Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] "pro" soundfile editors for linux
From: Paul Winkler (slinkp23_AT_yahoo.com)
Date: ma helmi 07 2000 - 13:20:03 EST
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?
so people could set it up optimized for whatever platform they're
using, and still be able to use ardour files from another platform.
maybe byte-swapping is trivial these days? but sooner or later
you'll max out your CPU with a plugin and wish you had just a bit
more oomph...
> well, it depends on whether you're using an audio sequencer or not.
>
> the model i am working with is this:
(snip)
> * gradual buildup of tracks done on the recorder until we
> have good takes of each track
> * switch out of mixing console mode, and go to computer (mouse,
> keyboard) to run an editor (move, cut, splice,
> crossfade, etc. probably no mixing though)
> * run resulting edits from the recorder back through mixing console
This sounds OK, *AS LONG AS* it is fast and easy to go back and
forth between these steps. That doesn't matter as long as you're
doing a fairly linear per-track recording approach, e.g do some
basic tracks, then do overdubs, *then* edit. But if you're doing
crazy modern stuff, then some tracks are recorded "live", some
things are loops, some tracks are crazy edits of "live" tracks, etc.
You need to be able to switch work-mode without any difficulty.
your percussion-editing example is a good one.
Two more examples from the album my band did in a ProTOols studio:
1) "True Individuals": This was a tough song with strange time
changes that we wanted to record but we didn't have enough time to
rehearse it properly before the studio date. We swallowed our pride
and did the bass & drums track a section at a time and assembled the
sections into a "take" in ProTools. Then we overdubbed to that as if
it was a "live" take.
2) "Build On the Nines": We wrote this in the studio a section at a
time. There are edits all over the place here, in fact *nothing* was
recorded for more than 9 bars at a time. We used a totally different
drum setup for each of the 9 sections. In this situation you REALLY
need to be able to do your editing and then keep tracking as easily
as if your edits were "real" takes.
> i would rather avoid the protools all-in-one approach.
Why? Too much UI to deal with all the time? Or internal reasons?
I do get the feeling that ProTools is rather complicated and hard to
learn. (We had the advantage of having an engineer who knew it
really well to do things we told him while I watched. :))
-- ................ paul winkler .................. slinkP arts: music, sound, illustration, design, etc. A member of ARMS -----> http://www.reacharms.com or http://www.mp3.com/arms or http://www.amp3.net/arms personal page ----> http://www.ulster.net/~abigoo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:23:27 EST