30 Sep
2004
30 Sep
'04
1:32 a.m.
Mark Knecht wrote:
Naw, we're all crazy. ;) but, yes, I am happy and becoming more so
everyday I produce more of my wonderfully incoherent and non-visualized
noisy audio compositions and compositional sketches and auto-generated
randomized proto-sketch audio pallet splatters. (how's that for imagery?)
Take care and take it often,
Eric Rz.
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
just to be clear, I am Eric, not Erik. I have made no where near the
quantity nor the quality of contributions that Erik de Castro Lopo has
made to free audio software.
(disclaimer: take this all with a grain of salt.
I've been a bit giddy
all week. 8) -edrz)
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 06:02:34PM -0400, Peter Lutek wrote:
Erik, thanks for your thoughts, greg!
i am in a very similar position to you, and agree with most of what you
have to say. irrespective of ardour's current status, it IS a shame that
there is not at least one other viable professional
multitracking/editing package nearing completion.
Am I just a complete nut?
(which I'm ready to admit is entirely
possible ;) ) or does no one else see ecasound as an alternative for
getting work done? it is stable and fairly complete, reasonably well
documented ... it's just different ... Why is it that having a "viable
professional <foo> package" means having a GUI that looks like something
from the commercial world? Just because it's the dominant paradigm for
96, or whatever, % of computer users doesn't have to mean it has to be
a requirement for "professional" use. I much prefer mutt to any
lookout clone, for example.
Paul himself has repeatedly said that the ardour gui is easily twice as
much of the codebase as the engine. ecasound has been available to do
much of what ardour makes possible for far longer with greater stability
in large part specifically because Kai has not burdened himself with
providing a gui. I can only speak for myself, but when I work with
audio, I'd say
about 50% of my work is decising what piece of audio goes where. What
take of a certain bridge as played by which bass player is going to
during the second bridge in a song, etc. three's a lot that starts
happening when you mix togther 50-100 different pieces of audio in a
song. Being able to see it in the GUI is important. Being able to
visualize the mixing, the crossfades, etc. is important and helps me
work faster. This stuff I use all the time and I just cannot imagine how
I'd do all of this in a text based application.
Sure, sure. I freely admit that I intend to use ardour in the future
when I will be working on some projects that I know I won't be able to
keep straight without having them laid out visually. That said, there
are a great many things that can be done with ecasound. For instance,
each take can be it's own file, with it's own name: take1-bassman2.wav,
take14-drummer0.wav, etc., etc.
With a well thought out file naming scheme I imagine some enterprising
soul could keep his/her sessions organized and even write scripts to
audition different mixes of players or whatever.
And for smaller projects, It wouldn't really be so hard to keep things
straight. So, the point is that for some work the tools are already there.
I'm not saying it cannot be done. I just
don't know how I'd do it.
<rhetorical>
But, is that because you've only learned to do it visually? What if you
never had the protools experience you've had? What if you originally
started working with digital audio on a pdp-11?
Is it natural that so many people can't imagine working with sound
without being able to see it?
</rhetorical>
yes! yes!!
yes!!! woohoo! I am not alone. thank goodness! :)
/me began to doubt his own sanity.
Don't. You may be the only sane one. After
all. You're happy!