26 Jul
2003
26 Jul
'03
3:10 p.m.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:50:36 -0700 "Mark Knecht" <mknecht(a)controlnet.com>
wrote:
> It always strikes me as strange that people in
here suggest Audacity and
> virtually ignore snd.
>
> { http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/05/snd_partone.html }
>
> Snd seems more capable to me, uses the same plugins, has an easy
> interface and is easily {guile
> http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/guile.html }
> extensible and has more depth {potential depth}
Or maybe there's room for both, based on what your
needs, interests and
temperaments are...
I'm not disputing that at all.
I know I'm just a lowly Windows Pro Tools user who
keeps trying to use Linux
apps, but every time I've tried Snd it's always seemed so high-maintenance
compared to Audacity, so I've tended to like Audacity. Maybe I've missed the
point, but it feels (to me anyway) like if you don't program you won't enjoy
working with Snd.
I don't actually program... I muck about with scripts. It's the same as emacs...
with the same potential. I've not actually messed with snd that much... I'm
still
making an effort at other stuff {web pages - http://www.cs.auc.dk/~normark//laml/ ,
a consistent set of applications - http://gemacs.sourceforge.net/
http://www.sgi.com/software/inventor/ , http://glame.sourceforge.net/index.var ,
opendx, vtk, common music, etc, etc... which I'd eventually like to try to tie
together with this sort of interface. http://www.rocklyte.com/athene/index.html
{needless to say... the overall learning curve is a little steep.}} like learning to
use scheme to the point that it will actually do something useful.
The default in debian is pretty complete and fairly enabled. As far as maintianance...
it's one of few applications that require none on the systems I've set up.
I agree that, on the surface Snd does seem like it
might, possibly, some day
be more capable overall, but the extra stuff has not proven important enough
to me to warrant the pain of getting over the learn curve. I didn't find the
interface very intuitive, at least for what I needed to do.
I've used emacs for years... the interface seems pretty natural to me. I've not
noticed that there is a learning curve.
I think those of us that are Sound Forge users find
Audacity's interface
pretty intuitive. Sound Forge is pretty popular in the Windows world and
Audacity, while not a copy at all, feels pretty similar. Things are done
pretty much the same way and in the same places.
I use soundforge in win.... I like snds interface better. It seems more like a
drawing to me {if that makes any sense}
http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/software/snd/snd/snd.html ...It seems more
"graphical". but like you're actually manipulating the drawing rather
than
buttons and knobs.
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but
just pointing out that
there are some of us who have tried both and like Audacity. I'm not ignoring
Snd. It's just not my cup of tea.
Alright...