[LAU] Re: [LAA] Traverso 0.40.0 Released

[Loki Davison]

On 6/14/07, Tim Howard <tdhoward at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/13/07, Kjetil S. Matheussen <k.s.matheussen at notam02.no> wrote:
> > "Tim Howard":
> > >
> > > On 6/13/07, lra4691 at rit.edu <lra4691 at rit.edu> wrote:
> > >> Not to bash Ardour, but if the interface of Traverso is as superior as
> > >> it seems, perhaps Ardour developers could learn a bit. I believe
> > >> Ardour dev's should be focusing on improving the interface's
> > >> responsiveness before adding new features, but everyone seems to be
> > >> pushing for MIDI in the next release ;p
> > >
> > > I suppose it depends on the goal, really.  At first glance, Traverso
> > > seems to be aimed more towards an audience of home users, with the
> > > emphasis being on simplicity and an intuitive interface.  Ardour is
> > > intended for serious (i.e. professional) audio work, and therefore has
> > > a correspondingly more complex interface.
> > >
> > Oh, and you are completely wrong, by the way. Traverso's interface is not
> > about simplicity and intuitivity, you had known that if you had tried
> > traverso. (and especially protux, its predecessor).
> >
>
> Why should it not be simple and intuitive?
>

large snips above... not to get mad but i always get a little vexed
over this. What is this "serious audio work" that requires a complex
interface? Wouldn't the optimal solution be minimum effort and action
required for best output? I fail to see how making actions harder not
easier is good for anyone, "pro" or otherwise.  This isn't an attack
on ardour or traverso but more the idea that complexity is required
for the task. How much recording complexity whould be required to
record a funk brothers motown hit? Roll the 4 track! ;-)

Loki