Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] what's wrong with glame
From: Paul Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 16:29:56 EEST
I'm not the obvious person to define GLAME, but:
>The idea of a 'project' is a nice approach - but it tends to assume that one
>is about to embark on something of a large scale. In other environments this
>is also called the session - which is an option only if you want to save
>global setting as applied specifically to your work, or an arrangement, as
>in cool edit pro [windows].
>
>Often however i don't want to make a project, so much as quickly edit a
>wave. Most desktop studios are engaged in editing samples every few minutes
>during a normal day. This is where glame really struggles to be useful.
This is where almost all multitrack-capable systems tend to fall
over. Its very common to see people use ProTools *and* a wave editor
like soundforge or Cool Edit Pro. The multitrack systems are just
that: tools for recording, playing, arranging multitrack
recordings. If you want a wave editor then you either have to:
1) use a dedicated wave editor
2) find the wave editor *within* the multitrack system
Thats not to say that (2) shouldn't be easy, and that editor shouldn't
be good. But its very likely that you would still continue using a
dedicated external editor even if the one inside the MT system was
pretty usable.
You're also missing out on a crucial distinction between editing
music, which is mostly a matter of *arranging* existing audio, and
editing wavefiles, which is concerned with the itty-bitty details of
samples and so forth. A tool (possibly within-a-tool) that is well
suited for the first of these is likely to be not well suited to the
second, and vice versa. I think you know this, but its a distinction
that hasn't even been obvious to date in any Linux audio software
(except perhaps in MusE and Jazz, neither of which have "good" audio
editors).
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jul 26 2001 - 16:28:28 EEST