I just want to tahnk everyone who has responded to Greg's post. Speaking as one for whom looking at output is simply not an option (I am blind), it's highly encouraging to read all the comments that support what does work in the non-graphical environment. My choices may be biologically based, but it's nice to learn that others find occasions to make the same choices on purely musical and functional grounds. Greg Reddin writes: > I've brought up discussions like this before, but it's been a while > and I'm finding myself at a point of decision again. So please bear > with me. I'd like some advice on what my next step is. > > Basically, here's my problem. I love the Linux audio world, but I am > an artist and I really need something that will facilitate making > music. So I'm faced with the following options: > > 1. Use Ardour and participate in its development. > 2. Use Audacity and participate in its development. > 3. Use something else and participate in its development. > 4. Roll my own. > 5. Buy a mac and use Digital Performer or something else. > > To examine these options further: > > For option 1, Ardour has a lot of features, but seems to lack in > stability and usability. I have to restart ardour/jack several times > during a session because one or the other becomes unresponsive or > flaky. The transport even completely stopped working last time I > used it. I lost 2 - 4 hrs work and have not been able to get it > working again. Granted, I have not tried too hard to receive help > with it, but I just haven't had good luck with its stability yet. > Perhaps, my problem is more with usability than stability. It may be > intuitive to some people to use the middle mouse button or ctl+right > button combinations, but I have a really hard time getting around in > ardour. > > Another thing about ardour that makes it hard for me to adopt it > wholeheartedly is the way it is developed. It seems, IMHO, that > Release 1.0 should've come out a long time ago, like after real-time > multitrack recording, editing, and mixing were available. Or maybe > start over, do a refactor, then release when those features are > working again. There's something psychologically limiting (to me) > when a product reaches version 0.9beta19 and still doesn't seem ready > for a "release". To me, that seems to create a culture where things > move very slowly and gives the impression that it will never really > be production-ready. I recognize that there are very differing > opinions on what a "release" actually means in open source. I also > recognize that ardour doesn't have my name on it anywhere so I can't > really complain unless I'm contributing to its development. I'm not > trying to start a war, just to figure out what direction I need to > settle on, so I'll shut up about that. > > For option 2, audacity seems to be stable and easy to use. But it > lacks some essential features, like real-time effects processing. > The mezzo thing looks promising, but there doesn't seem to be much > momentum behind it right now. > > Is there an option 3? Is there another Linux DAW solution that > provides (or seeks to provide) multitrack recording, real-time > mixing, automation, etc.? > > I would typically omit option 4 right off the bat. The open source > culture frowns on reinventing something that already exists. But > there's a few reasons why I'm actually considering this option. > First, the problems I have with ardour and audacity don't seem likely > to change. Please don't misunderstand what I'm about to say. I'm > not trying to offend anyone, but these are just my observations. If > they are incorrect, please correct me. I don't gather that there's > much momentum to build audacity into a real-time professional DAW > solution. And it seems like ardour's development has been in a rut > for a while. Development is happening, and new things are being > added, but the stability and usability doesn't seem to be improving. > So, if I'm trying to build a professionally viable DAW for Linux I > could come to the conclusion that there's not currently a workable > solution. Second, I'm not convinced that "three" DAWs for Linux is an > unhealthy number. Look at how many different commercial solutions > are available -- each one doing things a bit differently and > appealing to a different user base. Maybe if there was another > project with a healthy development cycle, good stability, and > essential features, it would encourage the others to compete and help > push Linux over the edge and into professional viability. There are > other reasons, but things like coding style, object model, or testing > strategy are not valid reasons in and of themselves to start a new > project. > > But truthfully, given my limited skillset and other factors, it would > likely be years before a new project was able to compete even with > what's already out there, much less surpass them. So, unless I get > an overwhelming response to this option, I'll probably not consider > it much further. > > That brings me to option 5. I've only considered this because I'm > ready to actually spend some money in the interest of making music > instead of twiddling with code and configs. But, I'm not a big fan > of ProTools, Logic, or Cubase. So Digital Performer seems to be my > best option on a mac -- and I really don't know much about DP (my > prior experience is mostly with Sonar and I'm simply not willing to > invest further in a Windows-based platform). So, I'm not certain > that I will be satisfied even if I spend a wad of cash on a Mac and > some DAW software. And of course, this thread of logic implies that > I have some money to throw at it, which, for the time being, is not > the case. > > Now, I think I'm something of a poster-child for Linux audio. I'm > enough of a tech-head that I can write some code and diagnose > problems. I can wade through a mass of complex logic and find what I > need (usually). My sessions are few and far between enough that I > can experiment with stuff between them. And they are low-risk enough > (meaning that I don't get paid or get paid very little for them) that > lack of stability is not a huge risk for me -- just a frustration. I > suspect that by the time I get to a point to actually charge real > money for my services something in Linux might be ready for prime > time whether it be ardour, audacity, or something as yet undeveloped. > And I want to contribute financially and/or intellectually to > whatever I end up with. > > So, given what little you know of me and what I'm looking for, what > would you suggest? Would you recommend that I start following Ardour > and/or Audactiy with more interest? Is there something else I don't > know about? Have I actually found a need for something new? Or > should I (for the time being) punt and invest in a Mac-based > commercial solution? > > If you've gotten this far, thanks for bearing with me. Your help is > greatly appreciated. I know I made some statements that could be > considered controversial. I hope I have not offended anyone and > apologize if I have. > > Greg > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo -- Janina Sajka, Chair Accessibility Workgroup Free Standards Group (FSG) janina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: +1 202.494.7040
