It seems plugin authors behave as if the web page author is the same person as the web page visitor! As author, I cannot make assumptions about what plugins and browsers my visitors use, much less ask them to use a specific one. So all the fancy stuff is pretty useless. What an author needs is standardized functionality that works the same on all browsers and plugins.

I have had a lot of trouble with plugins (esp. when many of them are embedded on a page), and I've only explored a few of them. I finally settled for the structure in the demo page (that you probably come from) after some experimentation. Some comments follow.

I had little luck in making the EMBED tag work correctly for any plugin, esp. wrt WIDTH and HEIGHT (black instead of control panel for example), so I tried using JavaScript and hidden plugin controls: this worked better (except for MidPlug), but probably restricts the number of usable plugins because it requires a LiveConnect-aware plugin. Anyway, I finally settled on a single visible plugin and LiveConnect calls.

Also, software synths will often try to make the sound more natural (e.g. by introducing a vibrato) which is nice in the general case, but which can get in the way of hearing tuning differences. For the sound, I prefer LiveAudio or MidPlug over Beatnik (wrt making the differences in tuning audible).

The current arrangement has the advantage that only one plugin instance needs to be loaded and configured (for example, to send MIDI data to OMS). And, with only one instance, there are fewer chances of bugs I hope! On the other hand, it makes things a bit slower when clicking because the MIDI file is downloaded only when requested.

Are we condemned to work with beta software forever?


Retour / Zurück / Back