On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:02:21AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> i don't agree with you that its about a type of music. it is about the
Well, 'type' or even 'a particular type' can refer to a leaf node
in the taxonomy or to a quite solid branch of it.
The are classes of music that depend on sequencing etc. in order to
be produced at all - that's why people involved in them want those
features in the first place. I don't think it's wrong to call this
'a particular type of music', the type is defined by its dependence
on those tools.
> i think you're wrong. its not that a DAW represents one particular
Indeed, see above.
> the notion that there is ever "one tool" for a task as
Then maybe the term 'DAW' is misnomer. I wouldn't call a tool
that can't do simple four point editing an 'audio workstation'.
The sad fact here is that Ardour probably has 99% of the code
required to do it. The final 1% is missing because the concept
doesn't exist in the mindset of the developers. And by that I
don't want to suggest they are too stupid for it (as some may
choose to interpret my words), but just that they are focussed
on a 'type', 'class', 'category' or whatever you may call it
of music that doesn't require it.
> not to be mercenary about it, but the difference is that if your needs
Well, I could pay or I could offer my time as a developer. During
the last five years I have several times offered to integrate decent
multichannel or AMB panning into Ardour, provided I could team up
with someone taking care of the GUI aspects (I'm a nitwit regarding
writing for GTK). Nothing has happened. I've arrived at the point
where it quite clear that if I want certain functionality I'll be
on my own to implement it.
Linux-audio-dev mailing list