(disclaimer: take this all with a grain of salt. I've been a bit giddy all week. 8) -edrz) On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 06:02:34PM -0400, Peter Lutek wrote: > thanks for your thoughts, greg! > i am in a very similar position to you, and agree with most of what you > have to say. irrespective of ardour's current status, it IS a shame that > there is not at least one other viable professional > multitracking/editing package nearing completion. Am I just a complete nut? (which I'm ready to admit is entirely possible ;) ) or does no one else see ecasound as an alternative for getting work done? it is stable and fairly complete, reasonably well documented ... it's just different ... Why is it that having a "viable professional <foo> package" means having a GUI that looks like something from the commercial world? Just because it's the dominant paradigm for 96, or whatever, % of computer users doesn't have to mean it has to be a requirement for "professional" use. I much prefer mutt to any lookout clone, for example. Paul himself has repeatedly said that the ardour gui is easily twice as much of the codebase as the engine. ecasound has been available to do much of what ardour makes possible for far longer with greater stability in large part specifically because Kai has not burdened himself with providing a gui. > having said all that, if one adopts a different working methodology > linux may, even now, offer a more flexible overall solution. there are > numerous, varied, tools available, with various strengths, weaknesses, > and styles. i've begun to come around to the idea of using a variety of > tools in any given project, rather than expecting any single, big > application to be the "virtual studio" which does it all. think more in > terms of the OS as the virtual studio. HOORAY!!! there IS light in this forest after all. :) > one package which i must not leave unnamed is bill schottstaedt's SND. > it is an extremely rich and robust tool which CAN do just about > everything i'm looking for. HOWEVER (and so far i have not come to terms > with this) it is a destructive editor -- sounds are loaded into RAM, > worked on, and then saved in their modified form back to disk. it is > near-impossible to step back and tweak an EQ you adjusted a few days ago > on a particular component of your mix. but still, take a look if you're > not familiar with it. http://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/snd/ can't one simply back up a file and work on a copy? ... just because there isn't an option in a drop down menu doesn't mean you don't have the power. disk space is cheap. file systems make great filing systems. > another one that's very much worth investigating, especially if you are > into some coding (just to provide a friendlier UI if you need it) is > ecasound. it is deeper than a lot of people realize. yes! yes!! yes!!! woohoo! I am not alone. thank goodness! :) /me began to doubt his own sanity. -Eric Rz.
