Audiobus: Use your music apps together.

What is Audiobus?Audiobus is an award-winning music app for iPhone and iPad which lets you use your other music apps together. Chain effects on your favourite synth, run the output of apps or Audio Units into an app like GarageBand or Loopy, or select a different audio interface output for each app. Route MIDI between apps — drive a synth from a MIDI sequencer, or add an arpeggiator to your MIDI keyboard — or sync with your external MIDI gear. And control your entire setup from a MIDI controller.

Download on the App Store

Audiobus is the app that makes the rest of your setup better.

OT: The Enemy Within

145791012

Comments

  • edited May 6

    @dustgod said:
    The attacks on free speech are coming from the left. Deplatforming, bannings, shutting down events with violence, etc

    I'm assuming you are talking about Trump saying mean things about some news agencies. Not a new thing (Obama attacked Fox news) and he hasn't shut anyone down or penalized said companies. Not actually an attack on the first amendment. My biggest problem is he has not done anything to protect free speech online, but that is largely up to Congress.

    I tend to agree with you, and if someone in public office is a threat to the free speech of someone I disagree with, I see that as much of a personal threat to my right to speak freely, as it is to their right to speak freely.

  • edited May 6

    I understand the conservative complaint about "political correctness" — there is definitely a kind of purity-test quality to some language policing.

    But "deplatforming" isn't a thing. Private companies have the right to show Laura Loomer and Alex Jones the door if they incite hate. The First Amendment applies to the government's abridgement of the free press, not a private company's.

    Obama, like every president, felt he was treated unfairly by the news media. Clinton hated the press, Reagan hated the press, Nixon REALLY hated the press. It goes with the job, and though Obama whined about Fox News's coverage, he never revoked the network's press pass.

    This "enemy of the people" talk is the talk of dictators and tyrants. It has done irreparable damage to our nation, I fear. I am really appalled at the acceptance of the right at the hate Trump directs at the ONLY occupation protected by the Constitution. Not soldiers, not police officers, not even teachers: journalists are protected. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Framers.

    And while we're at it, "banning Muslims until we can find out what the hell is going on" — that's also an attack on the First Amendment.

  • edited May 6

    To the credit of almost everyone who has participated in this discussion, in most places, even the ones that still allow political and faith discussions, this topic would have had to have been closed do to it getting out of hand. I’m impressed at the level of tolerance the members here have for points of view that differ from their own. In most places I’ve been, discussions of politics and faith devolve into name calling, and sometimes even personal threats very quickly. The main thing I would like to be able to get across, is that we have bigger issues at hand than our personal differences. My own personal belief, as to what we, as a whole face, can be summed up in this scripture;

    Ephesians 6:12 King James Version (KJV)

    12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    You are of course within your right to believe differently, but please do not take offense. The way I see it, in the bigger picture, is that we are for the most part, on the same side, by what we are all up against together as human beings. None of you, can I count as my enemy, no matter what you believe or say.

  • @robertreynolds said:
    With respect @LinearLineman, there is no point for us Trump supporters to engage deeply here other than to let others know there are others out there who might think differently. There is no way to have a nuanced discussion with people who believe Trump is the devil. And this place, like a lot of others is a heavily biased echo chamber where people not only can pile on in really nasty ways but are encouraged to do so by their peers.

    Just sayin

    With respect, Robert, as @Ripper7620 said, folks here are unusually tolerant on both sides
    (That includes the silent ones sitting with their fists in their mouths) when you say "us Trump supporters" it sounds like you really identify with a group. You must have powerful reasons to say that (I cannot say I am a "supporter" of anyone). I believe you would get a fair and thoughtful hearing from your tech colleagues here. If you would just make a case, backed by facts, that we can understand, it would go a long way to making this discourse so one sided. Thanks!

    @dustgod said, "The attacks on free speech are coming from the left. Deplatforming, bannings, shutting down events with violence, etc"

    That is very interesting, can you quote some sources that back up your statement? For example, I can point to many televised videos we all have seen that show our leader promoting violence at a rally. We all have. Perhaps you can supply some equivalent? That would be a great help in balancing things out here Thank you.

  • @ExAsperis99 said:
    I understand the conservative complaint about "political correctness" — there is definitely a kind of purity-test quality to some language policing.

    But "deplatforming" isn't a thing. Private companies have the right to show Laura Loomer and Alex Jones the door if they incite hate. The First Amendment applies to the government's abridgement of the free press, not a private company's.

