Re: [linux-audio-user] Opening up the discussion

From: Shayne O'Connor <forums@email-addr-hidden>
Date: Tue Jul 26 2005 - 01:06:36 EEST

eviltwin69@email-addr-hidden wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:54 , Wolfgang Lonien <wolfgang@email-addr-hidden> sent:
>>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
>>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
> 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. 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.

maybe i can contribute to this discussion.

i've had a computer for about five years. before this, my only
experience with computers was back in the early 80's when i used to go
down to Grace Bros department store to play with the computers they had
on display. it was funny - i was only about 7 yrs old, but boy did i get
a kick out of the DOS prompt ... i forget what it was, but there was
some command you could enter that would scroll your name down the screen
endlessly. hi-tech stuff.

anyhoo, between then and getting a computer of my own, i had a bit of
experience with windows .... so when i got a computer, windows it was.
so, up until about a year and a half ago, i had only used windows audio
apps, and had never even used linux. in windows i was mainly using
fruityloops at first, which was a really cool toy to get started with on
computer music. i also got into cubase sx, ableton live, orion platinum
... basically, i gave them all a go, but i found cubase sx to be the
best for audio recording.

however - *i fully don't understand the assumption that ardour is any
harder to learn than cubase*. cubase is no more a "toy" than ardour is,
either ... one could get the same results whichever one you used. the
old standard applies wherever you go - "crap in = crap out". in reality,
ardour is probably the most intuitive audio recording program i have
ever used ... the only thing that i haven't gotten the hang of is stuff
like key-bindings, and a few of the more advanced editing techniques.
this wouldn't be a problem if there was some sort of documentation, but
most of the documentations that *is* out there, is woefully incomplete
(i know, i know - when i get some time, this is something i'm looking
forward to doing - a whole series of tutorials/manuals for linux audio).

i actually think that the problem with linux audio is it's midi/audio
sequencer apps, which *should* be very, very simple and intuitive, and
"just work" ... but i'm more scared of muse and rosegarden than ardour.

all in all, though, i think it is a bit arrogant to assume that those
who want to do serious audio work actually prefer *not* to have a
simple, intuitive, out-of-the-box, program that "just works" ... i think
the issue here is mainly installation/configuration - *those should be

while it is understandable that a lot of LAUers prefer to
hack/research/test (i'm one of them - i *enjoy* when things don't work
out of the box), and this is one of the good things about linux -
learning - there is *nothing* wrong with shooting for *more* usability,
*more* transparent configuration, and *more* sympathy towards those who
want to work with audio, but not necessarily "serious audio".

Received on Tue Jul 26 04:15:07 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 26 2005 - 04:15:07 EEST