16 Nov
2017
16 Nov
'17
1:35 p.m.
James Harkins:
Asking which DAWs are good, especially for mixing, audio editing and
stability.
I'm not a heavy DAW user. Most of my work is electronic music live
performance with SuperCollider. Because my usage is rare, I've shied away
from Bitwig, and even Ardour. I use SuperCollider a lot, and I pay for it
by answering support questions and contributing. I don't want to pay money
for something I'll use, oh, maybe 10-15 hours in a whole year.
I've had bad experiences with qtractor crashing.
Never used the non- suite.
I installed Rosegarden at one point, but never kicked the tires for audio.
Did I miss anything?
I found Ardour a lot more intuitive and easy to use than reaper or audacity
(which I recently compared it against:
https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6828874#p6828874)
But of the big ones, you missed muse: http://muse-sequencer.org/
16 Nov
16 Nov
2:49 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Kjetil Matheussen
<k.s.matheussen-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org> writes:
James Harkins:
I find Ardour has a nice interface talking to its users, but the users
get an awful interface for talking to Ardour.
--
David Kastrup
Asking which DAWs are good, especially for mixing, audio editing and
stability.
I'm not a heavy DAW user. Most of my work is electronic music live
performance with SuperCollider. Because my usage is rare, I've shied away
from Bitwig, and even Ardour. I use SuperCollider a lot, and I pay for it
by answering support questions and contributing. I don't want to pay money
for something I'll use, oh, maybe 10-15 hours in a whole year.
I've had bad experiences with qtractor crashing.
Never used the non- suite.
I installed Rosegarden at one point, but never kicked the tires for audio.
Did I miss anything?
I found Ardour a lot more intuitive and easy to use than reaper or audacity
(which I recently compared it against: 
7:46 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:02:55 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:49 AM, David Kastrup
<dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
Given that the OP pointed out to need a DAW for "10-15 hours in a whole
year" a GUI as provided by Cubasis 2 and similar apps for iOS, is much
more intuitive to use. I don't know if non-free software for Linux
(Tracktion? or EnergyXT?) follows a similar policy, let alone that I
don't know if those DAWs are stable. However, if I would be the OP, I
would consider to pay a little bit for a DAW that is similar powerful as
Ardour is, but at the same time with a more intuitive to use user
interface and I wouldn't care about an open source code at all. It's
worth the money _especially_ when not using it very often.
Indeed, Ardour's GUI is good in giving visible information a user
needs, but its one of the most worth user interfaces for some tasks.
For most people she's dancing counterclockwise.
http://www.stangl-taller.at/ARBEITSBLAETTER/GRAFIK/taenzerin.gif
I'm completely unable to see her dancing counterclockwise. If I see
something as concave or convex, I'm usually able to concentrate or to
relax and to experience it vice versa, too. Until now she's only
dancing clockwise for me and I even wasn't creative today.
IMO Ardours user interface is completely ignoring the way most creative
people think, at least when being creative. It's possible for everybody
to use Ardour, but at least for some people it's more or less
impossible, if they want to use the software for around 15 hours a
year or a similar short time. Using Ardour without getting the needle
requires to keep it rolling.
I find Ardour has a nice interface talking to its
users, but the
users get an awful interface for talking to Ardour.
?? 
9:44 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On 11/16/2017 01:46 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
IMO Ardours user interface is completely ignoring the
way most creative
people think, at least when being creative. It's possible for everybody
Ok, I'll bite (although every time I respond to you I feel like I'm
being trolled): How in the world can you drop a blanket statement
assuming to understand how "most" creative people think, or what they
like, or how they manage their work flow, or how they'll view a gif of a
dancing something or another ... or what their preferred whatever is
...? -- the answer is: you can't.
Unless you have done some serious polling of a large enough set of
people who have some sort of proven creativity, what you say above is
complete horse shit. If by chance you have conducted such a poll, please
show the results from the question: "While in the throes of creativity,
does Ardour's user interface completely ignore how you think?"
jeeez ...
17 Nov
17 Nov
1:25 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On November 16, 2017 10:44:42 AM HST, David Santamauro <david.santamauro(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/16/2017 01:46 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Well, when I made an attempt to use Ardour, I quickly figured out that its design assumed
I was a fluent user of a traditional hardware mixer and an experienced sound tech/engineer
... but I'm no music pro, so could just be me.
At the same time, I handled the physical tasks of connecting cables between modules on a
Moog ages ago, so maybe Ardour needs a more physical UI? ;)
--
David W. Jones
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail.
IMO Ardours user interface is completely ignoring
the way most
creative
people think, at least when being creative.
It's possible for
everybody
Ok, I'll bite (although every time I respond to you I feel like I'm
being trolled): How in the world can you drop a blanket statement
assuming to understand how "most" creative people think, or what they
like, or how they manage their work flow, or how they'll view a gif of
a
dancing something or another ... or what their preferred whatever is
...? -- the answer is: you can't.
Unless you have done some serious polling of a large enough set of
people who have some sort of proven creativity, what you say above is
complete horse shit. If by chance you have conducted such a poll,
please
show the results from the question: "While in the throes of
creativity,
does Ardour's user interface completely ignore how you think?" 
2:02 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Well, when I made an attempt to use Ardour, I quickly figured out that its
design assumed I was a fluent user of a traditional hardware mixer and an
experienced sound tech/engineer ...
Exactly. Are you suggesting that the only tool in the Linux world that
does the things an actual working professional needs it to do should be
dumbed down?
5:14 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On November 16, 2017 3:02:00 PM HST, Robert Edge <thumbknucklerocks(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Not at all. Although as someone who used to do that level of work in graphic design and
page layout, I adamantly insist the Adobe Suite UI is desperately cluttered, dated and
needs fixing. Targa TIPS had the best UI for graphics work ever produced. ;)
For my basic audio mixing needs, Audacity works fine and (for me, at least) is much easier
to use. I probably use it at most as much as the OP over the course of a year.
--
David W. Jones
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail.
Well, when I made an attempt to use Ardour, I quickly figured out
that its
design assumed I was a fluent user of a
traditional hardware mixer
and an
experienced sound tech/engineer ...
Exactly. Are you suggesting that the only tool in the Linux world
that
does the things an actual working professional needs it to do should
be
dumbed down? 
2:13 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:14:24 -1000
"David W. Jones" <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
For my basic audio mixing needs, Audacity works fine
and (for me, at
least) is much easier to use. I probably use it at most as much as
the OP over the course of a year.
Then you do not need a DAW like Ardour so there's no use in wishing it
to be more simple. The contrary is also true. I cannot imagine mixing
in Audacity so I do not wish it to be more complex.
Cheers.
7:09 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On November 17, 2017 3:13:45 AM HST, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:14:24 -1000
"David W. Jones" <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
I didn't mention making Ardour simpler. That was someone else.
--
David W. Jones
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail.
For my basic audio mixing needs, Audacity works
fine and (for me, at
least) is much easier to use. I probably use it at most as much as
the OP over the course of a year.
Then you do not need a DAW like Ardour so there's no use in wishing it
to be more simple. The contrary is also true. I cannot imagine
mixing
in Audacity so I do not wish it to be more complex.
7:12 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
"David W. Jones" <gnome-4S9g3957RhF54TAoqtyWWQ(a)public.gmane.org> writes:
On November 17, 2017 3:13:45 AM HST, jonetsu
<jonetsu-R6A+fiHC8nRWk0Htik3J/w(a)public.gmane.org> wrote:
"Simpler" and "less infuriating" is not exactly the same.
--
David Kastrup
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:14:24 -1000
"David W. Jones" <gnome-4S9g3957RhF54TAoqtyWWQ(a)public.gmane.org> wrote:
I didn't mention making Ardour simpler. That was someone else. For my basic audio mixing needs, Audacity works
fine and (for me, at
least) is much easier to use. I probably use it at most as much as
the OP over the course of a year.
Then you do not need a DAW like Ardour so there's no use in wishing it
to be more simple. The contrary is also true. I cannot imagine
mixing
in Audacity so I do not wish it to be more complex.
9:08 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On November 17, 2017 8:12:19 AM HST, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
"David W. Jones"
<gnome-4S9g3957RhF54TAoqtyWWQ(a)public.gmane.org>
writes:
"Simpler" and "less infuriating" is not exactly the same.
Agreed. :)
--
David W. Jones
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail.
On November 17, 2017 3:13:45 AM HST, jonetsu
<jonetsu-R6A+fiHC8nRWk0Htik3J/w(a)public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:14:24 -1000
> "David W. Jones" <gnome-4S9g3957RhF54TAoqtyWWQ(a)public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>
> > For my basic audio mixing needs, Audacity works fine and (for me,
at
> > least) is much easier to use. I probably
use it at most as much
as
> > the OP over the course of a year.
