[Ardour-Users] a few thoughts

Adriano Petrosillo ampetrosillo at gmail.com
Tue Dec 4 09:56:30 PST 2012

2012/12/4 Thomas Vecchione <seablaede at gmail.com>

> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Adriano Petrosillo <
> ampetrosillo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It is still potentially "limiting", it's more of a theorical aspect
>> rather than a practical one: you still have to conform to Harrison's idea
>> of a console. What if I wanted 16 mix busses (I know, 8 is overkill
>> already, you can do most things with 4 busses, but why deny me the
>> opportunity)? Plus, I said I like the integrated approach, and I think it's
>> great to have integrated processors and FX to start from, but my pledge was
>> for more customisability, what if I wanted to make my own templates, using
>> PSP's VintageWarmer2 as a saturator instead of Harrison's DSP, for example?
>> I think this is an area where the potential openness of a project like
>> Ardour can chime in (although I can't wait for Mixbus to be ported to
>> Ardour 3...)
> Harrison Mixbus has 8 Mixbusses, but you can have any number of standard
> busses just like you can in Ardour.  The primary differences are that they
> use the smae DSP as the tracks, not the mixbusses(So no tape sat, a more
> defined EQ, etc.) and that there is no latency compensation just like in
> Ardour.
> Really it sounds like you haven't done enough research to be stating what
> you are stating.

If you read again, you'll find I was referring to MIX busses, not standard
tracks (and I actually said that standard tracks are unlimited).

> Tough, it still equates to forcing "another person's rapid workflow" on
>> the user, it's good as a starting point, I repeat (because it's very nice
>> to have something you can run and start mixing straight away with an
>> intuitive and powerful interface without having to mess with plugins and
>> having lots and lots of cumbersome plugin windows just to tweak a comp
>> ratio on one track while boosting mids on another and adjusting sends on
>> yet another), and I'm actually a prospective buyer of Mixbus, but it still
>> means having to conform to someone else's way of working. Acceptable (and
>> unavoidable) on hardware mixers, and also on DAWs up to a certain extent,
>> but one of the advantages of digital is actually not having THIS kind of
>> limitations. One thing is "standard number of mix busses at boot-up",
>> another is "up to 8 mix busses", it smells of "Lite Edition" software.
> You have officially missed the point of Mixbus then, as Paul alluded to.
> The point is to allow an engineer to move faster and get a good sounding
> mix faster, and it does this in part by 'limiting' your choices so you
> don't have to worry about things.  Of course by 'limiting' it really
> doesn't as you can put in any EQ or plugin you want just like any other DAW.

That's why Mixbus is designed to be... a mixing tool, and not a DAW. Most,
or at least MANY people (for example, reading the thread on Gearslutz) use
it with Logic or other DAWs only for gluing mixes together, and may
actually use their plugins in the parent DAW instead of Mixbus (for
familiarity, ease of automation, dunno, really).

As a mixing environment, it looks great, actually. With a functional MIDI
implementation, I would probably use it as a full-fledged DAW myself. (The
stability issues seem a bit "meh", though, but I suppose bugs and quirks
have been ironed out, in time).

>> You said that all I want is just a bit more "chrome"... well, even if I
>> DID want more chrome, what's really wrong with it? And I personally don't
>> even WANT chrome, but many people I told about Ardour thought that "it
>> looked cheap" or "unrefined" or whatever compared to the other brand-name
>> DAWs they used. That's even BEFORE trying it. Like it or not, many people
>> give lots of importance to first impressions and hype, and if you want
>> Ardour to compete with other DAWs (and please don't say you don't want to
>> compete, because in the end you do compete, whether you decide to or not...
>> and I don't really think it's necessarily a bad thing), you have to also
>> appeal to those people who give looks a big deal of importance, who may
>> also be big-name professionals, musicians, artists, etc. I have argued lots
>> of times with Apple fanatics who deride Linux or Windows for even marginal
>> details, such as look and feel (or sometimes for things that weren't
>> actually even true), most of them are pathetically ignorant of even basic
>> technical details, but some of these people are accomplished graphic
>> designers, or musicians, or whatever. Idiots :D but talented idiots they
>> are.
> Try to be all things to all people you WILL fail.  You will never make
> everyone happy.  The companies that realize this are the ones that do
> better quicker.

Of course, products need personality and identity. That's why Fender
guitars sell, despite their "shortcomings". People buy Waldorf synths
BECAUSE of their cold, industrial sound, and Nord Leads because of their
efficacy. But this cannot be an excuse to limit functionality just because,
this way, you "preserve identity". Developers (or engineers, or whatever)
should strive in creating inspiring tools, with a strong identity but that
can ALSO adapt to the user's needs, as if it were a living creature,
because the end target is to please the user more than the designer, isn't
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-users-ardour.org/attachments/20121204/66561105/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the Ardour-Users mailing list