[linux-audio-user] Opening up the discussion

[Shayne O'Connor]

eviltwin69 at cableone.net wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:54 , Wolfgang Lonien <wolfgang at 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.


maybe i can contribute to this discussion.

i've had a computer for about five years. before this, my only 
experience with computers was back in the early 80's when i used to go 
down to Grace Bros department store to play with the computers they had 
on display. it was funny - i was only about 7 yrs old, but boy did i get 
a kick out of the DOS prompt ... i forget what it was, but there was 
some command you could enter that would scroll your name down the screen 
endlessly. hi-tech stuff.

anyhoo, between then and getting a computer of my own, i had a bit of 
experience with windows .... so when i got a computer, windows it was. 
so, up until about a year and a half ago, i had only used windows audio 
apps, and had never even used linux. in windows i was mainly using 
fruityloops at first, which was a really cool toy to get started with on 
computer music. i also got into cubase sx, ableton live, orion platinum 
... basically, i gave them all a go, but i found cubase sx to be the 
best for audio recording.

however - *i fully don't understand the assumption that ardour is any 
harder to learn than cubase*. cubase is no more a "toy" than ardour is, 
either ... one could get the same results whichever one you used. the 
old standard applies wherever you go - "crap in = crap out". in reality, 
ardour is probably the most intuitive audio recording program i have 
ever used ... the only thing that i haven't gotten the hang of is stuff 
like key-bindings, and a few of the more advanced editing techniques. 
this wouldn't be a problem if there was some sort of documentation, but 
most of the documentations that *is* out there, is woefully incomplete 
(i know, i know - when i get some time, this is something i'm looking 
forward to doing - a whole series of tutorials/manuals for linux audio).

i actually think that the problem with linux audio is it's midi/audio 
sequencer apps, which *should* be very, very simple and intuitive, and 
"just work" ... but i'm more scared of muse and rosegarden than ardour.

all in all, though, i think it is a bit arrogant to assume that those 
who want to do serious audio work actually prefer *not* to have a 
simple, intuitive, out-of-the-box, program that "just works" ... i think 
the issue here is mainly installation/configuration - *those should be 
simple*.

while it is understandable that a lot of LAUers prefer to 
hack/research/test (i'm one of them - i *enjoy* when things don't work 
out of the box), and this is one of the good things about linux - 
learning - there is *nothing* wrong with shooting for *more* usability, 
*more* transparent configuration, and *more* sympathy towards those who 
want to work with audio, but not necessarily "serious audio".

shayne