13 Jun
2007
13 Jun
'07
8:33 p.m.
"Tim Howard":
On 6/13/07, lra4691(a)rit.edu <lra4691(a)rit.edu> wrote:
Since you haven't looked at it more than a "glance", and therefore don't
know anything to be able to say anything either, I wonder what your agenda
is. But it seems like your agenda is to defend Ardour, no matter what.
In case that is true, why?
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).
And yes, I must admit I have a small agenda too, against Ardour. I don't
think ardour's user interface is very efficient [1]. Ardour is great, but
it would have been even greater if all the developers on ardour spent all
of their time exclusively working on making ardour's user interface more
efficient to use. Traverso is an excellent program to look at to improve
the situation.
[1]
http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-dev-ardour.org/2007-March/004085.h…
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.
13 Jun
13 Jun
9:16 p.m.
New subject: [LAA] Traverso 0.40.0 Released
On 6/13/07, Kjetil S. Matheussen <k.s.matheussen(a)notam02.no> wrote:
"Tim Howard":
I haven't been on the Linux Audio scene long enough to develop much of
an agenda of any kind. I guess my reasoning is kind of based on the
following flow of logic, if you can call it that...
1. Ardour is by far the most popular professional-grade Linux DAW
2. Ardour is open source, with many contributing developers
3. Unless a different user base is targeted (and thus, different
features) it would seem pointless to recreate the wheel, but would
benefit many to further enhance it
4. Traverso's website seems to be aimed more at home users (just my
gut feeling)
On 6/13/07, lra4691(a)rit.edu <lra4691(a)rit.edu> wrote:
Since you haven't looked at it more than a "glance", and therefore
don't
know anything to be able to say anything either, I wonder what your agenda
is. But it seems like your agenda is to defend Ardour, no matter what.
In case that is true, why? 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.
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).
Why should it not be simple and intuitive?
And yes, I must admit I have a small agenda too,
against Ardour. I don't
think ardour's user interface is very efficient [1]. Ardour is great, but
it would have been even greater if all the developers on ardour spent all
of their time exclusively working on making ardour's user interface more
efficient to use. Traverso is an excellent program to look at to improve
the situation.
[1]
http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-dev-ardour.org/2007-March/004085.h…
Of course Ardour can be improved by looking at other DAWs and seeing
what works and what doesn't. I have read through this post and agree
with most of your suggestions. A number of them have been implemented
in Ardour2.
But I'm a little confused why you would say you have "a small agenda
too, against Ardour." Submitting feature requests and reporting bugs
(as you have) is very constructive and helpful to further development.
So I wouldn't view that as having an agenda against Ardour.
-TimH
11:04 p.m.
New subject: [LAA] Traverso 0.40.0 Released
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.
14 Jun
14 Jun
5:23 a.m.
New subject: DAW usability
And yes, I must admit I have a small agenda too,
against Ardour. I don't
think ardour's user interface is very efficient [1]. Ardour is great, but it
why hasnt ardour been fixed. is it because the GUI is written in C++ with GnomeCanvas or
something and only 2 people now how its written and theyre both too busy to do anything
about the TODO list? ive never needed a digital tapedeck (when i do, arecord is fine) so i
havent used ardour but if a usable daw really has millions of these little corner cases in
the UI design and workflow features (which i believe it does, as using samplitude or
abletonlive after struggling with ardour or protools will attest), then do we really need
all the effort spread out between traverso, qtractor, ardour, and jokosher?
is ardour significantly better than the others for things like realtime recording
track-counts? thats mostly a disk thing unless your coding is _really_ bad, right? which
puts us back into UI space (which is why i'll be porting thomas grill's xsample~
to lv2 and writing guis in JS/Lua rather than attempting to add to ardour)
11:16 a.m.