    Obama, like every president, felt he was treated unfairly by the news media. Clinton hated the press, Reagan hated the press, Nixon REALLY hated the press. It goes with the job, and though Obama whined about Fox News's coverage, he never revoked the network's press pass.

    This "enemy of the people" talk is the talk of dictators and tyrants. It has done irreparable damage to our nation, I fear. I am really appalled at the acceptance of the right at the hate Trump directs at the ONLY occupation protected by the Constitution. Not soldiers, not police officers, not even teachers: journalists are protected. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Framers.

    And while we're at it, "banning Muslims until we can find out what the hell is going on" — that's also an attack on the First Amendment.

    Well, there's a very good reason that Trump said that he "loved the poorly educated" (besides the obvious narcissism, of course)

  • @LinearLineman Your question was not directed at me, so please accept my apology when I say “I am sorry for answering it”. From what I have seen over the course of all the presidents we’ve had since that terrible day in 2001, every president, including our present one has continued to take more, and more of our rights and personal freedoms away. I think with both Bush W., and Obama(sometimes refered to as Barry Setero), it’s fairy obvious, but with Trump, and please keep in mind that I do not watch the regular news, or follow politics very closely, but I do recall Trump working with left leaning members of congress to further restrict gun laws, and I believe that there are more examples that don’t immediately come to mind, of Trump eroding our rights and personal freedoms. However my point has absolutely nothing with which president in particular did what, but rather that irregardless of who has been in public office recently, as far as I can tell, they all are working (many times behind closed doors), to take away our rights, and personal freedoms and liberties. Also, I have absolutely no argument with anyone here. However, at the same time, I’m not afraid to take a stand for the things I do believe in. The thing is, and for whatever it may, or may not be worth to someone else, I only look at a leader through the lens of “are they doing the will of God”? I do not stand in judgment, because I am not He who is qualified to judge, but rather I look at what are leaders say and do, and I compare that with what scripture says. However, no one else is required to do that in my mind, as we have all been given the choice to get our personal beliefs and opinions from wherever we choose, whether that be from our own understanding, or from someplace else, and I would not attempt to change that. However, the people who are running the show here on earth, whether it America, or another nation, seem to be hell bent on telling us everything, from what we are to believe, and from where we are to get that belief. Please do not misunderstand what I say, I have no desire, and I realize, no right, to tell another person what they should believe, or where they should get that belief. Thank you very much for your civility, and for the respect each of you have shown to one another, for the most part. Your tolerance of beliefs, other than your own, speaks volumes about the character of each and every one of you. However, our leadership, as far as I am able to tell, does not possess that same level of character, in fact, what they do seem to possess, for the most part, is the exact opposite of that.

  • @LinearLineman said:

    @robertreynolds said:
    With respect @LinearLineman, there is no point for us Trump supporters to engage deeply here other than to let others know there are others out there who might think differently. There is no way to have a nuanced discussion with people who believe Trump is the devil. And this place, like a lot of others is a heavily biased echo chamber where people not only can pile on in really nasty ways but are encouraged to do so by their peers.

    Just sayin

    With respect, Robert, as @Ripper7620 said, folks here are unusually tolerant on both sides
    (That includes the silent ones sitting with their fists in their mouths) when you say "us Trump supporters" it sounds like you really identify with a group. You must have powerful reasons to say that (I cannot say I am a "supporter" of anyone). I believe you would get a fair and thoughtful hearing from your tech colleagues here. If you would just make a case, backed by facts, that we can understand, it would go a long way to making this discourse so one sided. Thanks!

    No “fair hearing” is required @LinearLineman. I’m not here to make a case. I’ve stated my opinion about how I feel about Trump as well as the bullying nature of those on the left who oppose him. I’m happy, healthy and feeling great. If you want facts I suggest you start with realclearpolitics.com and start reading the links from top to bottom whether they’re conservative or liberal. Do it for a few weeks and I think you’ll find your own answers.

  • Well said @Ripper7620. Thank you for that.

  • @JeffChasteen said:
    Well, there's a very good reason that Trump said that he "loved the poorly educated" (besides the obvious narcissism, of course)

    You’re a really unpleasant dude, you know that? You have zero to add to the conversation except vitriol. It’s too bad your timeout didn’t last longer.

  • @LinearLineman said:
    Well said @Ripper7620. Thank you for that.

    And thank you very much for not taking offense, because it’s rude to step into other people’s conversations, which is what I did, and so I appreciate it very much.

  • edited May 6

    Sorry, @robertreynolds, I didn't mean it to sound that way. I meant just that everyone here, I hope, would want to listen with an open mind. But I think your answer would have been the same. I hope you continue to be happy, healthy and feeling great. An enviable position.

