>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 07:59:12 -0700
>> From: eviltwin69@email-addr-hidden>
>> Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Opening up the discussion
>> To: A list for linux audio users
>> linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden>, Wolfgang Lonien
>> wolfgang@email-addr-hidden>
>> Message-ID: 1122303552_36501@email-addr-hidden>
>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:54 , Wolfgang Lonien wolfgang@email-addr-hidden> sent:
>>
>> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> >Christoph Eckert wrote:
>> >
>> >> The latter one is the target group we're discussing. Users who
>> >> already know about audio, audio synthesis and audio
>> >> processing.
>> >
>> >Hi Christoph,
>> >
>> >so this includes *me*? As I explained in an earlier post, I did MIDI
>> >when we were still using DOS, but audio was (at that time) far without
>> >reach - with *any* operating system. Audio was still pre-ADAT, so we're
>> >talking 24-track tape machines...
>> >
>>
>> >The first versions of Cubase (on Atari and later on PC) I saw *were*
>> >somewhat fire&forget, so I see the point of the whole discussion (I
>> >think). Is it easier nowadays? If we speak only Linux, then maybe (with
>> >regards to DeMuDi and the planet), but if we see the big picture and
>> >think about the time in between and the demand of a "simple" musician
>> >who wants to plug & play, then there maybe is a point to that article on
>> >O'Reilly.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Let's get back to the original premise of the article - Ardour is difficult
>> to use without reading some documentation. Let's also get another thing straight
>> - Cubase is a toy. It is *not* Pro Tools.
>
>I entirely disagree. I'm not sure if you have used Cubase since Sx1,2,3
>appeared, but I respectfully say you do not know what you are talking
>about.
>
>I use Cubase professionally almost every day. Please point out one area
>(apart from proprietary DSP hardware support) where Cubase appears as a
>toy compared to pro tools. I mean, PT only got proper automatic plugin
>delay compensation in v6.4 in 2004. How the hell did people mix a drum
>kit on the thing before that? (Well, they didn't. That, coupled with the
>problematic integer mixer summing is why most people used to use an
>analog desk with PT).
>
I'm not talking about PT LE or whatever that thing is called ;-)
>Sure, there are things I feel are done better in Ardour, but there are a
>hell of a lot of useful features in Cubase that make recording and
>editing a joy, particularly when time is limited. And these are not
>features to make it easier for a newbie, they are the kind of thing you
>discover after a few years of using it.
>
>> Ardour is designed to do the same
>> kinds of operations that Pro Tools (full blown, ridiculously expensive version)
>> does. No one, to my knowledge, including experienced analog audio engineers,
>> ever walked into a studio and started running Pro Tools from scratch without
>> reading some of the documentation. I personally don't care how easy Cubase,
>> GarageBand, Cakewalk, and other simple audio applications are. I want a full
>> scale, multi-track recording system that will do all, or nearly all, of the
>> things that Pro Tools does. Could Ardour be made more intuitive? Probably. Is
>> that a major problem for anyone who wants to do serious audio work. No. Let's
>> at least compare apples to apples here.
>
>I think that for every person asking for Ardour to be easier, there is
>another saying 'Noooo, pleeese! Proper multitracking on Linux at last!
>This works reliably! I can use it professionally in my studio! Don't
>mess it up, for gods sake!!!'.
>
Agreed.
>In my humble opinion, that's not a danger. Seeing Pro Tools as the alpha
>and omega all of audio DAWs, however, is. Because, though it is popular,
>it ain't the best or fastest software for everyone, amateur or pro.
>I do prefer it to the unbelievably obtuse and tedious Logic and DP
>though. :)
>
It's not the alpha and omega. It is the most widely used professional DAW by
a very large majority. That doesn't make it great but it does mean that there
must be some kind of reason for it. It is either easier to use, has more
features, costs less (not bloody likely ;-), or has some other driving force
behind it. Also, when I started in with Ardour I was advised to read the Pro
Tools documentation to get a good idea of what features are or will be available
in Ardour. That gives me a clue that Pro Tools was, at least in some respects,
the starting goal for Ardour.
>I don't find Ardour hard to use, and am surprised when a Cubase user
>would suggest it is. The steps to set up a session and begin recording
>are pretty much identical on both. The problems for me with Ardour are
>when I do something that intuitively *should* work, (like selecting
>multiple clips and dragging a fade handle should affect the fades on all
>the selected clips).. and it does not. Or drawing a box around multiple
>automation points and dragging them all up and down...
>That what people mean by 'intuitive' and 'easy to use'.
>
I agree completely. It's very simple to just start recording. Hopefully the
features you describe will be available at some time in the near future.
>The problem as I see it is that people go through the palava of
>installing Ardour, Jack etc, and are then faced with a multitrack.
>No beats, no preset samples, no tracker style looper/arranger, the only
>way you are going to get good music out of the thing is if you record it
>into it. To my mind, that is how it should be, but for many people it's
>a cold awakening to the fact that *you* make the music, not the
>computer, and they simply don't know what to do next.
>
Exactly.
>BTW, CCRMA has made the installation issue irrelevant as far as I'm
>concerned. Many thanks to all involved. Sorry for the long rant.
>
What he said ;-)
Jan
Received on Tue Jul 26 00:15:14 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 26 2005 - 00:15:15 EEST