[Ardour-Users] Ardour-Users Digest, Vol 107, Issue 2
Adriano Petrosillo
ampetrosillo at gmail.com
Sun Dec 2 12:52:52 PST 2012
tl;dr! :D
I think nobody really gets what I'm trying to say.
I'm not about FORCING people to use plugins with interfaces (plus, I wasn't
referring to the gimmick-y and garish GUIs very common in today's audio
world), and I don't agree on DAWs having to look "creatively inspiring", or
at least, I wouldn't put it that way.
Bear with me for a moment: I totally get Paul Davis's philosophy behind
Ardour, I understand the kind of tool he is trying to create, and I
understand that, of course, he started writing Ardour for his own needs.
That's fine.
It's just that I don't think this approach is still relevant today. Let me
explain: in the good old days, being an audio engineer meant having to
wrestle with tapes and consoles, then when the first digital multitrack
systems were devised, they looked a lot like this:
http://myweb.lmu.edu/rpardee/PT/GIFS/0109.gif
And, of course, audio engineering was somewhat restricted to professionals
or to people willing to become one. People were used to working in a
certain way, with computer applications being as basic as possible in order
to save precious CPU cycles and pixels (and, by the way, digital multitrack
systems were simple recorders which relied on outboards for sound sculpting
anyway). The simple fact that digital multitracking was way more flexible
than traditional was the greatest "luxury", and people were willing to
adapt. Then computers and audio interfaces became better and cheaper,
software became more stable, and DJs and musicians stopped using their MPCs
and hardware sequencers and turned to software, using either Cubase, Logic,
ProTools, or whatever.
Today's professionals will learn their trade on THIS kind of software,
software which, more or less, comes with bells and whistles, refined
interfaces, and etc.
Yes, yes, use your ears, not your eyes, and substance is more important
than style, but we can't deny that most future audio engineers are
accustomed to seeing dials, meters, lights flashing and whatsoever. And
that's what it used to be like in the good old days anyway, you had tons of
rackmount units with real vu-meters, real dials, real LEDs. Many people
don't understand that GUIs are there for a reason: sometimes interfaces
aren't a mere question of form, but they're closely related to function
too. After all, you could say that you don't really need meters on the
mixer, you only need clipping indicators and trust your ears, but those
meters are there for a reason: visual cues allow the engineer to relax and
concentrate only on what he really needs.
It is frustrating, sometimes, tweaking a compressor without knowing if it
is actually working or not, and if an audio engineer has structured his
workflow, over the years, using tools which do offer visual cues, taking
them off him is counter-productive, because he will feel uneasy and
disoriented.
But apart from this, we must consider that, in this day and age, user
experience IS important. It's not like it used to be, where you only used
computers at work, computers are used for everything nowadays, and we spend
lots of time on it. I'm far from being an Apple fan, but there is a lesson
to be learned from them, and it's all about making the user feel
comfortable, with interfaces which feel natural, organic, precise and with
attention to detail. Using Macs make you feel like everything is just how
and where it should be (although you might dislike the underlying mechanics
and paradigm, like I do), and in fact, Windows and Linux UIs have really
improved over the years (that's what competition does to you).
Nowadays, there are usability experts who study and work on how to make
users feel comfortable operating their electronic devices, and the whole
smartphone wars is about making interfaces smoother, more intuitive, AND
more powerful. Now, I like the potential flexibility of Ardour, and I can't
wait to try its MIDI implementation, as it's a basic requirement for me,
and I know that Ardour is certainly powerful... but many times, you have to
battle against it, against its unintuitive interface, dull colour scheme,
disjointed feel (it always feels a bit like a combination of tools, rather
than one integrated workspace). It seems to me, though, that there are very
polarized opinions on this: on one side, you have purists who see any
concession to "modernity" and mainstream aesthetics as counter-productive,
bloat, etc. on the other side, you have people who need visual bling and
shiny interfaces*. I think the truth lies in the middle: I would never want
Ardour's interface to move towards Ableton-like aesthetics (which I find
garish and distracting), I actually prefer the more "serious" look of
Ardour (for example, in Reaper, I actually use the Classic skin as I find
the modern 4.x skin distracting), but I think a few steps towards a more
modern interface wouldn't hurt, and for example, I think Reaper's Classic
GUI manages to combine function and integration quite well.