    I agree that the forces at work are mostly behind the scenes, that the movers of capitalism, unfortunately, are bringing upon everyone the potential of ultimate chaos and destruction, or ultimate totalitarianism. I also think everyone would agree that wealth concentration seems to be happening faster these days. As one climate change guy put it, the changes are exponential, so the last "day" the glass is half full, but the next day it is totally full. So many can read that things are just fine the "day" before, plenty of time for change, only 50% fucked up!

    My difficulty is with the seeds that have been sown, and now continue to be sown, for divisiveness in the US in the most transparent fashion, which none can ignore. Perhaps it is better that these efforts are more in the open than in the past. Yes, I can see it is a distraction to pit us against each other. But the harvest is starting to come in when, as Claudius said in I Claudius, the worms begin hatching from the earth (or some such). The hatred that was undercover has been given permission to blossom.

    In the US not since Vietnam has there been this turmoil. And some might say that was worse. Yet, in the 60s there was hope, and in some respect the narrative had a satisfying end. The US discovered its limits (or so it seemed), men and women stopped dying on both sides in a useless war and Nixon was exposed for acting beyond his legal power as president. . Now there is no such satisfying end in sight. Except on the nano level of human to human interaction. We must be able to communicate to avoid conflict amongst ourselves and the lines seem to be going down.

    It is a foolish and unimpactful quest to hope that on this forum something better might be expressed about how folks get along. Irrelevant on a tech forum, for sure. Still I am not disappointed in our community if this thread is an example. Cheers.

  • @robertreynolds said:

    @JeffChasteen said:
    Well, there's a very good reason that Trump said that he "loved the poorly educated" (besides the obvious narcissism, of course)

    You’re a really unpleasant dude, you know that? You have zero to add to the conversation except vitriol. It’s too bad your timeout didn’t last longer.

    I will defer to your apparent expertise in the area of "being a really unpleasant dude", bobby.
    Bless your heart!

  • edited May 6

    Jaron Lanier speaking about divisiveness, social media and algorithmic manipulation of individuals and society. An important person to listen to in my mind.

  • Thanks @AudioGus. Well worth watching.

  • one:
    There is more to "freedomz" than the first or second amendment

    two:
    The Constitution is a document that tries to work as a whole and has BEEN AMENDED, that is added to after the fact and not without cost the "freedomz" we all enjoy were paid for by others in blood sweat and tears.

    three:
    While there has been much misattribution given to presidents "taking away" freedom, that is not the purview of the executive branch look left and right to the legislative branch and then around to the courts.

    four: (hey, look ma I can count :P )
    Corporations have done more to take your "freedomz" away than any politician IMHOP

    All of us struggle to build a life and make the future better on stagnant wages and diminishing social support.

    Corporations, not the small mom and pop legal fictions that truly do facilitate business, but ever growing, ever engulfing corporations whose legal persons have nested personalities under an umbrella corporation have very set the stage for widespread disaffection, disenfranchisement* and in staggering inequality. Corporations have written and rewritten the rules of engagement for their own selfish success with the idea of ever increasing profit, and externalization of cost, with the sole manufactured goal of shareholder profits.

    This is in conflict with our innate idea as humans, as social creatures, of fairness. We have put persons fictitious and real above ideas such as cooperation, FRIENDLY competition (where rules are followed more by good sportsmanship than by technical adherence to the written rules and laws), and the idea of the COMMONS. Government(s) by the politics of laziness and necessity have gone along with this.

    There is struggle against this by good actors and a multitude of collective organizations but for all intents and purposes, the capture of government by corporations is currently all but complete.

    We all have fundamentally a shared humanity. We all have shared needs (food, shelter etc see Maslow). We all as a species anthropologically have NEEDED to cooperate to survive.

    We continue to need to cooperate.

    BTW I'm not a communist marxist libertarian conservative democrat capitalist etc... I'm a human with ideas with the small power to realize we constructed and continue to construct our rules and reality. The above listing of words are symbols we attach meaning and some sort of permanence to but they are not reality.

    Don't be an ass be aspirational.

  • "Freedom" - what a terrible word to have to define. I think a lot of the problems we see are largely due to our inability to define exactly what this means.

    "Average American" - this is also completely undefinable, certainly in the modern era. With a shrinking/non-existent middle class, who's to say what the average is. Average from who's perspective?

    "Rights" - Another word that is seemingly easier to define, yet the Constitution has certainly provided a lot of loopholes for interpretation here.