>
> Then you do not need a DAW like Ardour so there's no use in wishing
it
to be
more simple. The contrary is also true. I cannot imagine
mixing
in Audacity so I do not wish it to be more complex.
I didn't mention making Ardour simpler. That was someone else.
18 Nov
18 Nov
3:47 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 19:12:19 +0100
David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
"Simpler" and "less infuriating"
is not exactly the same.
Not to split hairs, but only to mention that simplicity finds its way
into ease of work flow. It's also subjective in the sense that what is
complex for one man can be simple for another. It's often a matter of
learning.
Cheers.
4:12 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 09:47:06 -0500, jonetsu wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 19:12:19 +0100 David Kastrup
wrote:
Hi,
some DAWs have different intuitive to use GUIs for identical features.
It's less important to a user who runs the DAW on a daily basis, but
makes a big difference for those who use the DAW irregularly.
Regards,
Ralf
--
$ pacman -Q linux{,-rt{,-cornflower,-pussytoes}}|awk '{print $2}'
4.13.12-1
4.13.13_rt5-1
4.11.12_rt16-1
4.14_rt1-1
"Simpler" and "less
infuriating" is not exactly the same.
Not to split hairs, but only to mention that simplicity finds its way
into ease of work flow. It's also subjective in the sense that what is
complex for one man can be simple for another. It's often a matter of
learning.
6:38 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:12:14 +0100
Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote:
some DAWs have different intuitive to use GUIs for
identical features.
It's less important to a user who runs the DAW on a daily basis, but
makes a big difference for those who use the DAW irregularly.
This is very true. If I make a parallel to a domain I know much less
about, I have from time to time to annotate screenshots. I tried using
Gimp for this purpose only to find that it is not easy at all to do
something which for my irregular use should be simple. One has to
create layers, etc... To which one can reply to read the manual.
Which I did and could have results. But then 4 months later I forgot
how to do it. So instead I use ImageMagick's 'display'. Does
annotation of various kinds, plus a few other things, all simple and
easy to do, no need to read a manual at all. Gimp is certainly a
professional application.
Is it possible to combine both type of uses in a dedicated
application ? When I see screenshots of DAWs that have tracks flanked
with large graphics of instruments (drum, guitar, trumpet, etc...) to
remind the user about the track I think eeeech, I would not be mixing
anything using that :)
Cheers.
7:32 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:38:42 -0500, jonetsu wrote:
Is it possible to combine both type of uses in a
dedicated
application ?
Hi,
IMO it's not possible to provide all choices Ardour provides directly by
it's GUI, by a more intuitive usable GUI. Anyway, it would be possible
to make Ardour's GUI much more intuitive usable as it is now. I suspect
Ardour's GUI doesn't get fixed for hysterical raisins. I guess apart
from the Ardour fan base, most producers and musicians have a common
ground for some improvements, that are actually provided by other
software. However, it doesn't make sense to discuss this on this
mailing list ;).
Regards,
Ralf
--
$ pacman -Q linux{,-rt{,-cornflower,-pussytoes}}|awk '{print $2}'
4.13.12-1
4.13.13_rt5-1
4.11.12_rt16-1
4.14_rt1-1
17 Nov
17 Nov
3:52 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, David W. Jones wrote:
Well, when I made an attempt to use Ardour, I quickly
figured out that
its design assumed I was a fluent user of a traditional hardware mixer
and an experienced sound tech/engineer ... but I'm no music pro, so
could just be me.
At the same time, I handled the physical tasks of connecting cables
between modules on a Moog ages ago, so maybe Ardour needs a more
physical UI? ;)
If you don't want to hire an engineer, I am guessing you need to do their
job. Just as with physical mixers and tape machines, someone needs to
decide which physical input goes to which channel, what level and Eq that
signal has, etc. etc.
I guess there are some artists like the famous opra singer who announced
that she did not _need_ a microphone as her voice was loud enough already,
thank you. So she was recorded with the live mic sitting off to the
side... by a hired engineer.
I can not think of any Daw or Daw like sw that does not expect at least
some "plugging in" or routing to be done.
and yes, Ardour can be run quite well with a physical UI. Be it a keyboard
with black and white keys, a control surface with faders (physical or
touch), a keyboard with letters and numbers on it... or even a strange
small box with two buttons and a wire (or not) that you slide around on
your desk. It seems some people are willing to spend extra money so they
can have one of each.
Everything has a learning curve, a piano keyboard is not really intuitive,
nor the keys of a sax... the trombone might be more such, but a not a
trumpet for sure. The more versatile the instrument, the steeper the
learning curve.
Even with a simple Daw, you have to plug the mic in somewhere.
So I fail to see your point, it seems to be "thats not good" but not
"compare this to that" or "this way would be easier". The average
amplifier made for someone's living room still has an input selector for
routing (after the user has physically plugged in all the cords), an eq
section (treble and bass... or more), a balance control and a level
control... pretty much like each channel in a mixer.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
5:48 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On November 16, 2017 4:52:10 PM HST, Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, David W. Jones wrote:
My audio originates from soft synths driven by Rosegarden, melody input via MIDI to RG. If
I was multitracking a pile of external audio sources like guitars and mics, I'd use
Ardour.
What Ralf thinks about it is Ralf's opinion, not mine.
Jeez, people. I'm not against Ardour as it currently is, nor demanding it be
'dumbed down'. So can we all just get along?
--
David W. Jones
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail.
Well, when I made an attempt to use Ardour, I
quickly figured out
that
its design assumed I was a fluent user of a
traditional hardware
mixer
and an experienced sound tech/engineer ... but
I'm no music pro, so
could just be me.
At the same time, I handled the physical tasks of connecting cables
between modules on a Moog ages ago, so maybe Ardour needs a more
physical UI? ;)
If you don't want to hire an engineer, I am guessing you need to do
their
job. Just as with physical mixers and tape machines, someone needs to
decide which physical input goes to which channel, what level and Eq
that
signal has, etc. etc.
I guess there are some artists like the famous opra singer who
announced
that she did not _need_ a microphone as her voice was loud enough
already,
thank you. So she was recorded with the live mic sitting off to the
side... by a hired engineer.
I can not think of any Daw or Daw like sw that does not expect at
least
some "plugging in" or routing to be done.
and yes, Ardour can be run quite well with a physical UI. Be it a
keyboard
with black and white keys, a control surface with faders (physical or
touch), a keyboard with letters and numbers on it... or even a strange
small box with two buttons and a wire (or not) that you slide around
on
your desk. It seems some people are willing to spend extra money so
they
can have one of each.
Everything has a learning curve, a piano keyboard is not really
intuitive,
nor the keys of a sax... the trombone might be more such, but a not a
trumpet for sure. The more versatile the instrument, the steeper the
learning curve.
Even with a simple Daw, you have to plug the mic in somewhere.
So I fail to see your point, it seems to be "thats not good" but not
"compare this to that" or "this way would be easier". The average
amplifier made for someone's living room still has an input selector
for
routing (after the user has physically plugged in all the cords), an
eq
section (treble and bass... or more), a balance control and a level
control... pretty much like each channel in a mixer.
6:33 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:48:12 -1000, David W. Jones wrote:
What Ralf thinks about it is Ralf's opinion, not
mine.
Actually I'm an Ardour user, however the OP mentioned
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:29:24 +0800, James Harkins wrote:
Because my usage is rare, I've shied away from
Bitwig, and even
Ardour.
and he also pointed out
I don't want to pay money for something I'll
use, oh, maybe 10-15
hours in a whole year.
The OP already tried to use Ardour. The user interface has a design
that requires without doubts more than 10-15 hours of usage a year.
It's not the audio routing that makes Ardour's user interface less
intuitive. It's e.g. based on too much shortcuts, one of the most
important zoom shortcuts e.g. didn't work with my German keyboard, so I
had to reassign the shortcut. Let alone that the more shortcuts, the
more could collide with lower level shortcuts a user might use for the
window manager, this might require to change shortcuts for window
manager usage. Ok, somebody could do this in the 10-15 hours of the
first year, so in the second year there's no need to care about this or
similar things, assuming the user doesn't upgrade Ardour.
Using Ardour with mouse only isn't intuitive to do, since the menus
aren't that clear as for a lot of other DAWs. You need to get used to
Ardour, wich is hardly to to do for users that don't spend more than 15
hours a year with using it.
