7 ms·

Has anyone actually tried this? Most of the comments seem to be about the licensing or the ui, i'm just curious how this holds up to ardour. This actually looks

Has anyone actually tried this? Most of the comments seem to be about the licensing or the ui, i'm just curious how this holds up to ardour. This actually looks pretty awesome.

pindab0ter 6y ago
As someone who recently spent a few weeks to get acquainted with Reaper, what would be a reason to use Ardour instead?
- puranjay 6y ago
  Ardour is free and open source. You might also want to try LMMS. Pair it up with ZynAddSubFX as the synth and you have a pretty competent studio. Relevant submission: https://midination.com/free-music-production-software/ https://midination.com/free-music-production-software/
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    Less ambiguous (in English) to use a loan-word and say "Ardour is libre and open source".
    - Shared404 6y ago
      I would argue that it's not only ambiguous but harmful to use the word "free" to describe libre software at this point. So many people have "Free means it steals your data" beaten into their heads at this point. This is of course referring to the general population. I would assume that people on HN have no issues with Libre-Free vs Beer-Free.
- alchemyromcom 6y ago
  I believe Ardour has an open license and Reaper has a proprietary licence. In terms of functionality and ease of use however, I think Reaper is hard to beat.
- backlash875 6y ago
  LV2 plugins aren't supported in Reaper but are in Ardour, this makes quite a difference in Linux. In my opinion the anywhere to anywhere routing is better in Ardour. That said, I moved from Ardour to Reaper and prefer Reaper.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  http://admiralbumblebee.com/music/2020/02/25/20-Mixbus-Features.html http://admiralbumblebee.com/music/2020/02/25/20-Mixbus-Featu...
backlash875 6y ago
I've tried using it but it crashes too often and is generally too buggy to use. It seems to be in an early stage of development so this is to be expected. The UI and general workflow look very promising though, in particular the piano roll. It has a long way to go to match the maturity and features of Ardour, but the UI design that it's aiming for will make it more suitable for people making EDM.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  It's using some notable chunks of Ardour's code, which might help it along. OTOH, Reaper's lead developer was thinking of doing that at the beginning of Reaper's life, decided against it, and we can see how (well) that worked out! :)
  - armitron 6y ago
    Please elaborate, not sure if you mean in a positive or negative way. For what it's worth, I find Reaper to be a lot better than Ardour in general. It just feels 100% professional and slick. The Ardour interface comes across like your typical GTK app, sluggish and glitchy with that constant feeling that something ain't right. You should have moved to QT a long time ago.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      Reaper is a great application. I don't bother to listen (much) to critiques of Ardour's GUI. Every week I get an email that tells me it is totally pile of crap and I should feel embarrassed to even consider it usable, and another telling me how smooth and intuitive it is, much better than any other DAW. When people say things like "Ardour's workflow for doing <X> is a bit clunky - it takes 6 mouse clicks, but if you did it like <this> it would only take 3" ... I try to listen to that and incorporate these kinds of ideas. Reaper does a bunch of things that Ardour doesn't. Ardour does a bunch of things that Reaper doesn't. Reaper does some things that we both do better than Ardour, and vice versa. "300k+ LOC application should have moved to <other GUI toolkit a long time ago" suggests that you have never moved 175k lines of GUI code between toolkits, regardless of which application and which toolkit you're discussing. Also, Reaper doesn't use Qt.
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
FWIW, the original versions of Ardour were "extensible in Guile" too. The entire program (well, the GUI) ran inside the interpreter's REPL. We ripped that our before v2 came out. These days, we use Lua.

Has anyone actually tried this? Most of the comments seem to be about the licensing or the ui, i'm just curious how this holds up to ardour. This actually looks pretty awesome.

pindab0ter 6y ago

As someone who recently spent a few weeks to get acquainted with Reaper, what would be a reason to use Ardour instead?

puranjay 6y ago
Ardour is free and open source. You might also want to try LMMS. Pair it up with ZynAddSubFX as the synth and you have a pretty competent studio. Relevant submission: https://midination.com/free-music-production-software/ https://midination.com/free-music-production-software/
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Less ambiguous (in English) to use a loan-word and say "Ardour is libre and open source".
  - Shared404 6y ago
    I would argue that it's not only ambiguous but harmful to use the word "free" to describe libre software at this point. So many people have "Free means it steals your data" beaten into their heads at this point. This is of course referring to the general population. I would assume that people on HN have no issues with Libre-Free vs Beer-Free.
alchemyromcom 6y ago
I believe Ardour has an open license and Reaper has a proprietary licence. In terms of functionality and ease of use however, I think Reaper is hard to beat.
backlash875 6y ago
LV2 plugins aren't supported in Reaper but are in Ardour, this makes quite a difference in Linux. In my opinion the anywhere to anywhere routing is better in Ardour. That said, I moved from Ardour to Reaper and prefer Reaper.
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
http://admiralbumblebee.com/music/2020/02/25/20-Mixbus-Features.html http://admiralbumblebee.com/music/2020/02/25/20-Mixbus-Featu...

backlash875 6y ago

I've tried using it but it crashes too often and is generally too buggy to use. It seems to be in an early stage of development so this is to be expected. The UI and general workflow look very promising though, in particular the piano roll. It has a long way to go to match the maturity and features of Ardour, but the UI design that it's aiming for will make it more suitable for people making EDM.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
It's using some notable chunks of Ardour's code, which might help it along. OTOH, Reaper's lead developer was thinking of doing that at the beginning of Reaper's life, decided against it, and we can see how (well) that worked out! :)
- armitron 6y ago
  Please elaborate, not sure if you mean in a positive or negative way. For what it's worth, I find Reaper to be a lot better than Ardour in general. It just feels 100% professional and slick. The Ardour interface comes across like your typical GTK app, sluggish and glitchy with that constant feeling that something ain't right. You should have moved to QT a long time ago.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    Reaper is a great application. I don't bother to listen (much) to critiques of Ardour's GUI. Every week I get an email that tells me it is totally pile of crap and I should feel embarrassed to even consider it usable, and another telling me how smooth and intuitive it is, much better than any other DAW. When people say things like "Ardour's workflow for doing <X> is a bit clunky - it takes 6 mouse clicks, but if you did it like <this> it would only take 3" ... I try to listen to that and incorporate these kinds of ideas. Reaper does a bunch of things that Ardour doesn't. Ardour does a bunch of things that Reaper doesn't. Reaper does some things that we both do better than Ardour, and vice versa. "300k+ LOC application should have moved to <other GUI toolkit a long time ago" suggests that you have never moved 175k lines of GUI code between toolkits, regardless of which application and which toolkit you're discussing. Also, Reaper doesn't use Qt.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

FWIW, the original versions of Ardour were "extensible in Guile" too. The entire program (well, the GUI) ran inside the interpreter's REPL. We ripped that our before v2 came out. These days, we use Lua.