New subject: DAW usability
On Thursday 14 June 2007, carmen wrote:
I come from Cakewalk Home Studio, Sonar's little sister and much more bang for
the buck. This interface is good, single screen, no flim-flam. I would love
to see Tracktion (based on Opensource JUCE) go opensource. (CW upgrades do
not work in Win98 and my older pro-soundcard dman2044 has no ALSA or newer
windows support. A discarded en1371 works in both but I do not consider this
one good enough for quality work. Notwithstanding, I wish to go over to
Linux, at least for new projects. My MIDI tools work with Wine enough to give
it a try.)
Opensource is about freedom of choice. I have installed every one of them,
Ardour, Taverso, Qtrackor, LMMS, etc. Once tried an older Ardour and could
not figure out how to use it. Rejected a protools freebie for similar
reasons. I do like integrated MIDI and Cakewalk was the only one in Windows
that kept MIDI and audio sync'ed correctly, compensates for any latency
differences, etc. Solid--digitize to audio from a MIDI track--right on. When
MIDI goes into Ardour, we'll see how well this works.
My pet peave, as I have repeated, is interoperabilty. There will be pieces of
projects where ardour is the only way to go, others best in traverso, others
best is smaller jacked pieces. Unfortunately, never the 'twain do meet, not
in Windows, not in Linux, certainly not between them. If aaf-xml or my
proposed openDAWS xml could be supported in a variety of software, we would
all benefit (even those who insist upon competition and selling).
And yes, I
must admit I have a small agenda too, against Ardour. I don't
think ardour's user interface is very efficient [1]. Ardour is great,
but it
why hasnt ardour been fixed. is it because the GUI is written in C++ with
GnomeCanvas or something and only 2 people now how its written and theyre
both too busy to do anything about the TODO list? ive never needed a
digital tapedeck (when i do, arecord is fine) so i havent used ardour but
if a usable daw really has millions of these little corner cases in the UI
design and workflow features (which i believe it does, as using samplitude
or abletonlive after struggling with ardour or protools will attest), then
do we really need all the effort spread out between traverso, qtractor,
ardour, and jokosher?
is ardour significantly better than the others for things like realtime
recording track-counts? thats mostly a disk thing unless your coding is
_really_ bad, right? which puts us back into UI space (which is why i'll be
porting thomas grill's xsample~ to lv2 and writing guis in JS/Lua rather
than attempting to add to ardour) 
15 Jun
15 Jun
4:51 p.m.
New subject: DAW usability
On Thu, 2007-14-06 at 03:23 -0400, carmen wrote:
If you want Ardour "fixed", tell the developers the specific things you
think are so bad about it. It's working just fine for plenty of people.
Most of the parts of Ardour I consider to be bad UIs (ie the connection
dialog) I don't care about (and thus aren't about to fix) because I
don't use them. The editor and mixer (ie the stuff that matters) are
fine (if not perfect) IMO.
"ur UI sux, fix it now" is probably not going to result in anything
getting better...
-DR-
And yes, I
must admit I have a small agenda too, against Ardour. I don't
think ardour's user interface is very efficient [1]. Ardour is great, but it
why hasnt ardour been fixed. is it because the GUI is written in C++ with GnomeCanvas or
something and only 2 people now how its written and theyre both too busy to do anything
about the TODO list? ive never needed a digital tapedeck (when i do, arecord is fine) so i
havent used ardour but if a usable daw really has millions of these little corner cases in
the UI design and workflow features (which i believe it does, as using samplitude or
abletonlive after struggling with ardour or protools will attest), then do we really need
all the effort spread out between traverso, qtractor, ardour, and jokosher?
is ardour significantly better than the others for things like realtime recording
track-counts? thats mostly a disk thing unless your coding is _really_ bad, right? which
puts us back into UI space (which is why i'll be porting thomas grill's xsample~
to lv2 and writing guis in JS/Lua rather than attempting to add to ardour) 
5:27 p.m.
New subject: DAW usability
The editor and mixer (ie the stuff that matters) are
fine (if not
perfect) IMO.
