ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net
Tue Aug 31 06:23:13 PDT 2010
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 12:02 +0000, John Rigg wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:44:42AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> > Well, it is easy: take a look at a studio built in hardware. If I want
> > to do anything with some gadget, I touch it and plug it where I want to
> > have it.
> I doubt if you'd find that with a multitrack tape machine or the
> automation system on a large mixing console. Both require prior
> knowledge to operate. These are what a DAW is meant to replace.
You might have noticed that I didn't reply to any mail to this thread to
the list and btw. not off-list too.
Just one note now and I'll be quit again.
The stand-alone-devices, especially the pure analog stand-alone-devices
can't be compared with any kind of software.
Once somebody learnt to be an audio engineer (s)he will be able to
handle any mixing console and standard equipment, such as compressors,
EQs, gates etc. and of course a tape recorder especially for the analog
I nearly did work 30 years in professional audio engineering + home
recording for around the same time and I'm just 43, nearly 44 years old.
I was around 16 years old when I started working as a professional.
There's no software I know, that is as easy to use, while supporting
anything that's needed, as done by studios using analog and some digital
Regarding to the easy usage I don't know any DAW that is able to replace
a good old studio with stand-alone-devices. I know that DAWs are most of
the times used by such studios too, with a hand full off well known
DAWs. Some DAWs are more and others are less near to the good old
When going from one studio using stand-alone-devices to the other it's
easy to use the other studio. When changing from one DAW to another it's
hard to keep a pleasant workflow.
IMO there's no DAW as easy to use as an old studio and I grow up with
computers for audio work, because I started in the 80ies.
So no, a DAW is an additional tool, but can't replace an old studio, it
has to do this sometimes, especially for home recording.
Ardour and some other DAWs have all their own advantages and
disadvantages, but they all are less good to handle as equipment in an
old studio. If they are meant to replace 'a multitrack tape machine or
the automation system on a large mixing console' they should do better.
But I guess it could be an advantage by DAWs that they do it different
to old studios, because different DAWs could add features for different
needs and different workflows.
I don't think 'most it is wanted that way or this way' isn't a good
argument, Ardour of course isn't one of the 'most' used DAWs, that
doesn't mean that the 'most' used are the better once, nor that they are
The long and the short of it:
"I doubt if you'd find that with a multitrack tape machine or the
automation system on a large mixing console. Both require prior
knowledge to operate. These are what a DAW is meant to replace."
I would like to know such a DAW. In the meantime I'll use different DAWs
by trial and error and always hate it, that I forget how I need to
handle DAW A, when I used DAW B for a while, because DAW B does fit
better to some needs, while DAW A fit better to other needs.
When going from one old studio to the other there isn't such an issue.
More information about the Ardour-Users