On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 04:12:58PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:39:04PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> >
> >> the position that i take with N-point editing is not that there is
> >> some other way to do "the following". There isn't. its that the way of
> >> approaching the task that leads to needing to do "the following" is
> >> rooted in an older way of thinking about the overall workflow.
> >
> > The only conclusion I can arrive at from this, and despite lots
> > of effort to avoid it, is that you don't have a clue as to what
> > is involved in editing e.g. classic music recordings.
>
> unfortunately, your conclusion would be wrong.
Unfortunately, I don't think so. Or you have other reasons
for not providing the sort of functionality that is needed.
Without a single exception, everyone involved in this sort of
work (classic or more generally, 'acoustic' music recording
and editing) that I've shown Ardour to has said more or less
the same thing: 1. it can't do it, or at best in a very clumsy
way, and 2. it's a marvellous program otherwise, and it would
probably take very little to solve its obvious problems.
Not my words, but I do agree with them.
-- FA _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-devReceived on Fri Feb 25 00:15:08 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 25 2011 - 00:15:08 EET