Am 13.09.2012 18:00, schrieb Dan MacDonald: > Hi Hartmut! > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Hartmut Noack <zettberlin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Thanks for the informative text Dan! > > You're (and Ralf) welcome! > >> >> Am 10.09.2012 21:47, schrieb Dan MacDonald: >> >>> >>> the full-on icon overload of Rosegarden. >> >> While I agree that in terms of aesthetics RG is not the crown of >> creation I still think, that it is better to have a lot of icons to >> handle a lot of functionality than to be confronted with a good-looking >> concept of a UI-designer who actually believes, he/she knows what I want >> to do and how in any "reasonable" scenario ;-) > > In most scenarios I only want to see icons for the most commonly used > stuff. I'm normally happy if I can bind keys to the stuff I use - in > fact thats often better than an icon for me. Ideally apps should be > able to be fully used just with the mouse or just with the keyboard > and have a customisable GUI to resolve any such arguments +1 Absolutely! The more complex the app the more customizable the GUI should be. > >> >>> A3 also currently lacks the ability >>> to set gradual changes in tempo >> >> Well, that is not quite correct. Yo can set as many tempo-changes as >> needed for gradual changes resolution only limited by BPM-ticks. This >> method can be a bit crummy if you want to slide tempo frequently in a >> track but it is in fact working OK. The only thing one could miss >> regarding tempo in A3 would be some "swing/humanize" automagic I'd say... > > Of course you can probably get your calculator out and make numerous > tempo changes to simulate a gradual change - I realise that but I > don't want to do that. Sequencers are supposed to make the job of > creating music easier and I don't call that workaround easy. That is correct, to get a gradual change or frequent changes this method is not the most easy one ... > I'm sure > Paul or someone will correct me if its no longer the case but last > time I checked you could only change tempo on the first beat of a bar you can set it to the other beats too but not between them, thank you for pointing me to that fact... > under A3 so if thats still the case then you may not even be able to > fake a reasonably rapid tempo change well. > >> >> >>> >>> Enough about MIDI, what about audio? Reading the Ardour forums and >>> having spent much time in its irc channel, I know that one of the most >>> frequent feature requests is integrated wave editing >> >> To be frank: I do not understand, why this feature seems to be in so big >> need for some Ardour users. The non-destructive editing in A3s regions >> easily competes with any wave-editor not only in the Linux-camp. >> Export/consolidation-automatisms add a lot of the feel of a destructive >> editor too. In a word: I use A3 as my main wave-editor already whenever >> I need more than just a fast cut of a fieldrecording. The only editors I >> also really use are MHWaveedit (unbeatable lean and stable) and yeah... >> well forget... ;-) >> >>> and I'm sure Rui >>> has had more than a few requests for such a feature in qtractor too so >>> I'd say one of the biggest selling points of MusE is that it would >>> seem to be the only Linux DAW to offer integrated audio editing. >> >> really? >> >> To be frank once more: the audiotracks of both Muse and RG are 1995 at >> best. And I did not see big progress in that field in both in many >> years. Though Robert himself makes great recording of hand-played music >> with Muse I still think that the audiotracks in Muse are barely usable. >> Try to cut regions and loop them, try to cut and arrange some 12-16 >> tracks as it can be easily done in Qtractor and the same as easy and >> with even much more extra-powers in Ardour. > > I never said MusE outclasses Ardour and nor did I say it comes close > to providing all the features of Ardour as far as audio is concerned > because it certainly does not. MusE seems more mature than A3 as a > sequencer though and if I was using external MIDI sound modules I > would likely be using MusE now as my Linux sequencer. > > However, not everyone needs the high-end audio features Ardour offers > so if you do more sequencing and only make light use of audio then > MusE could be a better choice for such users than Ardour is. Again: this is correct. But I really think, the audiotracks in Muse are not much more than simple players for a vocaltrack or so. Thas why I compared them to those in Orion: they where just that, simple Players. Compared to the very nice possibilities, that Muse offers on the MIDI-tracks, they are quite behind, I must say. > We're all > free to choose what software we use to record with. I'm very happy we > have a choice of Linux DAWs and with a few of them getting seriously > good now too. Choice is always good. I place high hopes in Qtractor. It is sad, that Traverso seems not to be active at the moment... best regards HZN > _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
