Posted
I don't want to monopolize the fora ( i would prefer stereopolize :D )
so here is my last attempt for suggested improvement:
a macro workflow for synfire.
I let users ponder about all this.
Greetings
bob22
(macroworkflow.PNG)
Do., 27.05.2010 - 19:59 Permalink
Hey bob
I have been having a lot of trouble understanding all of your text. You have some interesting ideas but they are so vague. There are language barriers here as well as a wide range of technical competencies.
What you posted could be great.... Who knows; it is very cryptic. After the hateful experience with rewire in the last year, it seems like a move in a dangerous direction.
Even as it is, linking to a separate daw is a greatly hobbled approach that was only implemented out of necessity. I think we should be moving towards an integrated setup where one would only have to:
Start synfire
Select an instrument
Start recording
I enjoy your ideas but please make the stereopolies priority clear communication
Do., 27.05.2010 - 20:18 Permalink
hey, this doesn't need rewire at all, just midi routing and audio outputs.
I too have a lot of difficulties to read some of your post: too much details for my mind.
I prefer thinking in terms of globality. The more global the more it is clear for me.
anyway, the suggested workflow:
Start synfire
Select an instrument
Start recording
is exactly what the schema above claims (once device descriptions and routing would have been set up, as a necessity for beginning recording).
Do., 27.05.2010 - 20:46 Permalink
Ok let me be more specific.
Why do you need it.
What would it do.
Have you looked at previous posts concerning the transmission of the same information to and from synfire? It has been discussed at length.
Do you feel it is a more robust alternative to an integrated host (given that rewire stands as an example of how problematic application to application communication can be)
You say "once device descriptions and routing would have been set up, as a necessity for beginning recording" -- Routing is only necessary BECAUSE there is no integrated host, so it is not a necessity; it is the present reality. Don't call it a three step process when it is not.
Im not suggesting audio hosting should be a priority for Synfire as there are many many long standing issues that I want to see resolved, but after using Synfire for a year and a half I would hate to see Synfire further entrenched in inter-application communication which simply does not work well.
Do., 27.05.2010 - 20:55 Permalink
I know Synfire software since approximatively one month. I used DAWs by the past.
DAWs do a really good job for digital audio processing but they are no composition software.
Why wanting to make synfire like DAWs ?
I think it could be complementary to DAWs, but focusing on composition issues.
So, not throwing DAWs to garbages or wanting to imitate DAWs, but using DAWs for the finality of composition, into Synfire.
Midi processing with focus on composition and why not: audio processing with focus on composition and feedback on midi processing. that's the idea behind this schema.
