[Ardour-Users] a few thoughts

[Thomas Vecchione]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Adriano Petrosillo
<ampetrosillo at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> 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).
>

And if you read what I said, you will see I was not referring to tracks,
but to busses, as I explicitly stated.


>
> 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).
>
>
I would venture a guess that you would be very wrong, having participated
in that thread and talked to many users in IRC and in real life at this
point, along with several other threads.

Yes some people use it as a mixer, however saying a majority of them would
be very wrong I believe.


> 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).
>
>

Strangely stability seems to be a mixed bag.  I have been teaching a class
on it this last semester with several students and Mixbus has rarely
crashed, and almost all problems have been a result of my students needing
to understand how to do something in Mixbus.  It is very stable for me as
well.


>
> 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
> it?
>

Or they strive to create one single tool VERY good.  And strangely those
that do this tend to get a strong reputation for it, those that branch out
to try to do everything tend to never be considered very good for it.  It
isn't limiting functionality to save identity, it is limiting functionality
because frankly you aren't as good in other areas and feel there are better
tools out there you shouldn't be competing with.

                 Seablade
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-users-ardour.org/attachments/20121204/8e797dbf/attachment-0002.htm>