linuxaudio.org

On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 12:03:41PM +0300, Louigi Verona wrote:

quoted text
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:29 AM, John Rigg  wrote:

> > To be fair I wasn't really slagging off Windows and Mac users. Most pro

> > audio

> > engineers are using those after all. I'm just bemused by the attitude that

> > audio processing tools should be anything more than that. Pretty pictures

> > and dumbed down control ranges don't help me make better mixes, they just

> > get in my way.

> >

> But why instantly "dumbed down"? Or are the generic LADSPA controls so

> intellectual?

> I think beautifully down interface adds to the inspiration as opposed to

> stuff

> that all looks like coding examples.

By "dumbed down" I mean restricted in a way which may result in

inexperienced users making fewer mistakes, but will also inconvenience

more advanced users. An example of this would be a high mid EQ that won't

sweep above 8kHz. What if I need to EQ 12kHz? There's some excuse for this

kind of thing on analogue hardware, as component cost has to be kept down,

but in a plugin it's totally unnecessary. 
Another pet peeve is lack of a text entry field on controls, as it makes

it difficult to set a parameter to an exact amount. Even worse are detented

controls. What if I need an intermediate setting? The reason for detents on

analogue hardware is for repeatability of settings, but it's totally

redundant in software, unless the developer has neglected to provide

text entry!
I will stress that I'm talking about audio engineering tools, not music

creation software here. I do appreciate that users of the latter have very

different requirements.
John

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev