On 6/14/07, Tim Howard <tdhoward@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/13/07, Kjetil S. Matheussen <k.s.matheussen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Tim Howard": > > > > On 6/13/07, lra4691@xxxxxxx <lra4691@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Not to bash Ardour, but if the interface of Traverso is as superior as > >> it seems, perhaps Ardour developers could learn a bit. I believe > >> Ardour dev's should be focusing on improving the interface's > >> responsiveness before adding new features, but everyone seems to be > >> pushing for MIDI in the next release ;p > > > > I suppose it depends on the goal, really. At first glance, Traverso > > seems to be aimed more towards an audience of home users, with the > > emphasis being on simplicity and an intuitive interface. Ardour is > > intended for serious (i.e. professional) audio work, and therefore has > > a correspondingly more complex interface. > > > Oh, and you are completely wrong, by the way. Traverso's interface is not > about simplicity and intuitivity, you had known that if you had tried > traverso. (and especially protux, its predecessor). > Why should it not be simple and intuitive?
large snips above... not to get mad but i always get a little vexed over this. What is this "serious audio work" that requires a complex interface? Wouldn't the optimal solution be minimum effort and action required for best output? I fail to see how making actions harder not easier is good for anyone, "pro" or otherwise. This isn't an attack on ardour or traverso but more the idea that complexity is required for the task. How much recording complexity whould be required to record a funk brothers motown hit? Roll the 4 track! ;-) Loki _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
