Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] what's wrong with glame
From: delire (delire_AT_selectparks.net)
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 19:12:20 EEST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Davis" <pbd_AT_Op.Net>
To: <linux-audio-dev_AT_music.columbia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2001 11:29
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] what's wrong with glame
> 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.
sometime this is the case, but as i may have indicated, this is dispreferred
in the ends of efficiency. the all in one studio, though more ambitious, is
a lovely thing to drive. however you are right, one becomes habitually
addicted to a good editor, and will often be used independently of the
multitrack studio as a result.
>
> 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).
>
not at all, both of which were being actively considered in my notes. i
think the arranging of music [in the sense of orchestration] is better left
to the Logic / Cubase / Pro-Tools strain of apps - eg MIDI + sequencer,
with a notation layer for portable arrangement.
glame however has the possibility to be a powerful editor if only it had an
better GUI and *some* support for the fundamental need of bumping down
tracks. if not, it is stuck as a rarified filter-chainer with entry level
editor. glame however has the capacity to satisfy both the pre and post
production requirements of projects in MusE and Jazz [for instance].
de|
_ / a -> b, b ->c, a -> d, d -> c ...and so on...\ _
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jul 26 2001 - 19:16:03 EEST