Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
For the NON modular way, you don't need that many tools today, knowing that
Carla hosts all plugin formats. With Non-Session-Manager you've everything
in one session folder, just like in a DAW. Non-Timeline is reliable imo,
you won't loose data with it. Too bad non-sequencer is not finished today
and offers only a pattern based solution. Qtractor, Ardour, AMS,
Zynaddsubfx, Carla etc. has NSM support.
But you didn't choose Qtractor or Ardour either ...
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Atte wrote:
> On 04/16/2014 10:40 PM, rosea grammostola wrote:
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Yes thanks. For the NON modular wa=
y, you don't need that many tools today, knowing that Carla hosts all p=
lugin formats. With Non-Session-Manager you've everything in one sessio=
n folder, just like in a DAW. Non-Timeline is reliable imo, you won't l=
oose data with it. Too bad non-sequencer is not finished today and offers o=
nly a pattern based solution. Qtractor, Ardour, AMS, Zynaddsubfx, Carla etc=
. has NSM support.
But you didn't choose Qtractor or Ardour either ... On Wed, Apr =
16, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Atte <email@example.com> wrote:
On 04/16/2014 10:40 PM, rose=
a grammostola wrote:
"I'd rather not this turns into critique of specific FLOSS softwar=
I think it's interesting to know why you end up using Windows software<=
on Linux. Critique is not bad imho.
Ok, let me take it from another angle: I'd much prefer FLOSS, if that&#=
39;s not possible then a linux native commercial solution. So why am I cons=
idering reaper through wine? Because it offers me something that I found no=
1) I need something that'll work as a "traditional DAW" (real=
musicians generating audio tracks) *and* something to work with electronic=
music. Could be two different programs, would be nice if it was one.
2) I need something that I can rely on. Something that opens up just like I=
left it *every time*.
3) Although I find it attractive, the linux-way-of-small-tools-handl=
ing-a-small-part-of-a-larger-job doesn't really seem practical i=
n audio *to me*. I prefer the old-fashion model of a host for different rea=
sons: Better/tighter integration, one project-file (or project folder) and =
simpler/more safe upgrade path.
4) I need something that's well rounded (like renoise), but also allows=
me to experiment, even go cracy some times.
As for reaper, I strongly encourage everyone here that hasn't tried it =
yet, to spend a few days in it. You might like it, you might hate it, but y=
ou'll sure have broadened your perspective!
You get seamless timestretch (add marker and move it around to stretch), mo=
st commonly used effects included, recording in any format I ever heard of,=
an app taht is very light on the CPU and extremely configurable. And I jus=
t discovered JS, reapers native plugin format; write and debug your own plu=
gins right from within reaper, took me bout an hour to write something that=
emulates renoise B0 (reverse playback) effect. And as a bonus, you get to =
choose from *alot* of free and (I'm sorry to say) pretty good vsts. Eve=
r tried synth1? I hadn't, but wow, what an awesome synth!
So as I said, I'd love to use FLOSS, I'd even be more than happy to=
lower my standards quite a bit. But the comparison is just not fair, at le=
ast from where I sit. Note that I haven't settled on reaper just yet (I=
did buy a license, though), and even if I do, I still consider myself a li=
Did that answer your question?