I know I am going to get hammered and/or flamed for this, but the people who
wrote it say 'its perfect'? That effectively means changes or enhancement
cannot be submitted since the guys who wrote the code cannot improve upon
perfection. So why go to the dev list?
OK, that is my last submit - I am going to shut up.
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
5:45 p.m.
New subject: DAW usability
On Fri, 2007-15-06 at 21:27 +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:
"if NOT perfect"
Congratulations on your second grade reading comprehension level.
-DR-
The editor
and mixer (ie the stuff that matters) are fine (if not
perfect) IMO.
I know I am going to get hammered and/or flamed for this, but the people who
wrote it say 'its perfect'? That effectively means changes or enhancement
cannot be submitted since the guys who wrote the code cannot improve upon
perfection. So why go to the dev list?
OK, that is my last submit - I am going to shut up. 
5:47 p.m.
New subject: DAW usability
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:27:05PM +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:
I know I am going to get hammered and/or flamed for this, but the people
who wrote it say 'its perfect'? That effectively means changes or
enhancement cannot be submitted since the guys who wrote the code cannot
improve upon perfection. So why go to the dev list?
Can you back that up with a quote? I think you can't.
I saw several times how Paul Davis readily admited problems.
Many are adressed sooner or later. Others are just hard and/or
a matter of trade-offs.
OK, that is my last submit - I am going to shut up.
That would be better. This list has no use for a troll.
--
Thorsten Wilms
Thorwil's Design for Free Software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com
6:50 p.m.
New subject: DAW usability
Thorsten,
You also have an issue with what I have to say, and you also work on
directly on the project, no? It is kind of strange that everybody that is
associated with Odour is averse to criticism, and are so vocal about it.
Are you saying, as troll or whatever stupid name you want to use, that I
don't have a right to a voice?
Regarding 'if not perfect' - what was 'superfluous'. Dave, perhaps what
you
meant to say, although it would appear that you have also not passed the
second grade comprehension, was 'although not perfect'? That totally changes
the meaning of your statement, so don't hassle me for misunderstanding the
fact that you don't grasp even your own language.
Regards,
Your favorite 'troll'.
From: Thorsten Wilms <t_w_(a)freenet.de>
Reply-To: t_w_(a)freenet.de,A list for linux audio users
<linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
To: linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Subject: Re: [LAU] Re: DAW usability
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:47:24 +0200
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:27:05PM +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
I know I am going to get hammered and/or flamed for this, but the people
who wrote it say 'its perfect'? That effectively means changes or
enhancement cannot be submitted since the guys who wrote the code cannot
improve upon perfection. So why go to the dev list?
Can you back that up with a quote? I think you can't.
I saw several times how Paul Davis readily admited problems.
Many are adressed sooner or later. Others are just hard and/or
a matter of trade-offs.
OK, that is my last submit - I am going to shut
up.
That would be better. This list has no use for a troll.
--
Thorsten Wilms
Thorwil's Design for Free Software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
7:15 p.m.
New subject: DAW usability
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 10:50:43PM +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:
You also have an issue with what I have to say, and
you also work on
directly on the project, no? It is kind of strange that everybody that is
associated with Odour is averse to criticism, and are so vocal about it.
I'm not averse to criticism. Those who followed one or the other design
process can confirm that. I know and admit there problems within Ardour.
I think I can see we are not averse to criticism. I don't accept unfounded,
overly broad or even plain dumb criticism, though.
You ignored most of what Paul said in the open DAW format thread,
you talked about the kind of effiency that wasn't the matter and made
strange remarks about Ardour's effiency (notice the feedback from several
people) and somehow you seem to have a talent to warp what has been said.
So I must conclude that you either have serious comprehension problems
or are out here to stir shit up, also called trolling.
This does no good, anyway.
I hope you will change your ways or go away.
Are you saying, as troll or whatever stupid name you
want to use, that I
don't have a right to a voice?
Stupid talk - stupid name.
Your right to a voice - you should use it more wisely.
