11 Dec
2007
11 Dec
'07
1:56 p.m.
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 00:30:57 Sebastian Tschöpel wrote:
Hello Robert,
thank you for your comprehensive and interesting reply.
> Although I have tinkered with it for a while, it is only recently that
> it has actually become a viable audio platform for me. The two key
--------------------------> clipped <------------------------------------
I would be glad to hear some more (other) oppinions, as well.
Best regards,
Sebastian.
What are the "Pro's" saying and doing? I guess the term "pro" is
someone who
makes money with what they produce, or is it the standards they adhere to? I
personally prefer the "high standard" definition. The history of musicianship
from all points on the globe is filled with the simple fact that musicians
probably spend more hours on tuning, tinkering, improvising than on playing.
To me it makes perfect sense that the "digital device", the new noise maker,
be fully in the hands of the musician to continue their historical tuning,
tinkering and improvising. And of course there are those musicians who leave
the tuning to someone else. Open source certainly seems to fit the time
honored profile whereas the locked proprietary code does not.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb04/articles/mirrorimage.htm an article on
a { $ } professional studio switching to Linux.
http://www.prorec.com/ Note: at the time of this posting their sever seems
to be down. This is a site dedicated to { $ } professional audio. They have a
very pro Linux article.
http://www.kokkinizita.net/linuxaudio/ A site where the audio envelope is
being pushed, with open source.
A content Linux \ Open Source person.
Tom