Things like the routing are basics, once you learned the principle,
you'll never forget it. After learning this and a few other principles
users need to learn oddities of the DAW or DAWs they use. Some have got
a few oddities other, such as Ardour have a lot of it. The oddities are
things a user needs to get used too and the user will forget them, if
the user doesn't use the DAW very often.
7:28 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
My audio originates from soft synths driven by Rosegarden, melody input
via MIDI to RG. If I was multitracking a pile of external audio sources
like guitars and mics, I'd use Ardour.
What Ralf thinks about it is Ralf's opinion, not mine.
Jeez, people. I'm not against Ardour as it currently is, nor demanding it
be 'dumbed down'. So can we all just get along?
yeah, I could have phrased that better. My bad.
I just don't really consider what you are doing to be a DAW. Rosegarden is
a MIDI sequencer with a kinda sorta DAW bolted on. I'm glad it's useful
for you. I've only used it to do some very bare bones MIDI mock ups of
stuff and It seemed to do that fine.
Dude said he wanted a DAW to do DAW stuff with. He is savvy enough to
operate Supercollider.
Ardour is a for-real DAW that can do anything any other DAW can do
(mostly). Not by Linux standards but period. Full stop. (mostly)
I'm telling you guys, there isn't another FOSS option operating at that
level. Not even close. Not if you what you want is a DAW.
8:01 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 01:28:16 -0500, Robert Edge wrote:
I'm telling you guys, there isn't another FOSS
option operating at
that level.
That's beyond question. It's questionable if Ardour is a good tool for
somebody using it 10 to 15 hours a year, when this person already
tested Ardour and is asking for alternative DAWs.
Shortened questioning: Is latency compensation needed? Are mixer
subgroups needed? If not Qtractor audio might be able to replace
Ardour, assuming Qtractor should run stable, what it usually does. It
should be possible to find out what makes Qtractor unstable when the OP
is using it.
After balancing pros and cons again, perhaps an open source code and
free as in beer are less important, than getting a more intuitive GUI
that is much easier to use for somebody who doesn't spend more than 15
hours a year with using it.
8:23 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Latency compensation? - Sure, if I sit down at a DAW in 2017 I want to be
able to assume that latency, both in processing blocks in the machine and
with hardware is compensated for appropriately. Of course you want that.
Why would you NOT want to be able to not think about it and assume that
everything s time correct? With Ardour it is (mostly).
Subgroups - Absolutely. If you are dealing with any non-trivial project
you might want to group some audio together. Of course you want to be able
to make a sub group if you happen to need one.
You are talking about really fundamental, basic type stuff that a DAW is
used for. Ardour does all that stuff. If things become even less trivial
it does a bunch of other stuff too.
I'm a MIxbus user, but I've been keeping a current build from GIT since
forever, just to follow how it's going. If the builds from Ardour.org are
as solid as Mixbus, it should 'just work' on any reasonable linux system.
It is my understanding that they are.
Ardour is really the only game in town. It's a bummer, but that's where we
are with Linux Audio in 2017.
If what you want is a DAW.
8:35 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 02:23:17 -0500, Robert Edge wrote:
Latency compensation? - Sure, if I sit down at a DAW
in 2017 I want
to be able to assume that latency, both in processing blocks in the
machine and with hardware is compensated for appropriately. Of course
you want that. Why would you NOT want to be able to not think about it
and assume that everything s time correct? With Ardour it is (mostly).
If you e.g. import wav files, you don't need hardware latency
compensation. It depends on what exactly the OP wants to do.
Subgroups - Absolutely. If you are dealing with any
non-trivial
project you might want to group some audio together.
Again, it depends on what the OP wants to do. Actually the OP wants to
use it for mixing, but this not necessarily implies that e.g. aux and
subgroups are required. If I would do a "non-trivial project" I would
consider to work on this project for more than just 15 hours ;).
Like the dancer we go around in circles ;). Maybe the OP could chime in
and mention why he doesn't use Ardour.
8:54 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On 11/16/2017 10:28 PM, Robert Edge wrote:
I'm telling you guys, there isn't another FOSS
option operating at
that level. Not even close. Not if you what you want is a DAW.
HI, I want to jump
in!
I remember using Ardour 2 several years ago and thinking it was pretty
solid but with a steep learning curve. It wasn't what I needed at the
time so I used something else. I recently decided to install Ardour 5
and -WOW- it's so much better than I remember. More importantly, the
documentation is amazing (manual.ardour.org). It's actually some of the
best documentation of any software I've used. I started a session with
the manual open beside the main sequencer window I was able to do
everything I wanted to accomplish almost instantly. No more scratching
my head and questioning the developer's motives. It's fantastic. I'm
probably going to get a subscription because I like it so much. Ardour
is a shining beacon for FOSS audio and a true DAW.
8:28 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Len Ovens <len-ODU3Ot18rIYsV2N9l4h3zg(a)public.gmane.org> writes:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, David W. Jones wrote:
That's not the problem. The problem is that you have various modes with
fuzzy separation and distribution of tasks, that the mouse does not work
as usual (regarding context menus on third button etc), that stuff like
"remove something with the mouse" wanders around and is not discoverable
with menus or mouse-over help (what was it now? Alt-middle or
something?). Similar with the keyboard.
It is very prone to crashes and hangs when anything with the transport
goes wrong, and it's not exactly trivial to restart transport. Its
autosave does not just leave a recoverable state but actually saves the
whole thing periodically as the current project, so if you don't know
whether you actually want to commit (or are pretty sure you don't) you
have to turn it off, or quitting without saving will leave you in some
unpredictable state.
I recently had a demonstration where the mics were wired wrong and so
the two "stereo" channels I recorded on were mixed up. You think I
managed to split the tracks into mono in order to salvage two usable
tracks? No beef. I'd have had to do a stem export and reimport. Or
something. Didn't really fit in the demo time frame.
Handling marks (setting, moving them) is always hit and miss.
Manipulating automation with the mouse is hit and miss. And so on.
Well, when I made an attempt to use Ardour, I
quickly figured out
that its design assumed I was a fluent user of a traditional
hardware mixer and an experienced sound tech/engineer ... but I'm no
music pro, so could just be me.
At the same time, I handled the physical tasks of connecting cables
between modules on a Moog ages ago, so maybe Ardour needs a more
physical UI? ;)
If you don't want to hire an engineer, I am guessing you need to do
their job. Just as with physical mixers and tape machines, someone
needs to decide which physical input goes to which channel, what level
and Eq that signal has, etc. etc. and yes, Ardour can be run quite well with a physical
UI. Be it a
keyboard with black and white keys, a control surface with faders
(physical or touch), a keyboard with letters and numbers on it... or
even a strange small box with two buttons and a wire (or not) that you
slide around on your desk. It seems some people are willing to spend
extra money so they can have one of each.
For recording a session, I use a nanoKontrol. Don't want computer fans
or rotating disks anywhere near my mics. Ardour is fine for making
takes.
It's when you start editing that things get awful.
--
David Kastrup
5:36 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, David Kastrup wrote:
It is very prone to crashes and hangs when anything
with the transport
goes wrong, and it's not exactly trivial to restart transport. Its
I have not had this problem, but that means nothing. I generally do
straight almost tape machine style recording of analog signals (I am not a
keyboard player and so use very little MIDI if any on my projects) I enjoy
the energy (subjective for surre) of live performance and try to get as
much of that in the studio as I can. So I might completely miss using
parts of Ardour you use all the time. I would think audio device and
graphics cards make a difference to stability too. (ICE1712 pci card audio
and Intel graphics)
autosave does not just leave a recoverable state but
actually saves the
whole thing periodically as the current project, so if you don't know
whether you actually want to commit (or are pretty sure you don't) you
have to turn it off, or quitting without saving will leave you in some
unpredictable state.
That is not quite true. the periodic saves are not saved to the project.
However, there are some things (like adding a new track) that do force a
save so I can see that getting confusing.
I recently had a demonstration where the mics were
wired wrong and so
the two "stereo" channels I recorded on were mixed up. You think I
managed to split the tracks into mono in order to salvage two usable
tracks? No beef. I'd have had to do a stem export and reimport. Or
something. Didn't really fit in the demo time frame.
The balance control can be set to -100% for stereo image reversal though.
Assuming I understand the problem correctly.
Handling marks (setting, moving them) is always hit
and miss.
Manipulating automation with the mouse is hit and miss. And so on.
I have to admit I have less experience here.
> and yes, Ardour can be run quite well with a
physical UI. Be it a
For recording a session, I use a nanoKontrol.
Don't want computer fans
or rotating disks anywhere near my mics. Ardour is fine for making
takes.
It's when you start editing that things get awful.