--
Thorsten Wilms
Thorwil's Design for Free Software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com
16 Jun
16 Jun
3:13 p.m.
New subject: DAW usability
On Fri, 2007-15-06 at 22:50 +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:
Thorsten,
You also have an issue with what I have to say, and you also work on
directly on the project, no? It is kind of strange that everybody that is
associated with Odour is averse to criticism, and are so vocal about it.
Are you saying, as troll or whatever stupid name you want to use, that I
don't have a right to a voice?
If only it were so.
-DR-
15 Jun
15 Jun
8:47 p.m.
New subject: DAW usability
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 21:27 +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:
OK. Now I'll say one thing 'cause I've been following this thread
for awhile now. I didn't write Ardour but I think it's great. The last
problem I had with it was a plugin problem and Tim Goetze has found that
(and is fixing it as we speak). My advice to those who are not
satisfied with Ardour is to 1) give money to the developers, 2) learn to
code and get to work on it, 3) learn to code and write your own DAW, or
4) go whine elsewhere.
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
http://www.thecfband.com
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chardonnay in one hand, chocolate in the other, body
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming 'WOO HOO, what a ride'"
The editor
and mixer (ie the stuff that matters) are fine (if not
perfect) IMO.
I know I am going to get hammered and/or flamed for this, but the people who
wrote it say 'its perfect'? That effectively means changes or enhancement
cannot be submitted since the guys who wrote the code cannot improve upon
perfection. So why go to the dev list?
OK, that is my last submit - I am going to shut up.
31 Jul
31 Jul
6:48 a.m.
New subject: DAW usability
Dave Robillard wrote:
On Thu, 2007-14-06 at 03:23 -0400, carmen wrote:
If you want Ardour "fixed", tell the developers the specific things you
think are so bad about it. It's working just fine for plenty of people.
Most of the parts of Ardour I consider to be bad UIs (ie the connection
dialog) I don't care about (and thus aren't about to fix) because I
don't use them. The editor and mixer (ie the stuff that matters) are
fine (if not perfect) IMO.
"ur UI sux, fix it now" is probably not going to result in anything
getting better...
I've been slowly trying to catch up on LAU, so sorry if this reply is
anachronistic. Clearly I shouldn't worry too much about missing out on
important discussions if this thread is indicative of anything (I trust
not).
I don't really understand why so many of you seem to have it in for
Ardour (please, please don't tell me ;). AFAICT it must be extremely
well written as it works perfectly on my severely underpowered PIII. I'm
incredibly grateful for it as otherwise, most of my ideas of making
music with Linux would never manifest in reality.
[I'm slow enough as it is!-]
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to the project and helped to
make Ardour as good as it is.
And to all the teenagers on this list:
Bovvered! Does my interface _LOOK_ bovvered?
cheers,
tim
/|\
And yes,
I must admit I have a small agenda too, against Ardour. I don't
think ardour's user interface is very efficient [1]. Ardour is great, but it
why hasnt ardour been fixed. is it because the GUI is written in C++ with GnomeCanvas or
something and only 2 people now how its written and theyre both too busy to do anything
about the TODO list? ive never needed a digital tapedeck (when i do, arecord is fine) so i
havent used ardour but if a usable daw really has millions of these little corner cases in
the UI design and workflow features (which i believe it does, as using samplitude or
abletonlive after struggling with ardour or protools will attest), then do we really need
all the effort spread out between traverso, qtractor, ardour, and jokosher?
is ardour significantly better than the others for things like realtime recording
track-counts? thats mostly a disk thing unless your coding is _really_ bad, right? which
puts us back into UI space (which is why i'll be porting thomas grill's xsample~
to lv2 and writing guis in JS/Lua rather than attempting to add to ardour)
6358
days inactive
6406
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
15 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
carmen -
Dave Robillard -
David Baron -
James -
Jan Depner -
Kjetil S. Matheussen -
Loki Davison -
Nick Copeland -
Thorsten Wilms -
tim hall -
Tim Howard