[Ardour-Users] Hm...

Ralf Mardorf ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net
Tue Aug 31 11:20:40 PDT 2010

On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 18:24 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> John Emmas <johne53 at tiscali.co.uk> writes:
> > On 31 Aug 2010, at 16:35, Paul Davis wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:23 AM, David Kastrup <dak at gnu.org> wrote:
> >>> Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com> writes:
> >>> 
> >>>> Again, I ask the question: have you ever used any DAW before trying
> >>>> Ardour?
> >>> 
> >>> Nope, just hardware.  Shouldn't it be an advantage that my expectations
> >>> have not been watered down already by programs worse than Ardour?
> >> 
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> The real point is whether you understand the difference between a DAW
> >> and an audio file editor.
> >> 
> >
> > Or more correctly, whether he understands why he shouldn't be drawing
> > comparisons between a DAW and conventional studio hardware.
> >
> > David - as Ralf pointed out, your comparisons are nonsensical.  Most
> > hardware devices perform a very small number of functions (often just
> > one).
> You mean, a typical hardware studio offers good modularity, a DAW by
> necessity not?

No. For a DAW there's the problem how to handle the modularity, that's
why I recommended off-list to take a look at different DAWs, e.g.
Qtractor and Rosegarden are including a HD recorder and Reaper does it
too. Also testing some of the most used proprietary DAWs would explain
some issues.
Not only all the studio hardware is expensive itself, but does need a
lot of room. There isn't such room for the DAW using one or two screens.
It might be possible to get a virtual studio for vr glasses and data
gloves, but they would be very unpleasant when playing a violin.
Cutting a tape with a knife is very comfortable, at least a jog wheel
could add this real comfort to a DAW too and there are remote controls,
some are less expensive and can be used with a lot of DAWs,

DAWs are missing a lot of the tactile advantages from the real world, so
learning is harder to do for this virtual world, because tactile
experiences makes the learning easier.

I always prefer a "real" mixing console to any virtual, just because of
the tactile 'feedback', OTOH around two weeks ago all trim
potentiometers for the mixer of a friend were dirty or broken and it was
hard to do adjust the pre fader levels.

DAWs often are a PITA, but they also do have some advantages. Shipment,
at least a laptop, is not only smaller than a Neve, but also as e.g. my
Behringer Mackie clone + a multi-track device. If you e.g. need a Neve,
for what reasons ever, you need to get a van, e.g. a broadcasting van
and even the Behringer and Mackie studio still needs a Volkswagen Type

The problem is to get the Volkswagen studio to one screen or two screens
around 1024x786. Than two learn how to use this design without tactile
'feedback' (don't know how to say on English).

IMO this is the reason why a DAW could suck sometimes. A manual would be
a help, but can't solve such issues, another design could be a help
sometimes, a reason to test several DAWs. Most common DAWs might have
not the best design, but could be more familiar.

All DAWs, Ardour too, should become more comfortable and I guess they
will become better and better all the time. Big steps aren't wanted by
people who like the design of the DAW they prefer, because they don't
want to learn with each upgrade how to use it with a completely new
design. I still remember how annoying it was, when for GIMP there was
just a change for the grid.

More information about the Ardour-Users mailing list