While I haven't found what editing I have done (not much) easy, it hasn't
seemed that bad but I probably don't do enough with enough time pressure
to really coment.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
5:50 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
It is very prone to crashes and hangs when anything
with the transport
source
from time to time to keep abreast with Ardour but don't use it for
production work. I don't get crashes, not from Ardour anyway. Sometimes
when running lots of my hare brained Pure Data and Csound and hack homemade
JACK clients I wrote in C all wired together I can crash the machine.
Ardour always comes back up in the state I left it in.
goes wrong, and it's not exactly trivial to
restart transport. Its
I use Mixbus (2, 3, 4, and now 32C), and Ardour 3. I build the current autosave does not just leave a recoverable state but
actually saves the
Again, I find Ardour recovers from crashes almost perfectly. Maybe with
the latest versions they've broken it.
whole thing periodically as the current project,
so if you don't know
whether you actually want to commit (or are pretty sure you don't) you
have to turn it off, or quitting without saving will leave you in some
unpredictable state.
I recently had a demonstration where the mics were
wired wrong and so
to two
mono files. You absolutely do not need to stem export and
reimport. I'd be happy to show you how some time. It's easy. Ask on IRC.
the two "stereo" channels I recorded on
were mixed up. You think I
managed to split the tracks into mono in order to salvage two usable
tracks? No beef. I'd have had to do a stem export and reimport. Or
something. Didn't really fit in the demo time frame.
You can flip R for L a few different ways. You can also split the file in
Handling marks (setting, moving them) is always hit and miss.
absolutely use marks and moving them and bouncing around between them.
Works fine here.
Manipulating automation with the mouse is hit and
miss. And so on.
I don't know what this means. I don't do a lot of automation but I
It's when you start editing that things get
awful.
6:30 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Robert Edge <thumbknucklerocks-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org>
writes:
[...]
If you say so. I edit like a motherfucker with Ardour. Only system
I'm faster on is a legit Protools rig on an adequately powerful Mac.
My usual editor is Emacs (which has become rather user-friendly over the
years, not just power-user-friendly), I've been using UNIX-like systems
since before Linux came into being.
For me user-friendly implies that when I am demoing something and a
problem crops up, I can solve that problem using means available to the
audience rather than having to revert to "please look away for a moment"
brute-force fixes the audience has no way of following.
There is a common apologetic trend of claiming that being useful to an
average user and being useful to a power-user is by necessity
incompatible.
I don't buy it. I consider that a problem when it happens.
It's when you start editing that things get
awful.
It's all kind of a moot point though, because
it's the only actual
option.
Ah, but it is an actively developed option, so Ardour from the future
might be a more viable program than Ardour now. No need to be defeatist
about it.
--
David Kastrup
6:35 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
I can't tell if you are trying to be ironic or not.
You want something intuitive to a novice and your example is EMACS?
I use EMACS everyday. C code, Haskell code, Lilypond markup, even using
search and replace to hack Pure Data files sometimes. Love it, been on
board for years.
You are out of your mind if you think it's software that a novice is going
to immediately be able to solve problems with.
6:42 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Robert Edge <thumbknucklerocks(a)gmail.com> writes:
I can't tell if you are trying to be ironic or
not.
You want something intuitive to a novice and your example is EMACS?
I use EMACS everyday. C code, Haskell code, Lilypond markup, even
using search and replace to hack Pure Data files sometimes. Love it,
been on board for years.
You are out of your mind if you think it's software that a novice is
going to immediately be able to solve problems with.
Depends on what "solve problems" means. Editing files works. That's
not as much solving problems as applying the solutions somebody else
solved for you. But as a rule, it works reasonably well without getting
thrown into the deep end.
There are menus and icons and help-over texts, and their amount and
arrangement actually gets common work done.
It's not the Emacs from 25 years ago. That was a vengeful god not
tolerating others and throwing help screens at you the first time you
dared to hit backspace.
Mind you, under the hood its complexity has of course grown. But the
presented user controls allow people to get into it without too much of
a culture clash.
--
David Kastrup
6 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Len Ovens <len-ODU3Ot18rIYsV2N9l4h3zg(a)public.gmane.org> writes:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, David Kastrup wrote:
That is not quite true. the periodic saves are not saved to the
project. However, there are some things (like adding a new track) that
do force a save so I can see that getting confusing.
You don't. I didn't have left1&right1 and left2&right2 as stereo
channels (reversed or not) but rather left1&left2 and right1&right2.
The gains were set according to expectation, meaning stereo track 2 was
gained low (large diaphragm) and stereo track 1 was gained higher (small
diaphragm, moderate output). So left2 was overdriven and needed to get
scrapped and I would have wanted to work with just left1 and right1
(even though right1 was recorded with quite lower gain). I wasn't able
to split the stereo tracks in order to get rid of left2 and right2. I
would have needed to keep stereo track 1 left and stereo track 2 left
and, pan the latter right and pull up its (digital) gain.
Splitting the stereo channels into mono would have been the easiest way
to trash the bad tracks and create a stereo image from the rest.
No obvious way to get this done in talk time.
--
David Kastrup
I recently had a demonstration where the mics
were wired wrong and so
the two "stereo" channels I recorded on were mixed up. You think I
managed to split the tracks into mono in order to salvage two usable
tracks? No beef. I'd have had to do a stem export and reimport. Or
something. Didn't really fit in the demo time frame.
The balance control can be set to -100% for stereo image reversal
though. Assuming I understand the problem correctly.
6:06 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Right click on the region.
(region name) -> edit -> make mono regions.
6:19 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Robert Edge <thumbknucklerocks(a)gmail.com> writes:
Right click on the region.
(region name) -> edit -> make mono regions.
First you need an active _region_ (rather than doing this on the track).
Then you need to go by (region name)/edit. And finally, nothing obvious
happens. I assume that it just takes the mean of the channel without
changing the "stereo" status. Which doesn't help.
Editing the region properties would allow me to assign the correct
(crossed) source tracks, however. That's about as clumsy as the stem
export approach but faster.
--
David Kastrup
6:24 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
I don't know what to tell you. People all over the world do this exact
procedure all the time. In Protools or Logic or Reaper or whatever, they
all essentially work the same way. If you have some stereo audio and you
want access to the individual mono files you right click on the thing and
separate it in to it's component parts. Then you do whatever you want with
those parts.
What workflow are you expecting?
6:36 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Robert Edge <thumbknucklerocks-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org>
writes:
I don't know what to tell you. People all over
the world do this exact
procedure all the time. In Protools or Logic or Reaper or whatever, they
all essentially work the same way. If you have some stereo audio and you
want access to the individual mono files you right click on the thing and
separate it in to it's component parts.
Well, Ardour has no way to do that. Not for a track, not for a region.
"Make mono" retains a stereo region (presumably with equal content in
the channels then).
Do you want a desktop video to prove it?
Then you do whatever you want with those parts.
What workflow are you expecting?
Anything would be fine for starters.
--
David Kastrup
7:11 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Robert Edge <thumbknucklerocks(a)gmail.com> writes:
Ah, so "(region name)/edit/make mono regions" does not actually edit the
region. Nor does it make it mono. Nor does it create mono tracks. But
it adds two mono regions to the _region_ _list_ (which is rather
inconspicuous and somewhere else on the screen, by default not at all)
from where you can then fill newly created mono tracks. It doesn't
bother mentioning what it does in something akin to Emacs' echo area,
though: "copied mono regions to region list" would have been a great
hint. It doesn't have some mouse-over help on "make mono regions"
either. You arr on your own guessing what happens.
Sorry, but that's _way_ worse in discoverability than current-day
Emacs. Certainly nothing you could _discover_ on a demo. Either you
know or you don't.
Emacs has useful mouse-over help. Emacs has usefully named menu
entries. The menu entries actually use current-day GUI terminology
(rather than Emacs' own kill/yank kind of terminology).
I have a chance hunting for something while demoing.
--
David Kastrup
7:21 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
I'm not sure if you are clear on what it is you are trying to do, or how a
DAW works.
What behavior are you expecting? Specifically.
You said you had a stereo region and you wanted to edit it as two mono
regions. That's how you do it.
Works pretty much the same way on any DAW.
9:51 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Robert Edge <thumbknucklerocks-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org>
writes:
I'm not sure if you are clear on what it is you
are trying to do, or how a
DAW works.
What behavior are you expecting? Specifically.
You said you had a stereo region and you wanted to edit it as two mono
regions. That's how you do it.
Works pretty much the same way on any DAW.
Sigh. "Edit/Make mono regions" sounds like it makes regions mono. Even
a simple "Edit/Create mono regions" would provide more of a clue that
there are regions somewhere to be had. A mouse-over help over the menu
entry could be more explicit. An echo area/popup could mention that
mono regions have been created. Since obviously somebody wants to do
something with the regions, the regions list could actually be made
visible, or even just its tab could briefly flash.
