[openbeos-midi] some thoughts on the sequencer design doc...
- From: Al Elias <al@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos-midi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:07:15 +0000
Conceptually, the sequencer seems to have its roots in very early
Cakewalk versions. I don't mind this at all, my earliest encounters with
x86 sequencers came from this era. Thinking back, midi sequencing was
much more direct and 'user-friendly' before the likes of Logic and later
revisions of Cubase came along.
To me, the learning curve required to master these applications impeded
the users ability to be creative (in the most 'pure' sense of the word).
Most modern sequencers suffer this feature creep...large software houses
rarely think like an individual muso' ;o)
The idea of always recording - even during playback - is nice. I really
like this. Sooo many times I have wished I had the record button engaged
during a dry run only to find that when I do record, I can not recall
that all-important groove I had on the previous run.
I think user defineable colors are unneccesary, personally. I don't
think I have EVER assigned custom colors to tracks. Ok, maybe once or
twice in my lifetime but ONLY if the default pallette is gross. Most of
the time I can live with whatever the default pallette happens to be :o)
"Clicking and dragging the mouse -- in some cases, this may pop up some
kind of slider (see Soundplay's volume control for an example), or it
may just change the number as the mouse is dragged (thoughts?)"
See BeatWares e-Picture or Photoshop from v5->. Both seem to share the
same design principles for sliders. I'm not keen on mouse dragging to
increase/decrease parameters. It's not quite 'granular' enough for me,
especially with old rodents ;o)
"the more complex things get, the harder it becomes to write, and the
more potential there is for major design problems to appear. I can also
smell a hint of feature-creep here."
A bit of a dichotomy here. The BeOS way has always been modularity. Lots
and lots of small apps/add-ons to get the job done. Personally, I like
this but there is always a moment when I realize I have too many windows
open on my screen...again, losing the ability to be truly 'creative'.
This is going to be a tough nut to crack, a balance between having
featue 'x' integrated or, looking outside your immediate working
environment for the tool that you need at that precice moment in time.
"Similar to MeV, one feature I'd like to implement is the notion of
multiple "strips" in the piano roll view.."
I agree with you entirely. MeV seems to handle this well up to a point.
The scrollbar eventually becomes heavily-laden with widgets.
"Technically, recording SysEx data directly to a track is harder to
achieve. Also, as soon as SysEx events are recorded directly to tracks,
they become normal events, and therefore go into the (multi-stage) undo
buffer. This can become quite a serious memory-hog, given the size of
some SysEx messages. SysEx banks can be made exempt from undo, but
events cannot."
Hmmm, I always feel that SysEx can be an encumberance. As much of the
donkey-work that can be handled by the app should be handled by the app
in my view. These days, memory is not such a premium, for example, my
BeOS TEST-box is running in 512mb of memory. BeOS as you well know, will
struggle to use that much memory processing midi data alone. Personally,
technical considerations aside, I would prefer to have the events
recorded to the track than having to load from a separate file.
"What about if each track could be expanded/collapsed with some kind of
triangle control in the arrangement view, to expose/hide the piano roll
for that track, and do away with the concept of two separate pages? That
seems to be mostly free of the track selection issues, but that too has
a problem: if you want to view track 1 and track 64 in the piano roll,
then it's not going to fit on the screen because of all the
"arrangement-style" views (squares) for the 62 tracks in-between the two."
IMO track-based sequencers will always suffer from screen real-estate
issues, for this reason, I think MeV, once you get used to the notion of
destinations as opposed to tracks, has some advantages, but that is an
entirely different concept.
These are just my initial thoughts regarding the design doc, they are by
no means concrete or exhausted. ;o)
Keep up the good work, it is much appreciated.
Al
Other related posts: