15 Jun
2007
15 Jun
'07
8:57 a.m.
Ardour may be efficient,
then again, it may also just 'seem' efficient on the big fat servers it is
being developed on. That is fine, design a peice of software that only works
on the fastest system available and its target audience suddenly diminishes.
Perhaps to put it another way, do we want a situation where bloatware is
coming to Linux - it if does not work then buy a faster system?
I can only back the others: that is complete nonsense.
Ardour 2 is astoundingly lean for a program that can do as much as it does. I can run
sessions with more then 50 tracks, some 25 plugins and automation and record 20 tracks
simultaneoesly on average not really top-notch hardware (AMD 64 3800, 1 Gig RAM, M-Audio
Audiophile, one IDE-Harddrive only).
I guess, on a "big fat server" Ardour could do things that are far beyond
usefull measures - like having sessions with 140 tracks and 6 plugins on each ;-) ;-)
Regarding Traverso:
I did a few tests with it predecessor protux and with some older versions of traverso (the
recent fails to build on my ubuntu feisty) and found it working really nice but failed to
understand, why it only offers but ONE way to handle it (keystrokes, that is) Ardour can
be handled by keystrokes also but offers mouseclicks as well. Anybody who has some basic
experience with HD-recording on PC/Mac has a useful result 20 minutes after starting it
for the first time, becaus one can examine menues to find out, what can be done.
Still see a usage-scenario traverso is absolutely perfect for: if one builds a compact
HD-recorder like a fieldrecorder.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user