There are dozens of way to be more discoverable here. Instead saying
"if you ever learnt DAW processed with an actually user-friendly
program, you'll find most of the stuff similar here, just without any
useful help or hint" is not the same as being easy to learn.
A program that expects an expert before you can even start to use it is
_not_ standalone. It requires you to first buy a proprietary program in
order to learn how to work with the free one. That's stupid.
--
David Kastrup
7:44 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On 17.11.2017 19:11, David Kastrup wrote:
Robert Edge<thumbknucklerocks(a)gmail.com>
writes:
Ah, so "(region name)/edit/make mono regions" does not actually edit the
region. Nor does it make it mono. Nor does it create mono tracks. But
it adds two mono regions to the_region_ _list_ (which is rather
inconspicuous and somewhere else on the screen, by default not at all)
from where you can then fill newly created mono tracks. It doesn't
bother mentioning what it does in something akin to Emacs' echo area,
though: "copied mono regions to region list" would have been a great
hint.
A few years back, I had a similar issue the first time(s) I tried to
bounce. Yes, there's a problem with the visibility of the outcome, yes,
it's a need-to-know thing. With any kind of notification, you have the
issue of it being noticeable enough, without distracting those who
already know what and how it will happen.
I would have liked a bounce-in-place just like you might desire a
split-to-mono-and-convert-to-2-tracks feature. There's something to be
said for "atomic" operations though, not doing 3 steps in combination
while not offering any one of those steps in isolation. If you add both
single operations and each do-that-and-replace-the-input-with-the-result
variant, you likely end up with (even more) unwieldy menus.
There's also the aspect of a region-level operation having consequences
on removal and addition of tracks, those again having consequences on
routing.
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
9:56 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Thorsten Wilms <self-FGF0TiJ1GBKCqcdZnNZY/wC/G2K4zDHf(a)public.gmane.org>
writes:
On 17.11.2017 19:11, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't have a problem with the workflow. Merely with that it's
completely undiscoverable since it says "make mono regions" instead of
"create mono reagions" (which would clarify that _new_ regions are
created), because of not having any mouse-over hint over the menu,
because of not highlighting or raising the region list in any manner,
because of not giving any notification or clue of what it actually does.
Of _course_ everybody and his dog will chime in and say "boy, are you
stupid, it's like with any other DAW you should already have used, and
you can just do this and that".
I was not complaining that Ardour is useless for expert workflows. I
was complaining that it makes it much harder than necessary to discover
said workflows.
--
David Kastrup
Robert
Edge<thumbknucklerocks-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org> writes:
Ah, so "(region name)/edit/make mono regions" does not actually edit the
region. Nor does it make it mono. Nor does it create mono tracks. But
it adds two mono regions to the_region_ _list_ (which is rather
inconspicuous and somewhere else on the screen, by default not at all)
from where you can then fill newly created mono tracks. It doesn't
bother mentioning what it does in something akin to Emacs' echo area,
though: "copied mono regions to region list" would have been a great
hint.
A few years back, I had a similar issue the first time(s) I tried to
bounce. Yes, there's a problem with the visibility of the outcome,
yes, it's a need-to-know thing. With any kind of notification, you
have the issue of it being noticeable enough, without distracting
those who already know what and how it will happen.
I would have liked a bounce-in-place just like you might desire a
split-to-mono-and-convert-to-2-tracks feature. There's something to be
said for "atomic" operations though, not doing 3 steps in combination
while not offering any one of those steps in isolation. If you add
both single operations and each
do-that-and-replace-the-input-with-the-result variant, you likely end
up with (even more) unwieldy menus.
There's also the aspect of a region-level operation having
consequences on removal and addition of tracks, those again having
consequences on routing.
10:59 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't have a problem with the workflow. Merely
with that it's
completely undiscoverable since it says "make mono regions" instead of
"create mono reagions" (which would clarify that _new_ regions are
created), because of not having any mouse-over hint over the menu,
Make/create? Sorry, I'm laughing here. For many people make = create.
English is stupid, but it is what everyone uses... some of us in N America
are too stupid, arrogant or whatever to have learned a second language.
(and most people who use English as a second Language have better spelling
and gramer than native speakers)
because of not highlighting or raising the region list
in any manner,
because of not giving any notification or clue of what it actually does.
I can see that much.
Of _course_ everybody and his dog will chime in and
say "boy, are you
stupid, it's like with any other DAW you should already have used, and
you can just do this and that".
Nope, not going there, I wouldn't have known that either. I probably would
have changed the pin connections on those two channels, unplugged the bad
side and used it as if it was mono... or something like that. Perhaps
routed the two good channels into a bus to deal with things as a stereo
channel. Making four mono regions and using two sounds better.
I was not complaining that Ardour is useless for
expert workflows. I
was complaining that it makes it much harder than necessary to discover
said workflows.
General rule, feature change takes some time, gui change to make that
feature visible takes 10 times as long or more.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
11:05 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Len Ovens <len-ODU3Ot18rIYsV2N9l4h3zg(a)public.gmane.org> writes:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, David Kastrup wrote:
You are creating me blush.
--
David Kastrup
I don't have a problem with the workflow.
Merely with that it's
completely undiscoverable since it says "make mono regions" instead of
"create mono reagions" (which would clarify that _new_ regions are
created), because of not having any mouse-over hint over the menu,
Make/create? Sorry, I'm laughing here. For many people make =
create. English is stupid, but it is what everyone uses...
18 Nov
18 Nov
12:28 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On 17.11.2017 21:56, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't have a problem with the workflow. Merely
with that it's
completely undiscoverable since it says "make mono regions" instead of
"create mono reagions"
If it was "make regions mono" ...
I would have leaned towards "create", too, but now I think it does give
a weaker sense of the new regions being a result of the current. How
about "derive"?
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
1:01 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Thorsten Wilms <self-FGF0TiJ1GBKCqcdZnNZY/wC/G2K4zDHf(a)public.gmane.org>
writes:
On 17.11.2017 21:56, David Kastrup wrote:
Do what? Make mono. On what? Regions. Menu lingo is not really that
fine grained...
I don't have a problem with the workflow.
Merely with that it's
completely undiscoverable since it says "make mono regions" instead of
"create mono reagions"
If it was "make regions mono" ... I would have leaned towards "create", too,
but now I think it does
give a weaker sense of the new regions being a result of the
current.
Well, it _is_ in the (region name)/Edit menu so the expectation would be
that it had something to do with (region name).
How about "derive"?
Or no verb:
"Mono to region list"
is likely enough of a clue to figure out where to look afterwards.
--
David Kastrup
17 Nov
17 Nov
11:26 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On 11/17/2017 07:11 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Robert Edge <thumbknucklerocks(a)gmail.com>
writes:
Ah, so "(region name)/edit/make mono regions" does not actually edit the
region. Nor does it make it mono. Nor does it create mono tracks. But
it adds two mono regions to the _region_ _list_ (which is rather
inconspicuous and somewhere else on the screen, by default not at all)
from where you can then fill newly created mono tracks. It doesn't
bother mentioning what it does in something akin to Emacs' echo area,
though: "copied mono regions to region list" would have been a great
hint. It doesn't have some mouse-over help on "make mono regions"
either. You arr on your own guessing what happens.
Sorry, but that's _way_ worse in discoverability than current-day
Emacs. Certainly nothing you could _discover_ on a demo. Either you
know or you don't.
Why even bother? just use the stereo panner and pan it all the way to
the left or right?
2c,
robin
11:44 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Robin Gareus <robin-+VlDMftONaMdnm+yROfE0A(a)public.gmane.org> writes:
On 11/17/2017 07:11 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Yeah, that gave me the correct left microphone on the left. And the
correct right microphone on the left. At equal gain.
As I said: there was not enough time to fiddle this in a strictly
time-constrained demo.
--
David Kastrup
Robert Edge
<thumbknucklerocks-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org> writes:
Ah, so "(region name)/edit/make mono regions" does not actually edit the
region. Nor does it make it mono. Nor does it create mono tracks. But
it adds two mono regions to the _region_ _list_ (which is rather
inconspicuous and somewhere else on the screen, by default not at all)
from where you can then fill newly created mono tracks. It doesn't
bother mentioning what it does in something akin to Emacs' echo area,
though: "copied mono regions to region list" would have been a great
hint. It doesn't have some mouse-over help on "make mono regions"
either. You arr on your own guessing what happens.
Sorry, but that's _way_ worse in discoverability than current-day
Emacs. Certainly nothing you could _discover_ on a demo. Either you
know or you don't.
