Replace instead of delete and insert.
What you want to replace? Could you be more specific?
Units. There is such a function in Audiomulch…
This is from my understanding not possible. I did not miss this yet, could be nice…
Argh. I wish you didn’t tell me it was in Audiomulch. Now I have to delete this upcoming replace command.
!? Is there a “vendetta” between OD and AM?
Yeah, of all the O|D principles this is the one I don’t understand the most, there are lots of cases of Multiple Discovery:
I mean if you take it to it’s logical conclusion then it is extremely rare for anything to be really ‘new’ it’s all just development based on previous ideas or variations on a theme.
Reduce it to absurdity and I would question why the VCA unit exists in the 301
While I understand the notion that the development should be based on first principles and that this is a good thing, I think it is totally valid to take ideas from other things and develop them and a bit odd to abandon something just because it’s been implemented by someone else somewhere. Olivier from Mutable Instruments does this a lot too and it’s a shame the world is denied these variants because of … erm what exactly?
Not sure why this is a big deal … copy/paste/replace/duplicate are universal by now?
Of course I’m not going to avoid do something just because someone else is or has done it. Give me a little credit
On the other hand, “X has it therefore we should do it too” is a thought process that I have trouble relating to…
Oh, the way I read your previous post was that you started this replace command before you knew about the AM one and then abandoned it because of this.
I agree about avoiding the ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’ but that’s not what I am understanding to be the case here.
Anyway, doesn’t really matter, it’s all good
I understand what you mean,…if it helps the need “to replace” emerged during the time working with the 301, then remembered the good old AM…
This post is an attempt at self-referential humor.
Obviously I didn’t get it
Now see this is what I was referencing in another thread, coming as i do, from a laconic, wry and ironic culture, about misunderstanding. If it’s any consolation @odevices I got it
(by way of example Sir Ken Robinson’s take on American appreciation of irony)
It’s a pretty subtle thing to pick up on from text, especially with so many previous references to @odevices not using other people’s work as inspiration!
edit: I am a native English speaker, but my ability to pick up on things like this varies wildly depending on how busy I am, sometimes I am here and it’s a quick cursory read just to follow the gist of what’s going on as a break for a few minutes in-between doing other things, when it’s like that it’s almost impossible!
I agree, text is a diabolical medium for interpersonal communication, the potential for misunderstanding high! In my case there’s the added difficulty that what I’m saying to myself in my head is not that same as that which I’m typing!
What can I say, Australia’s currently about 47th in global education rankings!
Aren’t you wielding a rather blunt knife here? If this were actually true I would be an insufferable megalomaniac.
I’m inspired by other people’s work all the time. I’m not comfortable going into someone else’s work and directly lifting out some piece of it for my own use (unless of course it is public domain or the use is for educational reasons). I don’t call that using other people’s work as inspiration. That is the ironic use of the phrase “inspired by”. For me personally, using other people’s work as inspiration involves (at least) two distinct phases:
The Open Phase: Expose yourself to other people’s work as much as possible. Study it. Try to understand why it works or doesn’t. Appreciate it. Let it change the way you think.
The Closed Phase: Now step away. Let the details of other people’s work blur into a cohesive whole. Create a mental space for your own ideas to grow. Continue to accept abstract ideas from the outside but limit exposure to exact implementations.
Even this two phase approach itself is not my idea, it is heavily influenced by reading many books written by creatives talking about their process. I found that time and time again the concept of creating a safe place for one’s own ideas to flourish comes up in various peoples’ process. And it makes sense. Initially one’s ideas are weak and confidence in them can be low. They need protection from other people’s fully formed time-tested ideas until they can mature and get a fighting chance of their own.
I’m just saying I didn’t get the joke, mainly because it sounded like similar statements in the past that I also took literally, that’s all! I’m not trying to make a point or anything.
You’re obviously not an insufferable megalomaniac
Everything else you wrote about the process makes sense
Sorry. I’m probably just being over-sensitive.
Heh… aren’t we all? Sometimes?
It’s a nice reminder that we’re only human