You don't even need much, sometimes just using icons, adding simple
functions (eg. why did it take so long for Ardour to add a track phase
inversion button? And what about adding a mono-stereo toggle on the master
track to check for phasing?), making UI elements "sleeker", using delicate
shading and gradients, a better choice of fonts and colours, plugins with
interfaces you can "read" with a simple glance, yet mantaining consistency
between them, or maybe even user-defined editable track templates which
feature colours, separators, knobs and sliders hardwired to specific
functions in specific plugins (making it possible to add console-like
channel strips in the mixer: when you have internal effects, it is
something you can actually do, because you don't have to worry about having
so and so plugin installed, making projects easy to move around)... you
know, those few little tasteful touches which make the difference, and
which you don't even HAVE to use (in the end, it's all about front-ends...
the back-end stays the same, if you prefer "classic" Ardour you could
always choose to revert to a traditional Ardour GUI, after all, Reaper does
it). Open source is all about choice and customization, in the end, it's
hard to see how these little touches can hurt the project. Seeing that it's
also donation-funded, appealing to a vaster audience doesn't seem to be too
bad, doesn't it?** :)
* : one example how NOT to make interfaces, for example, is KDE: it WANTS
to be modern, but it tries too hard, and in the end it's just cheap-looking
and kitsch. Or also Compiz effects, and its ridiculous wobbly windows. When
I say modern, I refer to subtlety, attention to detail, taste... being
music producers, we all know the difference between a light chorus effect
or verb, and corny, awkward, amateurish usage of effects.
** : I don't believe that "the market is always right", and that you should
blindly cave in to market pressure... but it is true that, statistically,
most people, regardless of cost, will probably choose Logic, or Cubase, or
Sampletude (which by the way overhauled its clumsy GUI, which was regarded
one of its weak points... I don't think they have quite got it yet, but
there is a lesson to be learned) over Ardour, and there must be a reason,
they can't all be wrong ;)
2012/12/2 <ardour-users-request at lists.ardour.org>
> Send Ardour-Users mailing list submissions to
> ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ardour-users-request at lists.ardour.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ardour-users-owner at lists.ardour.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Ardour-Users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. a few thoughts (Adriano Petrosillo)
> 2. Re: a few thoughts (John Rigg)
> 3. Re: a few thoughts (Polosson)
> 4. Re: a few thoughts (Al Thompson)
> 5. Re: a few thoughts (Gordon JC Pearce)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 18:05:58 +0100
> From: Adriano Petrosillo <ampetrosillo at gmail.com>
> To: ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> Subject: [Ardour-Users] a few thoughts
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAG0n5-BPBe7BAyRTqfgMLU9y+UdOF+4OP3QJkMoCiBh-cbJdeQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I've been following Ardour development for a few years now. I remember
> trying to use it, for the first time, 2 years ago for a demo project, then
> the lack of MIDI (I'm in an electro-rock band) forced me to look elsewhere,
> even though I really wanted to like and use Ardour.
>
> In the end, I moved on to Reaper on Windows, which I must say, it's a very
> capable piece of software. The GUI is clear and no-nonsense, yet
> functional, routing is easy and powerful, and their idea of flexible tracks
> (as opposed to separating tracks from buses) is great. In the meantime, I
> must say that I really started to appreciate the plethora of plugins
> available on Windows (even though, it must be said, there are countless
> "me-too" plugins which basically do the same thing, and lots of crap and
> bloat, really... but it's nice to have the choice), which sadly just isn't
> there on Linux. But, at the same time, I have had to come to terms with the
> instability of plugins (or maybe just the poor compatibility some plugins
> have with Reaper), up to the point that a project had become unusable
> because of plugin-related crashes. So, you eventually narrow down your
> plugin choices to a select few, because let's face it, you don't really
> need 5 tape simulators, 10 compressors, 15 plugin EQs, etc. but you only
> need 1, 2, or maybe three of each (reverbs are another story, IMO, there is
> a large difference between algorithmic verbs and convolution verbs, and
> while you only need one convolution verb to use with a collection of room
> samples, there is actually a difference between verb algorithms that
> justifies having more than one).