Why even bother? just use the stereo panner and pan it all the way to
the left or right?
11:51 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
David Kastrup <dak-mXXj517/zsQ(a)public.gmane.org> writes:
Robin Gareus
<robin-+VlDMftONaMdnm+yROfE0A-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg(a)public.gmane.org>
writes:
At any rate: we had already established that I am stupid: otherwise the
mics would not have been crosswired. The problem is that you need to be
really smart to figure out from scratch how to correct this with Ardour,
and there wasn't enough time and attention span to be really smart here.
If you need a mailing list for using an application, there is no way to
improvise actually simple stuff under realtime constraints like in a
talk.
I mean, fine, Ardour is great for making fun at others and
fingerpointing and feeling superior. And there is some appeal in that.
But frankly, I'm too old to be using software for that reason.
--
David Kastrup
On 11/17/2017 07:11 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Yeah, that gave me the correct left microphone on the left. And the
correct right microphone on the left. At equal gain.
As I said: there was not enough time to fiddle this in a strictly
time-constrained demo. Robert Edge
<thumbknucklerocks-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg(a)public.gmane.org>
writes:
Ah, so "(region name)/edit/make mono regions" does not actually edit the
region. Nor does it make it mono. Nor does it create mono tracks. But
it adds two mono regions to the _region_ _list_ (which is rather
inconspicuous and somewhere else on the screen, by default not at all)
from where you can then fill newly created mono tracks. It doesn't
bother mentioning what it does in something akin to Emacs' echo area,
though: "copied mono regions to region list" would have been a great
hint. It doesn't have some mouse-over help on "make mono regions"
either. You arr on your own guessing what happens.
Sorry, but that's _way_ worse in discoverability than current-day
Emacs. Certainly nothing you could _discover_ on a demo. Either you
know or you don't.
Why even bother? just use the stereo panner and pan it all the way to
the left or right?
18 Nov
18 Nov
7:42 a.m.
New subject: Ardour mono/stereo separation -- was Re: FOSS DAW recommendations
On 11/17/2017 11:51 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
David Kastrup <dak-mXXj517/zsQ(a)public.gmane.org>
writes:
I had no such intention.
Also please don't take it personally, like many authoring tools Ardour
has a steep learning curve. You also would not be the first sound
engineer that wrongly connects some mics..
I was just honestly curious why you wanted to separate a stereo track
instead of using the panner or port-connections.
Many users want the other way: Combine a two mono tracks to a stereo
track for shared editing or FX (and there's likewise no simple way to do
that in the editor alone, the tracks need to be a bounced).
Track-groups are the preferred way for this for edit operations.
subgroup-busses for FX.
ciao,
robin
Robin Gareus
<robin-+VlDMftONaMdnm+yROfE0A-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg(a)public.gmane.org>
writes:
At any rate: we had already established that I am stupid: otherwise the
mics would not have been crosswired. The problem is that you need to be
really smart to figure out from scratch how to correct this with Ardour,
and there wasn't enough time and attention span to be really smart here.
If you need a mailing list for using an application, there is no way to
improvise actually simple stuff under realtime constraints like in a
talk.
I mean, fine, Ardour is great for making fun at others and
fingerpointing and feeling superior. And there is some appeal in that.
But frankly, I'm too old to be using software for that reason.
On 11/17/2017 07:11 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Yeah, that gave me the correct left microphone on the left. And the
correct right microphone on the left. At equal gain.
As I said: there was not enough time to fiddle this in a strictly
time-constrained demo. Robert Edge
<thumbknucklerocks-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg(a)public.gmane.org>
writes:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7OeIFALN8
Ah, so "(region name)/edit/make mono regions" does not actually edit the
region. Nor does it make it mono. Nor does it create mono tracks. But
it adds two mono regions to the _region_ _list_ (which is rather
inconspicuous and somewhere else on the screen, by default not at all)
from where you can then fill newly created mono tracks. It doesn't
bother mentioning what it does in something akin to Emacs' echo area,
though: "copied mono regions to region list" would have been a great
hint. It doesn't have some mouse-over help on "make mono regions"
either. You arr on your own guessing what happens.
Sorry, but that's _way_ worse in discoverability than current-day
Emacs. Certainly nothing you could _discover_ on a demo. Either you
know or you don't.
Why even bother? just use the stereo panner and pan it all the way to
the left or right? 
1:27 p.m.
New subject: Ardour mono/stereo separation -- was Re: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 07:42:19AM +0100, Robin Gareus wrote:
Many users want the other way: Combine a two mono
tracks to a stereo
track for shared editing or FX (and there's likewise no simple way to do
that in the editor alone, the tracks need to be a bounced).
Track-groups are the preferred way for this for edit operations.
subgroup-busses for FX.
The basic reason why solving this sort of problem requires some non-trivial
manipulations is Ardour's one-to-one mapping of editor tracks and mixer strips.
Which of course simplifies a lot of things, it's not there without reason.
A simple solution would be to have a routing option between the track
outputs and strip inputs. Default would be one-to-one, but then at least
you can override it if you need to (and accept the consequences).
Summing signals wouldn't be required, it can be simple selection.
This would also provide a simple solution to a requirement I face all
the time: routing a recorded track to more than one strip. And having
the bare track outputs available on Jack outputs would facilitate using
an external (HW or SW) mixer.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
2:22 p.m.
New subject: Ardour mono/stereo separation -- was Re: FOSS DAW recommendations
Fons Adriaensen <fons-dDzkXPnfpdzhj6bIAHgUAw(a)public.gmane.org> writes:
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 07:42:19AM +0100, Robin Gareus
wrote:
You cannot seamlessly exchange the plugins and other structure between
mono and stereo strips and they are also part of the track.
Many users want the other way: Combine a two mono
tracks to a stereo
track for shared editing or FX (and there's likewise no simple way to
do that in the editor alone, the tracks need to be a bounced).
Track-groups are the preferred way for this for edit operations.
subgroup-busses for FX.
The basic reason why solving this sort of problem requires some
non-trivial manipulations is Ardour's one-to-one mapping of editor
tracks and mixer strips. Which of course simplifies a lot of things,
it's not there without reason. A simple solution would be to have a routing option
between the track
outputs and strip inputs. Default would be one-to-one, but then at least
you can override it if you need to (and accept the consequences).
Well, the balance control is sort of a routing option. Personally I
think it would already help a lot if the strip output of stereo strips
could be assigned individually instead just to consecutive channel
pairs.
This would also provide a simple solution to a
requirement I face all
the time: routing a recorded track to more than one strip.
Well, you can route it to a bus and from there to several strips.
And having the bare track outputs available on Jack
outputs would
facilitate using an external (HW or SW) mixer.
Again, should work with a bus. I admit not having tried it.
--
David Kastrup
2:25 p.m.
New subject: Ardour mono/stereo separation -- was Re: FOSS DAW recommendations
Well, the balance control is sort of a routing option. Personally I
think it would already help a lot if the strip output of stereo strips
could be assigned individually instead just to consecutive channel
pairs.
You can do that. You can pretty much route anything anywhere.
2:43 p.m.
New subject: Ardour mono/stereo separation -- was Re: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org>
wrote:
The basic reason why solving this sort of problem
requires some
non-trivial
manipulations is Ardour's one-to-one mapping of editor tracks and mixer
strips.
It's not a mapping. They are the same object. In Model-View-Controller
terms, both the editor tracks and the mixer strips are views on the same
model (internally some object derived from Ardour::Stripable).
A simple solution would be to have a routing option between the track
outputs and strip inputs.
Because of the single-object model, the distinction between these things
does not exist.
19 Nov
19 Nov
12:01 a.m.
New subject: Ardour routing: [WAS]: Re: Ardour mono/stereo separation -- was Re: FOSS DAW recommendations
On 18/11/17 13:27, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 07:42:19AM +0100, Robin Gareus
wrote:
[...]
A simple solution would be to have a routing option
between the track
outputs and strip inputs. Default would be one-to-one, but then at least
you can override it if you need to (and accept the consequences).
Summing signals wouldn't be required, it can be simple selection.
This would also provide a simple solution to a requirement I face all
the time: routing a recorded track to more than one strip. And having
the bare track outputs available on Jack outputs would facilitate using
an external (HW or SW) mixer.
Wouldn't buses cover this kind of use case? Or have I completely
misunderstood it?
Lorenzo.
17 Nov
17 Nov
7:42 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:27:57 +0100
David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
It is very prone to crashes and hangs when anything
with the transport
goes wrong, and it's not exactly trivial to restart transport.
I have not experienced a crash in a long time. Make it 1.5, 2 years.
