24 Feb
2011
24 Feb
'11
5:17 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
what you don't know (because you're not on IRC) is the question of
N-point editing comes up a lot. i (and others) have argued (in my
opinion quite successfully) that four point editing is a relic of an
older workflow. others who have used 2, 3 and 4 point editing a lot on
other systems have argued back. nobody has been persuaded to change
their minds, and clearly nobody with the strong feelings in favor of
it has been motivated thus far to implement it.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:02:21AM -0500, Paul Davis
wrote:
music is sound arranged in time (and optionally in space). i don't
know precisely what you mean by sequencing, but that means that any
production of music is going to involve arranging one or more of the
following things in time:
* carrying out physical movements
* playback of existing recordings of audio
* instructions (for a human and/or a machine) to do one or both of the above
to the extent that computers don't carry out physical movement (much),
any use of computers in the production of music means that it is going
to involve the 2nd and 3rd options. both of them have been called
"sequencing". ardour2 only does the second action right now; ardour3
adds the third (instructions for a machine).
i don't agree with you that its about a type
of music. it is about the
difference between some different ways of producing music, and not
just two of them. there are certainly approaches to making music that
are not well served by a DAW. but they are approaches to the
production of music, not kinds of music.
Well, 'type' or even 'a particular type' can refer to a leaf node
in the taxonomy or to a quite solid branch of it.
The are classes of music that depend on sequencing etc. in order to
be produced at all - that's why people involved in them want those
features in the first place. I don't think it's wrong to call this
'a particular type of music', the type is defined by its dependence
on those tools. the notion
that there is ever "one tool" for a task as
incredibly varied as producing music is absurd. nobody with half a
brain suggests that any DAW can be that tool.
Then maybe the term 'DAW' is misnomer. I wouldn't call a tool
that can't do simple four point editing an 'audio workstation'. choose to interpret my words), but just that they are
focussed
on a 'type', 'class', 'category' or whatever you may call it
of music that doesn't require it.
actually, i think i can speak clearly for carl and myself (the two
most active current developers; possibly most of the others too) when
i say that we are focussed on the feedback that we get from people who
repeatedly engage with us using the communication channels that we
find most convenient for this work. is that perfect? no. but its the
way things work out, at least for the last several years. the price of
entry into the exclusive club that is #ardour is simply time, nothing
more (or less).
Well, I could pay or I could offer my time as a
developer. During
the last five years I have several times offered to integrate decent
multichannel or AMB panning into Ardour, provided I could team up
with someone taking care of the GUI aspects (I'm a nitwit regarding
writing for GTK). Nothing has happened. I've arrived at the point
where it quite clear that if I want certain functionality I'll be
on my own to implement it.
if you can live with VBAP, this may interest you:
http://ardour.org/files/vbappanners.png
