Re: Multitimbral Music Devices - Question and Proposal
Re: Multitimbral Music Devices - Question and Proposal
- Subject: Re: Multitimbral Music Devices - Question and Proposal
- From: Frank Hoffmann <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:26:22 +0200
Urs, sorry to insist, but multitimbral Audio Units just add another
layer of unneeded conceptional overhead. There is no need for that and
you can see how much confusion it creates with VST. And there is still
no clear concept how to handle the scenario. Neither on the host nor on
the client side. They just shouldn't. The mistake was to allow
multitimbral plugin in the first place.
The concept of multitimbral comes from hardware synthesizer, where it
made sense for cost reasons. But for the virtual studio there is simply
a lack of need for something like this. Hence somebody wants to
simulate a virtual instrument with say a drum machine and a synthesis
part, why shouldn't he create one Audio Unit for the drum machine and
one for the synthesis part? There is no disadvantage, but it buys you a
lot more flexibility. Of course the virtual counterfeit wouldn't look
exactly like the original anymore. But this point is mood, you also
can't simulate the feeling of actually touching the keys this way.
Regarding Audio Units hosting Audio Units: There should be no need for
that. Or how many layers of Audio Units inside Audio Units you want to
support?
Ergo: better no multitimbral Audio Units IMHO.
Ciao,
Frank
ps: I would like to suggest that you try to persuade your "sometimes
imminent rulings" to alter the way of the pure discipline again... ;)
On Dienstag, Juli 15, 2003, at 03:12 Uhr, Urs Heckmann wrote:
Am Dienstag, 15.07.03, um 14:33 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Frank
Hoffmann:
On Montag, Juli 14, 2003, at 07:11 Uhr, Urs Heckmann wrote:
Hi,
so now I'm in a mess. I don't want to, but I have to. Multitimbral
Music Device. Geeeze.
What do you think?
Oh no, please don't. Which reason can there be to do something like
this? If a user wants to get another part, he can and should just
open another instance of the Audio Unit. Which other reason do you
propose?
Frank
He Frank, I don't want this for me. Of course not. I bashed
multitimbral, and I meant it.
However. I hate marketing and featurism. But sometimes you have to
obey to these rulings to earn money. This sometimes becomes a critical
aspect, usually short time after a Keynote Event [Frank and I sat in
the first row, during the storm event, hehe].
And who knows what it's good for. - Being able to process all voices
of a multitim Music Device within one render call will be rewarded by
nice use of cache. It's easier to use Logic along with Live on stage,
because you can trigger different sounds without venturesome
Environments (well, you could use RAX + RT Player instead). No doubt,
despite all hassle, multitim has some pros as well.
And it's not limited to multitim. It's not even limited to homogenous
"parts". It could also drive modular Plugin environments. Think of a
simplified Numerology running as a plugin inside [your fav host here],
where each module is its own AU Element, being fully automatable,
regardless of configuration, thus enhancing the functionality of [your
fav host here].
I've gone through AU specs and found that Elements idea offers almost
everything to do it right. Hence, why not make AU the first platform I
know (well, I know only 2 in-depth) that does it right, and without
workarounds?
Cheers,
;) Urs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
frank hoffmann mailto: email@hidden
ableton ag
http://www.ableton.com
_______________________________________________
coreaudio-api mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/coreaudio-api
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.