Re: [Traverso-devel] Traverso audio backend & custom audio app

[Niklas Klügel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hey,

> Stupid question lol What I actually wanted to know, as you
> indicated, you want things to be a bit more extreem then the
> avarage audio editing person. So the question was more geared
> towards that, as in, does Traverso from a 'normal' editing program
> point of view 'need' it, or at least to a certain degree, so we can
> see where things overlap, what can be implemented right away in
> Traverso that suits 'our' needs, and how can it be done that it
> fits _all_ your needs as well.

i think having it done right in the beginning is mandatory for a good
audio/recording suite.

> Although it might not be 100% related, we just had (have?) some
> brainstorming on how to visualize effects (they are implemented as
> a Plugin), select, modify them, with the Traverso interface in mind
> [1]

yes, envelopes are really powerful. regarding the number of envelopes
you display: i think two are enough, you usually edit one envelope
relative to another one. if you are editing more than one envelope,
you can orientate on one basic one you are showing in the background.
ableton live shows just one envelope at a time, which is sometimes not
handy.
you can select them using two pull down menus: one for the main mixer
of the channel/track and all the effects in it and another one for the
parameter.
being able to copy envelopes is really handy. you can also edit envelopes
on a per-clip basis. so for example, if you have two audio clips that
you want
to throw in your arrangement several times, you edit the envelopes in
the clip
and simply paste the clip into the arrangement. don't get me wrong,
ableton
live is not the wholy grail of sequencing but it got many things right
in such a way
that you feel quite retarded when you are using i.e. protools. the
latter is not
even close to be intuitive and efficient when you have worked with
live for a
while. i think this mainly developed from the desire to have an
application
that was geared towards live useage only where the
music-production-facilities
were implemented afterwards.
regarding the gui: i think it is better to have traverso's own widgets
for f/x,
that way you are not puzzled everytime you play around with f/x that
are new
to you. if traverso is not geared towards live useage you can edit all
parameters
with envelopes only, anyway. if a plugin has a special widget, it
should be added
in one common, traverso-specific view/container widget. but that's my
opinion.

> Seems like a huge dependency indeed, but it shouldn't be to hard to
> make that something like you suggest, a plugin or something
> similar.

yes. as you said it all depends on the degree of integration. clam for
example allows stretching and pitching samples as well as
sample-annotation
out of the box. it also comes with an integrated modular synth/fx
engine [2],
which could be used for most of traverso's f/x. it is also possible
to integrate csound (libcsound5) and write "orchestra" files for all
basic f/x needed
and allow user-based orchestra-files to be added to the database of
supported
f/x. i seriously think that writing better sounding f/x than what they
have is near
impossible - at least from the viewpoint of a not being a dsp crackhead.
another alternative would be using faust [2] for the design for all f/x.

i have to see how much sparetime i currently have, i am currently busy
with university-shiznit, work and finishing my album that i have been
working
on for almost two years (so that has high priority). if that works
somehow out,
i'd happily work on your project.


so long...
Niklas

[1] http://faust.grame.fr/
[2] http://iua-share.upf.es/wikis/clam/index.php/Network_Editor_tutorial


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFwbAJ+k24EnBNzsMRAh4GAJ4sRzDYd3vvs3BvwZDBRaB3PYQ2QwCfeIXl
GnhIm6AbUIY2mxIdGX4PmFw=
=PDCY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----