Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] "pro" soundfile editors for linux
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: ma helmi 07 2000 - 14:27:27 EST
In message <389F0CD3.B5237379_AT_yahoo.com>you write:
>Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
>> I agree. I will change ardour to store the files as one of the above
>> formats. Its a trivial change, I think, since ardour's file are
>> preallocated, and so the header information never (well, very, very
>> rarely) changes.
>
>Any reason not to support BOTH formats, with a user-preference for
>which to use by default?
good point. both are trivial, so two of them is "some work" :)
>> i would rather avoid the protools all-in-one approach.
>
>Why? Too much UI to deal with all the time? Or internal reasons?
Just that it makes it hard to design in a way that will allow other
people to work on the source code. ardour is a relatively small piece
of code right now, and the actual recording/playback engine is tiny.
that means that you could get the code, understand how it works, and
extend it easily. ProTools has plugins, but these don't change any of
the fundamental design aspects of the program. I would guess that it
might take a week or a month to really get familiar with the core code
in ProTools.
Also, as you note: yeah, too much GUI to deal with all the
time. Protools has some incredible editing hacks, but they are really
just visual sugar to some reasonably straightfoward DSP programming.
Its hard to get away from them, and back to something that looks like
a piece of studio gear instead of a computer program ie. something
that embodies a specific function rather than being completely open
ended. Being open-ended is good, but that doesn't mean that you should
*look* open ended :)
The plugins do this rather well, but ProTools itself does not, in my
over-the-shoulder sessions with it.
Still, not much of this argues against all-in-one+plugins, I suppose.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:23:27 EST