>
> So in the end, I'm trying to move away from Reaper and moving towards an
> "all-in-one" solution, with plugins featured in the DAW itself. I assume
> that internal FXs and plugs are generally coded to work with one specific
> DAW, while VST or AU plugs have to adapt to a variety of DAWs that may or
> may not comply with specifications and implementations of the plugin
> libraries, or maybe they are simply badly coded or encumbered by
> copy-protection, dongles and so on. Samplitude, for example, or Cubase seem
> like a sensible choice. Samplitude in particular is shipped with a diverse
> selection of very good plugins which allow you to start a project and
> bounce it for mastering without having to ever rely on anything else (or
> close), and Cubase 7, it seems, will be the same, with the advantage of
> coming with a few synthesizers and samplers too.
>
> I'd consider Ardour too, but in light of my conclusions, I feel that I'd
> prefer for Ardour to ship with a standard set of plugins that get you going
> straight away, without having to rely on third party software. I know this
> is against the philosophy behind the development of Ardour, and that it
> goes against, in general, the Unix paradigm of software development (where
> each programme or application is intended to carry out one specific task),
> but I think that, for example, Harrison Mixbus proved that it is a viable
> and effective approach. I also understand that the team behind Ardour may
> or may not be familiar with DSP coding, but maybe finding a few developers
> to integrate high-quality, production-grade third-party plugins in the
> Ardour GUI (with "bells and whistles", such as true graphical elements and
> a bespoke intuitive interface, with true feedback, such as indicators,
> gauges and meters, and consistency with the Ardour look and feel... and
> which negate the need for searching further) and providing them as an
> optional package may be a very good incentive for people who, like me, are
> forced in their current workflow to rely on third-party plugins, who don't
> want to compromise on quality, but at the same time is tired of realising,
> after hours of work, that one particular plugin, in some circumstances,
> breaks the DAW.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.ardour.org/private.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org/attachments/20121202/07d4c7d8/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 18:15:46 +0000
> From: John Rigg <au2 at jrigg.co.uk>
> To: ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> Subject: Re: [Ardour-Users] a few thoughts
> Message-ID: <20121202181546.GA2625 at localhost0.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 06:05:58PM +0100, Adriano Petrosillo wrote:
> > I've been following Ardour development for a few years now. I remember
> > trying to use it, for the first time, 2 years ago for a demo project,
> then
> > the lack of MIDI (I'm in an electro-rock band) forced me to look
> elsewhere,
> > even though I really wanted to like and use Ardour.
> >
> > In the end, I moved on to Reaper on Windows, which I must say, it's a
> very
> > capable piece of software. The GUI is clear and no-nonsense, yet
> > functional, routing is easy and powerful, and their idea of flexible
> tracks
> > (as opposed to separating tracks from buses) is great. In the meantime, I
> > must say that I really started to appreciate the plethora of plugins
> > available on Windows (even though, it must be said, there are countless
> > "me-too" plugins which basically do the same thing, and lots of crap and
> > bloat, really... but it's nice to have the choice), which sadly just
> isn't
> > there on Linux.
>
> There are fewer plugin choices on Linux, but in the nearly 7 years that
> I've
> been using Ardour the situation has improved considerably. There is still a
> shortage of plugins that emulate analog non-linearity for those who like
> plugin equivalents of specific hardware devices. I wanted a non-aliasing
> transformer distortion emulator for example, but ended up writing my own.
> The other thing I miss is a good drum replacement program. Apart from that
> I've found enough plugins to cover my requirements.
>
> I personally find the lack of fancy graphic interfaces on most of the
> available LADSPA and LV2 plugins to be a positive advantage. I just want it
> to work, preferably without too many arbitrary restrictions on parameter
> ranges, and without the added distraction of pretty pictures which do
> nothing
> to enhance the sound but do consume screen space that could be put to
> better
> use (I realise I'm probably in a minority here).
>
> John
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 19:22:05 +0100
> From: Polosson <polo at citadelrock.fr>
> To: ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> Subject: Re: [Ardour-Users] a few thoughts
> Message-ID: <50BB9C4D.7000700 at citadelrock.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> Le 02/12/2012 19:15, John Rigg a ?crit :
> > There are fewer plugin choices on Linux, but in the nearly 7 years that
> I've
> > been using Ardour the situation has improved considerably. There is
> still a
> > shortage of plugins that emulate analog non-linearity for those who like
> > plugin equivalents of specific hardware devices. I wanted a non-aliasing
> > transformer distortion emulator for example, but ended up writing my own.
