26 Feb
2011
26 Feb
'11
10:44 p.m.
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:52:05 -0500
Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Fons Adriaensen
<fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
hi,
I'm noob with ardour but I'd like to understand, how would one solve a
problem such as the one posed by Fons?
If I understand correctly you're saying that if you use a different
workflow while setting up the project / recording you wan't fall in
this problem, so could you explain what is this different workflow?
cheers
renato
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:39:04PM -0500, Paul
Davis wrote:
i'm confused about who the customer is. the older way of thinking
about the overall workflow is an attribute of the engineer/editor, not
the singer.
if the engineer/editor is the customer, i'd tell them to use another
program right now because ardour doesn't support their workflow. i try
not to spend much time convincing people to work in a different way
than they are used to, it seems pretty pointless to me since i don't
really believe that one way is superior to the others (though some are
definitely more connected to ideas rooted in some kind physical
operation like tape splicing).
hint: there's no reason to replace the section from [2:03 to 2:27]
with another take at all.
the position that i take with N-point editing is
not that there is
some other way to do "the following". There isn't. its that the
way of approaching the task that leads to needing to do "the
following" is rooted in an older way of thinking about the overall
workflow.
Tell that to your customer when he (or she in this case) wants you
to replace part of an edited track with the same fragment from
another take.