24 Jan
2014
24 Jan
'14
9:45 a.m.
On 24/01/2014 00:14, Atte wrote:
On 01/23/2014 09:46 AM, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
As I stated in my original message I haven't had a chance to try it.
That said, I'm not sure the target (market) nor the overall concept here
is 'DAW' (regardless of the developing effort). Actually I think Ardour
(on linux) is fully sufficient as a DAW (unless we are considering a
'DAW' differnet things...). Clearly this is a personal opinion
1) are not likely to have a product that can
Some features look rather similar to LMMS some
others to Seq.
I find this a little bit funny.
I hope you're not suggesting that a company of 8 people spending two
years developing a DAW out-perform (in features, completeness, roundedness
and stability) the
mostly one-man hobby projects (no offence, I love you all) that make up
most of our eco system and
I see your point. But I'm not sure it's easy to define 'out-perform' in
the music creation domain. I'll try to explain: from my point of view
choice of audio/music related software (and related features) should
respond first of all to artist's (creative) needs.
For example I personally love the way I can work with audio material in
Ardour, the way I can quickly record stuff to it from other jack-enabled
software etc. I guess this has an aspect of personal workflow, but
essentially what I'm suggesting is that the process should be buttom-up:
i.e. start from the musical idea/concept and then select the tools.
So if this new software will offer features which Linux musicians really
need to complete their creative process (which are currently unfulfilled
by any other software or combination of software): hurray!!! :D - we
shall see
2) are not expected to put a price tag on the
product?
I don't think I ever mentioned or criticized pricing.
Kindly
Lorenzo.