"Nick Copeland":
>>> A better interface would be less intuitive, then.
>>
>> Extremely well put.
>
> What - you fell for that one? It was about the dumbest argument I have
> heard, all it discussed is the meaning of the word 'intuitive' hence
> actually says nothing about either interface.
>
I agree about this.
But...
>>> thinks the interface is inefficient is a bad idea.
>>
>> I couldn't agree more.
>
> I could agree less although I understand the point. The issue is that if you
> want to make sound then the user interface has to be efficient for several
> reasons, to start with so that CPU cycles are available for what you
Oh no, you have misunderstood a lot here. By "efficicient", I ment the
time it takes to edit, ie. the time it takes between you have an
idea about what needs to be done and when its actually done.
Regarding CPU cycles efficiency, Ardour is just excellent.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
Received on Fri Jun 15 00:15:03 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 15 2007 - 00:15:04 EEST