Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Still I cannot understand why...
From: Kai Vehmanen (kai.vehmanen_AT_wakkanet.fi)
Date: Fri Dec 14 2001 - 13:46:59 EET
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Paul Davis wrote:
> note: i know that you can make some interesting experimental noise
> with linux (i've done it). but i don't know of anyone who could use it
> for producing the kinds of sonic arrangements most people would call
> "music" unless you're a bleeding edge muse or ardour developer/user,
Now you are exaggerating. Making music does not require protools nor
cubase vst. At least I have a number of very good normal records in my
collection with no mention of protools engineering. ;)
Anyway, I've recorded, mixed and mastered a full album of "normal" music
in Linux already a few years ago. And yes, I used ecasound for most of the
tasks.
Although I'm first to admit that ecasound is not nearly enough for
everybody's needs, it's also good to remember the alternatives:
1) I specifically switched from W98 to Linux&ecasound after trying
recording with Cakewalk, Cubase and CooleditPro. Using them
for straightforward recording of live instruments was
too hacky... constant playing with the mouse and clicking through
menus; not something I like to do when recording.
2) Analog 4/8-tracks. My lowly pc at the time equipped with gusmax
and an early ecasound version provided more flexibility and better
quality than the relatively costly hw-units.
3) Early digital multitrack-recorders like Roland's VS880. More
functionality, but not _that_ much better than my setup. But
much, much more expensive.
... of course, this just tells that some people need less functionality
than others. But it's just silly to say that now when advanced technology
is available it is suddenly a prerequisite for making real, normal music.
-- http://www.eca.cx Audio software for Linux!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Dec 14 2001 - 13:46:13 EET