[Ardour-Users] a few thoughts
au2 at jrigg.co.uk
Mon Dec 3 02:44:11 PST 2012
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 04:05:41PM -0500, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2012, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
>> 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.
> Just one example:
> I think the folks that develop for Midas' digital mixers (under the
> hood/bonnet, they're running Linux) would disagree with your eye-candy
> argument, but to each his or her own :) Their interfaces tend to be
> 'clean' because that's what their customers want.
Yes. As someone who has used a lot of Midas analogue hardware in the past
I think they chose the right direction for their digital stuff.
> If other developers/vendors find that their customers want nifty-looking
> plugins, so be it.
> I would much rather use a plain-looking plugin that sounds good and does
> what I need it to do than a flashy-looking plugin with the same
> capabilities. By 'plain-looking', I mean it has working meters, faders,
> read-outs and other things that show me what the plugin is doing.
> That having been said, I think there is a place for plugins that look
> like a piece of physical gear. It if helps someone who came up in the
> analog world be more comfortable working digitally, or makes their
> workflow more efficient, I don't see that as anything but a plus.
I learned to record on analogue gear, but I often find the arbitrary
restrictions on parameter ranges in digital stuff to be annoying.
Hardware was the way it was due to technical limitations and the need to
keep everything ergonomically efficient. It's frustrating to find the
same limitations applied to many plugins just to keep them "authentic".
Each to his/her own though. It's good to have a choice.
More information about the Ardour-Users