> > The other thing I miss is a good drum replacement program. Apart from
> that
> > I've found enough plugins to cover my requirements.
> >
> > I personally find the lack of fancy graphic interfaces on most of the
> > available LADSPA and LV2 plugins to be a positive advantage. I just want
> it
> > to work, preferably without too many arbitrary restrictions on parameter
> > ranges, and without the added distraction of pretty pictures which do
> nothing
> > to enhance the sound but do consume screen space that could be put to
> better
> > use (I realise I'm probably in a minority here).
> >
> > John
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ardour-Users mailing list
> > ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> > http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org
> >
>
> Yeah I totally agree with John, the simple UI of most LADSPA or LV2
> plugins can be a good thing, because it forces the listening with EARS
> and not EYES... :P
> Too many people put their trust in what they see, not what they hear,
> and the result can be seriously affected.
> .Polo
>
> --
> Polosson, ing?nieur du son et web-d?veloppeur <http://www.polosson.com>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.ardour.org/private.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org/attachments/20121202/ceb69def/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 13:42:18 -0500
> From: Al Thompson <althompson58 at gmail.com>
> To: ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> Subject: Re: [Ardour-Users] a few thoughts
> Message-ID: <50BBA10A.4090608 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 12/02/2012 01:22 PM, Polosson wrote:
> > Le 02/12/2012 19:15, John Rigg a ?crit :
> >> There are fewer plugin choices on Linux, but in the nearly 7 years that
> I've
> >> been using Ardour the situation has improved considerably. There is
> still a
> >> shortage of plugins that emulate analog non-linearity for those who like
> >> plugin equivalents of specific hardware devices. I wanted a non-aliasing
> >> transformer distortion emulator for example, but ended up writing my
> own.
> >> The other thing I miss is a good drum replacement program. Apart from
> that
> >> I've found enough plugins to cover my requirements.
> >>
> >> I personally find the lack of fancy graphic interfaces on most of the
> >> available LADSPA and LV2 plugins to be a positive advantage. I just
> want it
> >> to work, preferably without too many arbitrary restrictions on parameter
> >> ranges, and without the added distraction of pretty pictures which do
> nothing
> >> to enhance the sound but do consume screen space that could be put to
> better
> >> use (I realise I'm probably in a minority here).
> >>
> >> John
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >
> > Yeah I totally agree with John, the simple UI of most LADSPA or LV2
> > plugins can be a good thing, because it forces the listening with EARS
> > and not EYES... :P
> > Too many people put their trust in what they see, not what they hear,
> > and the result can be seriously affected.
> > .Polo
> >
>
> I agree 100% with this. Plus, the extra CPU power required to drive
> multiple plugin GUIs severely stresses a machine, when that horsepower
> could be much better used to do useful things.
>
>
> --
> ---
> My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
>
> http://www.lateralforce.com
>
>
> My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
> mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
> http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
>
>
> Staat hei?t das k?lteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt l?gt es auch;
> und diese L?ge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
> - [Friedrich Nietzsche]
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.ardour.org/private.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org/attachments/20121202/550a0647/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 18:51:55 +0000
> From: Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp at gjcp.net>
> To: ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> Subject: Re: [Ardour-Users] a few thoughts
> Message-ID: <50BBA34B.6030305 at gjcp.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 02/12/12 18:42, Al Thompson wrote:
>
> > I agree 100% with this. Plus, the extra CPU power required to drive
> > multiple plugin GUIs severely stresses a machine, when that horsepower
> > could be much better used to do useful things.
>
> Bullshit. Plugins with "complex" GUI interfaces use just about the same
> amount of CPU power as the ones with "simple" interfaces.
>
> I don't want to use audio software that looks like a spreadsheet.
> Computers are unmusical enough, without making "creative" software look
> the same as doing your tax returns.
>
> --
> Gordonjcp
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ardour-Users mailing list
> ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org
>
>
> End of Ardour-Users Digest, Vol 107, Issue 2
> ********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ardour.org/private.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org/attachments/20121202/042689b1/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Ardour-Users
mailing list