> This would suggest dropping audio from Rosegarden though.. would it be
> wrong to say that now-a-days audio is there in Rosegarden more for
> reasons than real users' needs?
Actually, I would like to see the audio support in Rosegarden IMPROVED,
never removed. Okay, Ardour seems to be a major preference for audio
recording. But I have been trying to use it for some home recordings
and, man, it's a pain in the ass. Of course it has its good merits, like
complete JACK interconnection, in/out realtime effects, etc etc. But
while it may be familiar for people who is used to Cubase and other
similar apps, I found that editing tracks in Ardour is strange,
unfriendly, counter-intuitive. I remember that when I started using
Rosegarden some years ago, I had a little bit of problems with the
"studio setup" (or something named like that), sound was usually too
low, and I'd have some hard time for mixing all the tracks into one for
creating an MP3. But editing at general was really easy,
straight-forward, natural. Plus, it crashed much less than Ardour.
Only now I could see that Debian finally included Rosegarden 10 in its
unstable repository, so I will give it a try in my studio's PC. I hope
it has better audio support than it had in the past (in spite of all the
attentions turned to the notation features) . But even if it doesn't, I
am sure to use Rosegarden for my next recordings. Ardour may be a great
software, or it would not be so popular; but it ain't friend of mine.
Thanks for all the replies guys, they were interesting. (esp. Chris'
@Michael M: I hope you didn't take my initial question the wrong way. I
didn't mean to "you guys should.." but rather "what's your opinion
about..". Now those opinions are out in the open and it's good to see
when developers have a clear (and well-funded) view of how things