On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:54 , Wolfgang Lonien <wolfgang@lonien.de> 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.

Jan