Grammostola Rosea wrote:
> BTW this also suggest that 64studio should support LV2 as good as
> possible. Cause if you want people to use LV2 instead of VST, you should
> try to offer them the best LV2 experience as possible! You have to offer
> good alternatives to VST!
>
I agree. Besides,
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
> Daniel James wrote:
>
>> Hi Rosea,
>>
>>
>>> Will ardourvst hit 64studio?
>>>
>> I'm not sure for the 3.0 release, there are WINE issues to consider. I
>> know people are excited about the VST support but I also think it's
>> critical to support LV2 as a
Daniel James wrote:
> Hi Rosea,
>
>> Will ardourvst hit 64studio?
>
> I'm not sure for the 3.0 release, there are WINE issues to consider. I
> know people are excited about the VST support but I also think it's
> critical to support LV2 as a true Free Software standard for plugins.
>
I agree with
Hi Rosea,
> Will ardourvst hit 64studio?
I'm not sure for the 3.0 release, there are WINE issues to consider. I
know people are excited about the VST support but I also think it's
critical to support LV2 as a true Free Software standard for plugins.
Cheers!
Daniel
Daniel James wrote:
> Hi Dick,
>
>
>> After the usual dependency run around when compiling from a tar ball, I
>> managed to compile Ardour 2.8. It plays loads and plays existing
>> projects ok but I have not tested it more severely.
>>
>
> Thanks for the feedback :-)
>
>
Will ardourvs
Hi Dick,
> After the usual dependency run around when compiling from a tar ball, I
> managed to compile Ardour 2.8. It plays loads and plays existing
> projects ok but I have not tested it more severely.
Thanks for the feedback :-)
Cheers!
Daniel
_
After the usual dependency run around when compiling from a tar ball, I
managed to compile Ardour 2.8. It plays loads and plays existing projects
ok but I have not tested it more severely.
Regards
Dick Wright
___
64studio-devel mailing list
64s
