From: Mark K. <mar...@at...> - 2002-12-31 14:35:25
|
On Mon, 2002-12-30 at 23:11, Silvan wrote: > On Monday 30 December 2002 08:15 am, Richard Bown wrote: > > > kind of stuff and ardour does come across as just too fussy - mind you > > I never got anywhere with Protools either, just an application that's > > not to my taste. > > I feel the same way. I used it for a couple of projects, because it was what > I had, but I found it really difficult to use. I'm pretty much in the same > boat you are WRT Adour. Difficult to use, and didn't run long enough to even > begin to try to figure out how to use it... I like the potential for where > RG could go in this area. Definitely more my speed. > I may be the odd man out here, but it's sort of hard for me to imagine going forward with an audio tool that doesn't offer the features that Pro Tools offers, and more actually. Pro Tools doesn't have a lot of fluff. I agree it's interface could probably be a bit smoother at times, but once you learn it, using it is like second nature. I tool Rosegarden MIDI to Pro Tools last evening and built a session in 3 minutes. It literally took me longer to reconfigure the ADAT cables to get sound than it did to build the session and get ready to record. It's very much like a hardware mixer. You just have a given number of buses under the hood. You hook the outputs of the tracks to those buses and create sub-master and master faders to get the sound out. Nothing more. (Unfortunately!) I know a lot of people get confused with sends on Pro Tools. Ardour is worse allowing pre and post fader sends AND pre and post fader inserts! Take that and couple it with the idea that you can hook anything anywhere (Like a prefader send on a horn to a post fader insert on a snare!) and it's a recipe for real confusion! [STEPPING UP] Speaking out, I'd really like to see Rosegarden to look very much like a Neve (or pick your favorite brand) hardware mix console. No processing on the mixer strips. Leave all of that to plugins. All recorded audio is exactly as it appears on the physical input. (Just like Pro Tools.) Have a fixed number of submasters built in, maybe 8, just like a hardware console. Possibly make it a configuration setting how many to have. Have a couple of stereo Master fader strips. (Post fader plugins for dither.) Just support stereo. I'll go to Ardour for all of my 17.5 mix-downs, but I'll work in Rosegarden day in and day out doing 99.9% of my work. Come up with an good idea for handling headphone mixing as a FORETHOUGHT, not as an after thought. This is critically important. None of the tools today have a really easy process to use headphones on different parts of the mix, like hitting one button and monitoring the drum mix only, or sending different mixes to different musicians in a studio setting. It's VERY important to support as many tracks as a platform's hardware can deal with. Yes used over 200 tracks doing Magnification on Pro Tools. Along these lines, be prepared to design and support two physical representations of a mixer strip. A wide one for new users that use 4 stereo tracks, and a very narrow one for fools like me that routinely get up to 30-40 tracks audio tracks along with 10-20 MIDI and need (or jsut want) to see that all on-screen at the same time. Represent MIDI tracks along with audio tracks in the mixer, like Pro Tools, for automation purposes. Pick an internal data structure for moving and mixing audio that give headroom and future expandability, like a 32-bit float. (I'm a hardware guy. We're not meaningfully going beyond 24-bit A/D in hardware for a long time to come. This gets you the basics in a generally fixed format mixer. Then we get to deal with the interesting stuff like automation! ;-) [STEPPING DOWN] How's that. Ya go me all riled up at 6AM! ;-) |