On Sun, 2014-09-14 at 20:31 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sun, 2014-09-14 at 21:25 +0300, David Baron wrote: > > Very cute. > > > > However, there are no real standards. Each program, opensource or not, has its > > own system and ne'er the 'twain do meet. So one restricts to one program, no > > other choice. > > > > Microsoft is so big so makes its own standards, its own rules, changes them at > > will (example rtf), but they are not in the DAW business. Just many programs > > run on their platform so may use some of their file-structures. > > > > What if the programs we use here, on this list, were inter-operable? > > Ardour/Harrison, Qtractor, Muse, Rosegarden, etc. We have more choices than > > does Microsoft. What if Tracktion (proprietary, now supporting Linux!) were > > brought on board? I do not think it is so far-fetched if there be a will to do > > so. One opensource library to service this, done once. > > > > (I no longer have my old posts, proposals for this. Discussion was a while > > back.) > > Analog tape simply transported one information, comparable to a single > wav file, but DAWs provide much more information. It's impossible to > transform it from one to another DAW. Sometimes it's already impossible > to be backward compatible for different releases of DAWs. The problem > grows up when thinking about abilities of different workstations, as > simple as EQ plugins. Forgive me ;), a last note: It might be possible to transform editing data, regarding to a .wav that is played from position a to b, from one workstation to another, but nowadays there's so much insane audio engineering, that the edited and glued together wav files are useless without the automation information of a an unique compressor's ratio setting, changing from one 1/8 bar to the other or something similar to that. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
