bb.linuxsampler.org

This is the culmination of my brainstorming in the "new interface" thread in the Design forum. I decided to post it here in the hopes more eyeballs would see it.

[link removed - new draft posted below]

This presents my ideas on a new way to think about how the user can interface with a synth or sampler engine, leaving behind completely the paradigm of envelopes, LFOs, and similar control structures. This is a first draft, and still needs some detail I have to think about some more. In the meantime, any feedback would be appreciated. Thank you!

Cool paper Consul

It might be worth having a look at QTractor. Might be worth asking Rui how easy it is to make different track types.

This might be worth looking at too...

http://www.kgw.tu-berlin.de/%7Elac2007/ ... l#thursday

Yeah, I suppose a DAW could use a key-frame paradigm like this one instead of envelopes for automation. It wouldn't be quite the same implementation, but the same idea is there. I'll leave it up to Rui if he wants to chime in. Really, I'm imagining this as the foundation for a brand new way of interfacing with software synthesizers and samplers.

It's becoming quite clear to me that I have to clarify an important point.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how a single well-designed atomic function, with a clear set of inputs and outputs, can be used in combination to create nearly all of the features and functionality we expect from an advanced software synth and/or sampler. It's also about how this power can be effectively put in the hands of the sound designer at an interface level.

Now that I put it that way, those two sentences definitely need to be in the paper. Expect a second draft tonight or tomorrow.

Here's the second draft, based upon feedback from various sources:

EDIT: A third draft is now available. Please see further in the thread for details. Sorry.

Just re reading your paper again.

Have you seen this...

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov04/a ... folder.htm

A suggestion, more of a form issue rather than with the idea itself, is to include a section after the introduction presenting what have already been done in the area, like similar efforts or products (previous art so to speak), so that the audience will gain an understanding of what this presumably novel idea differ from what's already been done. (If you write a research paper you include previous research in the background... If you write a proposal for a new Microformat, for e.g. citations, you research previous formats, like BibTeX and Endnote, and include them in the background...)

That way you can come out saying, "Yes those are great and similar ideas! But mine is better, and here's why!".

Except I have absolutely no information on what might have already been done in this area. As far as I can tell, all currently available software synths and samplers are parameterized by all the usual old methods, i.e., directly coding each feature. The world of 3D animation is about the only place I can look to, and even then the link is tenuous. About the only thing I could do is to discuss the disadvantages of having to directly code every feature of a synth (at the mercy of the developer, etc.) and how my system solves many of those problems.

Well, that's what research are for.

I think I'd rather spend my time refining the idea and then selling it. Specifically, I'm out to sell it to Benno and Christian and saying, "hey, let's try this!" Selling it to LAD would just be a bonus.

Still, if it makes me look more academic, I'll see if I can find anything that makes a good comparison.