But then, it's a this point that I have to stop assuming something. I
have written, with this one, two replies in this thread based on the
assumption that Ardour and Mixbus32C are essentially the same, with
Ardour having more new features in the course of its development. I do
not use Ardour at all. I use Mixbus32C. Could there be stability
added at Harrison's ? I do not know.
As such, I will not add any other reply to this thread, except perhaps
a trivial general comment.
Cheers.
11:03 p.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 08:27:57AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
(....) The problem is that you have various modes
with
fuzzy separation and distribution of tasks, that the mouse does not work
as usual (regarding context menus on third button etc), that stuff like
"remove something with the mouse" wanders around and is not discoverable
with menus or mouse-over help (what was it now? Alt-middle or
something?). Similar with the keyboard.
Like a physical console, with a GUI like Ardour, you have to
be careful about what you touch with the mouse, and the more
densely packed the GUI the more "twitchy" the interface.
Twitchy also means capable. (Do you remember when MS
introduced menu items that activate, even select actions,
when hovered over? That drove me crazy because it fuzzes
the boundary of what is deliberate choice, with ethical
and political implications: a UI can be used to manipulate.)
One can type on a console by accident, but mousing is more
prone to uncertainties. As David writes, you may not be
using the correct Alt/Shift/Ctrl/Command shift state when
you click. Meanwhile repeated confirmation dialogs are conducive
to mindless trance-clicking syndrome. There is also the
walking on eggshells effect, as with a complicated
spreadsheet, that a touch anywhere can mess things up.
Meanwhile bouncing up and down through menus and back and
forth from windows can lead to some amazingly random
actions.
I'll take the opportunity to tell you that for Nama[1], it was
important to me that the user be able to ask for what she wants
in a concise way, and be sure she gets what she askes for.
There is a lot of room for expressiveness in two or three
text tokens, especially when taken together with a "do" loop
as in shell commands. It is different from what is expressible in
two or three mouse clicks. Mousers end up having to type
anyway, however, mouseclicks can be very helpful in selecting and
interacting, as anyone who has explored inkscape, for
example, or google maps, will agree.
There is no "geometrical overhead" to a text interface. No
question "where was it?" More often "what is it called?"
Which quickly responds to a keyword search. Learning Ardour
involves knowing where something is, because the interface
covers a huge surface.
The main point for me is to have a concise, powerful language,
with every step that effects a project's sound stored under
version control, reviewable, reversible, taggable and branchable.
To simplify working on a Nama project you have a current bus,
current track, current effect, current parameter, current
edit, and you can issue commands for any of those type
without needing to identify the specific object. "vol + 3"
operates on the current track, is easy to type and
unmistakeable when typed at a text prompt that names the
current track. And I think the command is smart enough to
fade up smoothly.
If all you needs are buses and crossfades, effects and
mixing, Nama definitely can do that, tries to help you do
the right thing, includes automatic audio encoding for
mixdown files, mastering network, and other goodies such as
Patrick Shirkeys stereo to 5.1 converter.
Because Nama is a layer over Ecasound, and it is Kai's audio
engine that has provides all the configuration and
processing infrastructure and decades of development and
debugging, so that this developer is free to focus on the
command grammar, generation of the routing graph, fades,
inserts, and realtime control, which is very much cheaper,
altogether a much smaller codebase than a usual DAW. For
troubleshooting, there is the option to inspect the
routing network language of Ecasound config file
(unambiguous to read, quite demanding to write). One can
also inspect the JSON project file or select among numerous
logging options.
That design goes with being able to
know in advance sufficiently about what audio processing
you're going to get when you start the transport rolling.
With a GUI-centric design, you look at the blinkin lights to
know the representation of the audio network. Which is
a great, dense display. I'm pleased to supplement that with
commands that show everything in a few lines of text,
something that you could even print and review on paper.
Another idea is to avoid the risk of breaking something at
any stage in a project. That, after all, is what
"non-destructive" editing implies. Even a track that has
been "frozen" in Nama can be restored to its live state
(with the frozen state still selectable) without
disrupting the rest of the project.
Having reusable components, such as applying changes over
multiple tracks, or creating chains of effects and profiles
with effect chains associated with track names is another
way to avoid breakage caused by mistakes when one tries to
repeat a particular setup action.
If it's MIDI, probably you can get much more from the other DAWs,
unless you are a do-it-yourselfer. For mixing a few hours
a year, Nama does make Easy Things Easy(tm), IMO.
It is very prone to crashes and hangs when anything
with the transport
goes wrong, and it's not exactly trivial to restart transport.
I think the Ecasound transport is more forgiving, and easily
rebooted.
Its autosave does not just leave a recoverable state
but actually saves the
whole thing periodically as the current project, so if you don't know
whether you actually want to commit (or are pretty sure you don't) you
have to turn it off, or quitting without saving will leave you in some
unpredictable state.
It can be easier: with Nama, the user can tag the commits
she likes and can later load any tag.
I recently had a demonstration where the mics were
wired wrong and so
the two "stereo" channels I recorded on were mixed up. You think I
managed to split the tracks into mono in order to salvage two usable
tracks? No beef. I'd have had to do a stem export and reimport. Or
something. Didn't really fit in the demo time frame.
You can have a DAW and still use a swiss army knife for
special processing.
Handling marks (setting, moving them) is always hit
and miss.
Manipulating automation with the mouse is hit and miss. And so on.
It is hard. Maybe it can become easier.
Ardour is fine for making takes.
It's when you start editing that things get awful.
Well, depending on the type of editing, some of those are things
may be things that other DAWs are unable to do.
In Nama, the work with regions is relatively trouble free.
cheers,
Joel
1. Install from https://metacpan.org/release/Audio-Nama
(slightly dated) web page: https://freeshell.de/~bolangi/cgi1/nama.cgi/00home.html
--
David Kastrup
--
Joel Roth
20 Nov
20 Nov
5:13 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
I recently had a demonstration where the mics were
wired wrong and so
the two "stereo" channels I recorded on were mixed up. You think I
managed to split the tracks into mono in order to salvage two usable
tracks? No beef. I'd have had to do a stem export and reimport. Or
something. Didn't really fit in the demo time frame.
Hi, may I offer some technical perspective:
I'm no Ardour expert but I've studied a few areas in detail.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm curious if I've actually got this right.
With the MusE Sequencer, the 'splitting' you describe is easy.
The two halves of a stereo track can be further routed to any
other tracks, mono or stereo. In fact /any/ channels from any
track can be routed to any other track's channels individually.
How does MusE accomplish this, while Ardour seems to /enforce/
track channel routing compatibility?
For one reason only: The panner.
You see, MusE does not yet have /true/ multi-channel tracks
beyond 2 channels - except for synth tracks: we do support
all multi-channel synths.
(The extra channels of such a synth track can be routed elsewhere,
the first two are presented on a mixer strip. In other words,
we don't yet have multi-channel wave tracks so you can't just
take all the synth channels and route them to one wave track,
you must split them up and send to several wave tracks.)
Therefore, currently our 'panner' is just fine - it looks
the same whether for a mono or stereo track. MusE magically
manages to route all signals properly.
For example, if you route /two/ of a stereo track's output
channels to some other /mono/ track, while /also/ routing
those channels to some other /stereo/ track, MusE's panner
'just works' correctly, as a panner for the former and a
balance for the latter.
FYI: To ease user routing, instead of having to route individual
channels like that, we support a concept called 'omni routing'
where you just make /one/ connection from the source track to
the destination track and MusE automatically figures out how
to mix all those channels together - and most importantly
how to pan or balance - depending on the number of source
and destination channels. It also works for multi-channel
synth tracks - you can route all 16 channels of drumgizmo
into some other multi-channel plugin, with just one route.
Anyway I digress...
Full, true multi-channel tracks for MusE have been on my mind,
of course. And with that came a question:
Since we allow such 'free-form' channel-to-channel connections,
then how the heck would the panner work with multi-channels?
What panner will we show on each mixer strip?
You see, it's /impossible/ with a single all-purpose panner
like MusE currently has.
So that's why I believe Ardour enforces such routing
compatibility, because of the panner.
Am I right, or way off again?
Tim.
The MusE Sequencer project.
6:06 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On 11/19/2017 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
D'oh. Not true. Ardour's router can "route anything anywhere"
as they say.
It looks like that splitting operation should have been possible
with Ardour?
Tim.
I recently had
a demonstration where the mics were wired wrong and so
the two "stereo" channels I recorded on were mixed up. You think I
managed to split the tracks into mono in order to salvage two usable
tracks? No beef. I'd have had to do a stem export and reimport. Or
something. Didn't really fit in the demo time frame.