    At the risk of tangentilizing this thread, I have long believed that as Americans, we should re-examine the very document we revere so highly and look at ways that it itself may be redefined to better fit the modern era. I believe that large portions of our "Rule of Law" are not applicable to modern society and the problem is that while the document was designed to grow and evolve as time went on, we as a society have pedestalized it to the degree where even questioning it is looked at as being "unpatriotic" or "unAmerican" or what have you.

    I don't believe this will ever happen - to be honest, who would be in a 21st century Continental Congress? I'm not sure there's anyone, on either side of the current spectrum, that I would trust with this job.

    And maybe therein lies the crux of the biscuit.

    Food for thought - not trying to pick a fight here, just offering up yet another side of the coin for further debate.

  • edited May 6

    @LinearLineman said:
    Thanks @AudioGus. Well worth watching.

    His entire rabbit hole is beautiful...

    etc... go deep!

    Edit: Oh hey Moogfest cred too...

  • @Daveypoo said:
    "Freedom" - what a terrible word to have to define. I think a lot of the problems we see are largely due to our inability to define exactly what this means.

    "Average American" - this is also completely undefinable, certainly in the modern era. With a shrinking/non-existent middle class, who's to say what the average is. Average from who's perspective?

    "Rights" - Another word that is seemingly easier to define, yet the Constitution has certainly provided a lot of loopholes for interpretation here.

    At the risk of tangentilizing this thread, I have long believed that as Americans, we should re-examine the very document we revere so highly and look at ways that it itself may be redefined to better fit the modern era. I believe that large portions of our "Rule of Law" are not applicable to modern society and the problem is that while the document was designed to grow and evolve as time went on, we as a society have pedestalized it to the degree where even questioning it is looked at as being "unpatriotic" or "unAmerican" or what have you.

    I don't believe this will ever happen - to be honest, who would be in a 21st century Continental Congress? I'm not sure there's anyone, on either side of the current spectrum, that I would trust with this job.

    And maybe therein lies the crux of the biscuit.

    Food for thought - not trying to pick a fight here, just offering up yet another side of the coin for further debate.

    👍👍

  • @ExAsperis99 said:
    I understand the conservative complaint about "political correctness" — there is definitely a kind of purity-test quality to some language policing.

    But "deplatforming" isn't a thing. Private companies have the right to show Laura Loomer and Alex Jones the door if they incite hate. The First Amendment applies to the government's abridgement of the free press, not a private company's.

    When a radical group like the SPLC decides they don’t like your world view and puts you on their list, resulting in you being unable to receive payments, post to the top three social networks in the world or even be found through search, you’ve been deplatformed. If people were trustworthy enough to use a reasonable definition of inciting hate, it probably wouldn’t be a problem. But unfortunately many extremists recklessly apply the term hate to any opinion they don’t agree with for their current cause du jour. They’ve weaponized the concept of hate to shut down conversation.

    If you’re still reading....

    Regarding there being no application of the first amendment to social network censoring, I believe you’re mostly right. However, there is another alternative to forcing social networks to maintain open access to what could be argued is the 21st century version of the digital public square.

    Currently service providers like Facebook and Twitter obtain immunity from liability for the content published by their users under section 230 of the communications decency act. Congress established this clause, understanding that information access is exceptionally important, and that without immunity, service providers might too aggressively censor their users. Note, Publishers don’t have this immunity. An article in a publication that libels someone puts the publisher at risk.

    There is an argument floating around that when Facebook makes decisions about who to ban, they’re acting as a publisher and not a service provider. This argument is further strengthened when Facebook bans any discussion about a banned account unless that discussion includes a condemnation of the account (a policy FB presumably implemented with the recent action against Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson and others).

    If service providers stuck to really clear, transparent and equally applied policies around who is banned and who isn’t, the risk of losing immunity wouldn’t be a problem. But these tech companies have largely been taken over by liberals and they want their immunity while also having a social and political impact on our lives. This means they have to do everything they can to shut down the other side. I personally believe all of these companies need to be evaluated and stripped of immunity. They’re no longer just providing a platform, they are editing and making decisions about the type of content being published.

  • robertreynolds thank you for posting the platform vs publisher argument, I don't feel like wading into political waters too deeply on this particular forum, just wanted to put myself out as one of the few on the more conservative side so others don't feel alone.

