    Just wondering why folks want LV2 support.  Not that I'll ever get
>> to
>> it, but some justification will help focus the effort.  Thanks.
>
> I've been ignoring the issue for quite a few years, but I spent some
> time today looking at what lv2 is, what plugins are out there, what
> supports them, etc., and I have to say I wouldn't mind trying some of
> those out.
>
> One of the biggest problems I can imagine is that lv2 can be the
> equivalent of either LADSPA or DSSI, or maybe even both in one (I didn't
> dive that deeply). Chris Cannam was one of the original creators of
> DSSI, and Rosegarden was one of the original hosts. There's a pretty
> clear divide between "audio plugin" and "synth plugin" in Rosegarden,
> although under the hood they do have significant redundancy, if not
> actual overlap (and I'm not sure which, as I haven't been in that code
> in eons). That might make things tricky.
>
> Finally, there's the real question of who would use it. Synth plugins
> are arguably useful to Rosegarden users, but audio plugins are pretty
> irrelevant except in connection with synth plugins. Nobody uses the
> audio features. I would have tried if I had been able to get my audio
> rack to work with Linux, but I would have ended up having to use
> something more robust myself. Rosegarden is missing a lot of
> functionality, and the Linux audio community is totally dominated by
> Ardour, so even if we built it, nobody would use it. If we were doing
> Rosegarden from scratch, there would just be no point in including audio
> features at all.
>
> So I come down as kind of meh on the whole thing. It would be neat to
> play with if it doesn't require massive investment of effort on your
> part, but the reality is you're probably going to see really limited
> returns from the community. If you build it, they might come, or they
> might just yawn.
>
> --
> D. Michael McIntyre
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rosegarden-user mailing list
> Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user
>




_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Reply via email to