Hi, may I offer some technical perspective:
I'm no Ardour expert but I've studied a few areas in detail.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm curious if I've actually got this right.
With the MusE Sequencer, the 'splitting' you describe is easy.
The two halves of a stereo track can be further routed to any
other tracks, mono or stereo. In fact /any/ channels from any
track can be routed to any other track's channels individually.
How does MusE accomplish this, while Ardour seems to /enforce/
track channel routing compatibility? For one reason only: The panner.
You see, MusE does not yet have /true/ multi-channel tracks
beyond 2 channels - except for synth tracks: we do support
all multi-channel synths.
(The extra channels of such a synth track can be routed elsewhere,
the first two are presented on a mixer strip. In other words,
we don't yet have multi-channel wave tracks so you can't just
take all the synth channels and route them to one wave track,
you must split them up and send to several wave tracks.)
Therefore, currently our 'panner' is just fine - it looks
the same whether for a mono or stereo track. MusE magically
manages to route all signals properly.
For example, if you route /two/ of a stereo track's output
channels to some other /mono/ track, while /also/ routing
those channels to some other /stereo/ track, MusE's panner
'just works' correctly, as a panner for the former and a
balance for the latter.
FYI: To ease user routing, instead of having to route individual
channels like that, we support a concept called 'omni routing'
where you just make /one/ connection from the source track to
the destination track and MusE automatically figures out how
to mix all those channels together - and most importantly
how to pan or balance - depending on the number of source
and destination channels. It also works for multi-channel
synth tracks - you can route all 16 channels of drumgizmo
into some other multi-channel plugin, with just one route.
Anyway I digress...
Full, true multi-channel tracks for MusE have been on my mind,
of course. And with that came a question:
Since we allow such 'free-form' channel-to-channel connections,
then how the heck would the panner work with multi-channels?
What panner will we show on each mixer strip?
You see, it's /impossible/ with a single all-purpose panner
like MusE currently has.
So that's why I believe Ardour enforces such routing
compatibility, because of the panner.
Am I right, or way off again?
Tim.
The MusE Sequencer project.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
11:03 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Tim <termtech-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA(a)public.gmane.org> writes:
On 11/19/2017 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
D'oh. Not true. Ardour's router can "route anything anywhere"
as they say.
It looks like that splitting operation should have been possible
with Ardour?
Oh, there are several ways in which it would have been doable. Just
none hitting me in the face.
You could have created busses to route this over, keeping the original
tracks intact (probably using balance to compensate for wrong gain
settings) and then working on the busses.
You could have used (this region)/edit/make mono to create mono regions
which you could then have copied to new tracks. You could have edited
the region properties to swap the files used for the regions (the
channels of a stereo track are placed in different files).
After mulling this over with the list for a few hours and cross-checking
with Ardour, there were several feasible possibilities to fix this and
go ahead.
However, I was under time pressure and performance pressure and the
problem was a new one for me. Possible solutions were not obvious
enough to be available to me in that situation.
Which brings us back to another thread's motivation: sometimes having
pre-rolled limited functionality covering a solid bout of ground works
better for a user in a particular situation than being able to derive
anything under the sky.
--
David Kastrup
I
recently had a demonstration where the mics were wired wrong and so
the two "stereo" channels I recorded on were mixed up. You think I
managed to split the tracks into mono in order to salvage two usable
tracks? No beef. I'd have had to do a stem export and reimport. Or
something. Didn't really fit in the demo time frame.
Hi, may I offer some technical perspective:
I'm no Ardour expert but I've studied a few areas in detail.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm curious if I've actually got this right.
With the MusE Sequencer, the 'splitting' you describe is easy.
The two halves of a stereo track can be further routed to any
other tracks, mono or stereo. In fact /any/ channels from any
track can be routed to any other track's channels individually.
How does MusE accomplish this, while Ardour seems to /enforce/
track channel routing compatibility?
17 Nov
17 Nov
5:53 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:44:42 -0500, David Santamauro wrote:
On 11/16/2017 01:46 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
left brain half vs right brain half, hence the dancer animation
IMO Ardours user interface is completely ignoring
the way most
creative people think, at least when being creative. It's possible
for everybody
Ok, I'll bite (although every time I respond to you I feel like I'm
being trolled): How in the world can you drop a blanket statement
assuming to understand how "most" creative people think, or what they
like, or how they manage their work flow, or how they'll view a gif of
a dancing something or another ... or what their preferred whatever is
...? -- the answer is: you can't. Unless you have done some serious polling of a large
enough set of
people who have some sort of proven creativity, what you say above is
complete horse shit. If by chance you have conducted such a poll,
please show the results from the question: "While in the throes of
creativity, does Ardour's user interface completely ignore how you
think?"
neuroscience
6:55 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:44:42 -0500, David Santamauro wrote:
jeeez ...
Are you aware that a lot of artists are left-hander, dyslexic etc.? Are
you aware that if humans do different things or just think about
different things, that they are using different parts of the brain? The
way somebody thinks, when making music usually is different, than when
doing less creative work.
7:26 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Are you aware that a lot of artists are left-hander,
dyslexic etc.? Are
Guess I am in the right palce then...
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
8:16 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:26:42 -0800 (PST), Len Ovens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
If you should be unable to see the dancer dancing counter clockwise,
too, at 3:22 there is an optical help. I'm dyslexic and only saw her
dancing clockwise, but this helped me to see her dancing
counter clockwise, even after a rewind to the original animation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CEr2GfGilw
"Nay2D2
8 months ago
as a university pychology student I hate the title because a person
isn't "right brained" or "left brained" it's much more
complicated than
that and a person doesn't just rely on one side based on random events
naturally"
;)
However,it has got influence on what GUI is pleasant for us, for
what kind of work, if we don't use the GUI on a regular basis.
Are you aware that a lot of artists are
left-hander, dyslexic etc.?
Are
Guess I am in the right palce then... 
8:20 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Sometimes there is valuable discussion and advice on this list, but
noise like this makes me think about unsubscribing. It's okay if someone
is *wrong* on the Internet. Really.
https://www.xkcd.com/386/
I wish I could unsubscribe from individual threads, but such modern
conveniences are not available with this ancient technology of email lists.
On 11/16/2017 06:35 AM, Kjetil Matheussen wrote:
James Harkins:
Asking which DAWs are good, especially for mixing, audio editing and
stability.
I'm not a heavy DAW user. Most of my work is electronic music live
performance with SuperCollider. Because my usage is rare, I've shied
away
from Bitwig, and even Ardour. I use SuperCollider a lot, and I pay
for it
by answering support questions and contributing. I don't want to pay
money
for something I'll use, oh, maybe 10-15 hours in a whole year.
I've had bad experiences with qtractor crashing.
Never used the non- suite.
I installed Rosegarden at one point, but never kicked the tires for
audio.
Did I miss anything?
I found Ardour a lot more intuitive and easy to use than reaper or
audacity (which I recently compared it against:
https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6828874#p6828874)
But of the big ones, you missed muse: http://muse-sequencer.org/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
8:25 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 01:20:05 -0600, Be wrote:
I wish I could unsubscribe from individual threads, but
such modern
conveniences are not available with this ancient technology of email
lists.
A filter by thread and/or subject is available by most, if not all
modern mail clients and mail web interfaces, so there's no need to
double this feature by mailman mailing lists.
8:28 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
Thanks for the tip. I didn't realize that was there in Thunderbird's
large right click context menu.
On 11/17/2017 01:25 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 01:20:05 -0600, Be wrote:
I wish I could unsubscribe from individual
threads, but such modern
conveniences are not available with this ancient technology of email
lists.
A filter by thread and/or subject is available by most, if not all
modern mail clients and mail web interfaces, so there's no need to
double this feature by mailman mailing lists.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
9:04 a.m.
New subject: FOSS DAW recommendations
On 11/16/2017 06:35 AM, Kjetil Matheussen wrote:
> James Harkins:
>
> But of the big ones, you missed muse: http://muse-sequencer.org/
FWIW, I had never heard of that, so I went to check their site. Looks
like no news there since 9/29/2016.
Checked Debian Testing repository and it's not listed. Musescore is, but
no Muse Sequencer.
--
David W. Jones
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com
2561
days inactive
2565
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
66 comments
18 participants
participants (18)
-
Be -
david -
David Kastrup -
David Santamauro -
David W. Jones
-
Fons Adriaensen -
Hank Stanglow -
Joel Roth -
jonetsu -
Kjetil Matheussen -
Len Ovens -
Lorenzo Sutton -
Paul Davis -
Ralf Mardorf -
Robert Edge -
Robin Gareus -
Thorsten Wilms -
Tim