  • edited May 7

    But these tech companies were largely founded by liberals.
    FIFY

  • edited May 7

    the detracting is strong in this thread.

    look, if you don't like lies then why support the president who's lied more than any other?

    if you don't like your rights being taken away then why support the only president who ever suggested on video in public to take away your guns without due process?

    if you don't like bullying then why support the president who does more bullying than any other politician in history

    if you don't like swamps, then why support the creature of the black lagoon for president?

    stop playing the victim, nobody is trying to stop you from talking , people want to actually hear what you have to say , not hear you try to muddy the water, detract, and then refuse to answer the simple questions as if this space isn't safe enough.
    it is safe enough.

    as evidenced by the simple questions above you're not at odds with any liberal, democrat, or whatevercrat... you're at odds with yourself because it's you who decided to base your political opinion on those contradictions... Nobody even cares who you support, they only actually care that you're not making sense..... here is an example, if someone says they support the presidents muslim ban because they don't like muslims then my response would be 'ok or more likely no response at all' why should I be telling someone who they should love or hate.. I do not care... but if a person says they are a strict constitutionalist , or that constitutional rights are important, or that they don't believe in banning people based on their religion, or that they don't believe in religious test.............. but they love and support what Trump is doing then of Course it's not going to make any sense, this is what people want to know, so stop perpetuating a mist of chaos and just speak your truth.

    forget about right, left, conservative, liberal, republican, or democrat just for a moment, and as an honest human broker can you actually say that Obama, Clinton, or any other politician that you know of has lied as much as President trump?

    the First Lady is working on bullying initiatives, isn't her husband the biggest bully in her immediate circumference?

  • i offer this to demonstrate malfeasance is not limited to one side. NY governor Andrew Cuomo's interference in a commission he appointed in 2014 to investigate corruption...

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/nyregion/governor-andrew-cuomo-and-the-short-life-of-the-moreland-commission.html

  • @kobamoto
    You are on fire.
    But it is a respectful fire.

    I also want to know what Chump supporters really think, and not some talking points BS.

    And I admit, there is probably not a single Republican politician that I have ever supported or agreed with. But I have had conversations with Republicans or Conservatives and came away understanding their viewpoint on some issues.

    Now that that has been said, I also do not support or agree with Democratic politicians many times. Many are whoreporate sellouts, and take money and direction from the same influences as Republicans.

    Chump is worst President at the worst time in history. But Biden is really just as bad, just not as blatant. If you look at his voting record, you should see what I mean. If these two are the choices in 2020, we are seriously screwed.

  • This thread.

    Is like herpes.

  • @RUST( i )K said:
    This thread.

    Is like herpes.

    And yet here you are!

  • Or maybe the measles

  • @CracklePot said:
    @kobamoto
    You are on fire.
    But it is a respectful fire.

    I also want to know what Chump supporters really think, and not some talking points BS.

    And I admit, there is probably not a single Republican politician that I have ever supported or agreed with. But I have had conversations with Republicans or Conservatives and came away understanding their viewpoint on some issues.

    Now that that has been said, I also do not support or agree with Democratic politicians many times. Many are whoreporate sellouts, and take money and direction from the same influences as Republicans.

    Chump is worst President at the worst time in history. But Biden is really just as bad, just not as blatant. If you look at his voting record, you should see what I mean. If these two are the choices in 2020, we are seriously screwed.

    thing is the people I'm talking to know who they are and they are people I get along with and have always liked on the forum, there should be no fear of differing opinions here.

    I don't think Biden is really going anywhere, I know he's ahead in the poles right now but that would be a ridiculous choice Imo... and he Never had the chops to get my vote

  • I still think the most important thing is that we have civil discourse here. It is a shame we are all of the same mind. Of course, seeing 400+ lawyers and jurists sign a letter that our leader is a felon does not dispose me toward supporting him, but I truly would like to hear some defense in his favor. He passed that crime bill. Was that good? Laurence Tribe, the distinguished Harvard law professor, said if he is not impeached we are in danger of losing our souls. Pretty strong language from a sober, rational and logical mind.

  • edited May 8

    @LinearLineman said:Pretty strong language from a sober, rational and logical mind.

    I would disagree with that, as I don't find that person to be either sober, rational or of logical mind.

    He is a highly partisan political extremist who was connected to Obama's campaign, and he has been criticized for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.

    He belongs to a certain side, that side being the radical and extreme left, and he is of course against the current President, who is doing a remarkable job. The man who happens to be demolishing and tearing apart Obama's pitiful legacy day after day.

    Tribe also criticized the firing of Comey, something that the President was well within his rights to do. The full extent of the crimes and possible treason committed by certain actors and conspirators against this administration is still being investigated, and the future looks very bleak for certain people.

This discussion has been closed.