eviltwin69@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:54 , Wolfgang Lonien <wolfgang@xxxxxxxxx> 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. 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 simple*. 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". shayne
