Link keeps apps in time by relating independent timelines, not by forcing one shared timeline

Unlike lock-step synchronization schemes (e.g. MIDI clock chaining a slave to a master), Link does not force every app onto one identical timeline. Each Link-enabled app keeps its own independent timeline; the Link library maintains a temporal relationship between these timelines so the ensemble feels ‘in time’ without the timelines being the same. ‘In time’ is deliberately vague — each developer maps their app’s musical concepts (bars, loops, cycles) onto Link’s tempo/beat/phase model in whatever way is most natural. This is why two apps can count beats differently (one at beat 3, another at beat 11) yet still align at boundaries. Understanding this distinguishes Link from clock-slaving and explains why apps retain independent transport.

Examples

Live counts its own bar/beat position; Strudel counts its own cycles. Neither adopts the other’s absolute beat number, but Link relates them so downbeats coincide. Contrast MIDI clock, where a slave device has no timeline of its own and simply follows incoming pulses.

Assessment

Explain the difference between Link’s ‘related independent timelines’ model and MIDI-clock master/slave synchronization. Why can two Link apps report different absolute beat numbers while still being in time?