Re: Bitwig: what we can learn from it

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Robin Gareus wrote:

On 04/01/2014 03:40 PM, James Harkins wrote:
Alexandre Prokoudine <alexandre.prokoudine@...> writes:
[..]

Gordon basically summarized (in a rather arguable manner) a point that
we've discussed time and time again: if Linux audio is for geeks or
for full-time musicians.

apples vs oranges. If you're a casual blues guitarist, linux audio is
about as useful to you as a Bassoon :)

Apples vs. penguins? :P

Not meant to only reflect on this quote, but other comments too. If you're a casual blues guitarist, any computer OS/sw combination might be less useful than a bassoon. Computer music in general assumes some level of computer literacy. I personally find myself lost on a windows system (worse on an apple) till I "figure it out".

Many people who use Linux start on an Apple or Windows system and move for some reason. I have never used either for my personal computing... I started on a sinclair, TI, Atari mega (where I learned about midi)... I learned enough about drdos6 to run a BBS which moved to OS/2 (2.*) because a friend who was using windows had to set a timer to kill his windows machine every day so he could go on holidays... Ya, windows 3.1. About 1993 or 4 I was looking at adding ethernet to OS/2 and figured out it would cost more for the drivers than I had paid for the OS and someone suggested Linux where I have been every since. I grew up on a Linux where any install included rolling a kernel that actually worked with my HW and where most computing was done CLI and X was started once in a while for the very few GUI programs around at the time. (slackware as happens) Linux/Gnu has come a long way since. Anyway, I have a skewed idea of how things should work... at least if you are used to a mac... and not saying one is better than the other either, just Linux is right for me.

Anyway, all that to say... I had difficulty getting bitwig to make noise. It was not intuitive for me, I don't know that it was a lot harder than the first time I tried qtractor (ardour was midiless at the time), but, I am used to a tape studio both by my long ago broadcast training and work (which I have forgotten most of) but also from 8 track/hw sequencer years. The idea of having to connect an output to a sound module makes more sense to me than expecting the sequencer to make noice (nothing about right or wrong, just my personal expectations).

Bitwig for me:
 - can't be run on my 32bit music machine.
 - has too much stuff which makes what I want hard to find
- I found it difficult to use, but I am at the bottom of the learning curve, That would change quickly from some of the other comments in this thread.
 - could not see a running jack server
 - would not connect to alsa though it could see it.
 - Did work with pulse... and lots of xruns if I moved the mouse etc.

Not a great first impression, but, having used Ardour and other DAWs, I can at least sort of see where it is going. I could learn it and make it work. It is more useful to me right off than LMMS, for example. I could, if it was what I had and no other choice, do anything I have done so far on it. I would have to learn it, but if it was what I had, I would learn it pretty quick. I am not saying any of my problems were bitwig's fault, in fact I expect they are all mine.

In all honesty, I expect I would be quite happy using bitwig connected to alsa directly for almost all of my use cases.

--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net


_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Sound]     [ALSA Users]     [Pulse Audio]     [ALSA Devel]     [Sox Users]     [Linux Media]     [Kernel]     [Photo Sharing]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux