13 Jun
2007
13 Jun
'07
11:04 p.m.
On 6/14/07, Tim Howard <tdhoward(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/13/07, Kjetil S. Matheussen
<k.s.matheussen(a)notam02.no> wrote:
large snips above... not to get mad but i always get a little vexed
over this. What is this "serious audio work" that requires a complex
interface? Wouldn't the optimal solution be minimum effort and action
required for best output? I fail to see how making actions harder not
easier is good for anyone, "pro" or otherwise. This isn't an attack
on ardour or traverso but more the idea that complexity is required
for the task. How much recording complexity whould be required to
record a funk brothers motown hit? Roll the 4 track! ;-)
Loki
"Tim Howard":
Why should it not be simple and intuitive?
On 6/13/07, lra4691(a)rit.edu <lra4691(a)rit.edu> wrote:
Oh, and you are completely wrong, by the way. Traverso's interface is not
about simplicity and intuitivity, you had known that if you had tried
traverso. (and especially protux, its predecessor).
Not to bash Ardour, but if the interface of
Traverso is as superior as
it seems, perhaps Ardour developers could learn a bit. I believe
Ardour dev's should be focusing on improving the interface's
responsiveness before adding new features, but everyone seems to be
pushing for MIDI in the next release ;p
I suppose it depends on the goal, really. At first glance, Traverso
seems to be aimed more towards an audience of home users, with the
emphasis being on simplicity and an intuitive interface. Ardour is
intended for serious (i.e. professional) audio work, and therefore has
a correspondingly more complex interface.