4 ms·

Of course it's not dominant by the market share, but it's the most powerful tool and it would be cool to have a healthy competition there. Reaper also has a vib

Of course it's not dominant by the market share, but it's the most powerful tool and it would be cool to have a healthy competition there. Reaper also has a vibrant community of scripters and their skills would be of some help for any free software DAW. The reasons are the risk of it being sold (unlikely) or, y'know, a "bus factor". I have a huge respect for Ardour and its devs a lot, but unfortunately it's not even close. I suppose, Harrison income is minuscule. Thank god the development didn't cease some years ago when Davis wanted to step down, that would be a loss.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Ardour currently makes more than $200k per year. Harrison Mixbus is a distinct product from that. I never wanted to step down. There was a brief interval when it looked as if I would have to, in order to make a living. That has not been the case for more than a decade now. We have many users who have used many other DAWs, including Reaper. A good chunk of them strongly prefer Ardour to Reaper. Another good chunk do not. Reaper is not the most powerful tool. There are dozens of things you can easily do in Ardour that you cannot do in Reaper, and just as many for which the opposite is true. Reaper has no clip launching model / session view, which is what allowed Live to change the entire zeitgeist of computer-based music production (now copied into Bitwig, Logic, DP and right about now, Ardour). It doesn't even get into the modulation ballpark that Bitwig is playing in, and completely lacks the freeform flow that FL Studio allows. The reality remains that there is no "best" DAW for anyone. Plenty of people think that Ardour sucks, and for their workflow, you just have to respect their verdict. Just as many people try Reaper and find it impossible to use. Fortunately these days there's a DAW for everyone, and Meadowlark will only make that more true.
- bambax 5y ago
  > It doesn't even get into the modulation ballpark that Bitwig is playing in I don't know if that's true. You can do a lot of modulation in Reaper directly, by chaining native LFOs or other modulation sources. Bitwig's UI is incredibly sexy and beautiful, and Reaper is kind of ugly and crude, yes. That makes it easier in Bitwig to just see what's happening, whereas in Reaper you have to hunt down inside effects' parameters. I think that's the main difference. But I don't think there are things you can do in Bitwig that you can't do in Reaper for a comparable amount of work. I'm not proficient in Bitwig, though. I would enjoy to see some comparisons.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    You can't do clip launching in Reaper. In Bitwig, almost any parameter of anything is both a modulation source and destination. This is not true in Reaper.
- ZoomZoomZoom 5y ago
  Thanks a lot for your reply. I admit I didn't check the details of the mentioned situation and, as you said, it was a long time ago, nor was my wording correct. Great to hear the financial situation is not dire. I also admit I haven't been following Ardour progress for some time, so my judgement wasn't fully informed. By "powerful" I meant not getting in the way and providing the wide set of tools. I mostly do mixing and editing, and I stand by my words that Reaper provides the most flexible and advanced workflow compared to Pro Tools, Logic and Studio One specifically, if you take the possibilities of 3d party enhancements of scripting/plugins. This doesn't mean it's the "best" DAW, as one doesn't necessarily want that, but for me it beats the mentioned competition hands down. It's definitely time for me to try Ardour again, though!
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    The problem with talking about DAWs and workflows is that there are so many distinct workflows that it becomes almost meaningless. Watch a discussion between e.g. an Ardour user and a Reaper user about how to do something, and it will often seem like they are in different worlds. "Well, I would never even begin to do it that way" will almost certainly come up.It would be even worse if you listen to, say, a Logic user and an FL Studio user. So many "basic concepts" that one of them uses every day, but that don't even appear on the other user's radar. That means that a given "most flexible and advanced workflow" that matters a lot one user will probably be awkward for another, but it won't matter to most people, because they do it a different way. Like I said, I'm glad for DAW users that there are so many choices, and I'm fairly sure that for the vast majority of people, there's one out there that will make them happy. What it is matters much less.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Ardour currently makes more than $200k per year. Harrison Mixbus is a distinct product from that. I never wanted to step down. There was a brief interval when it looked as if I would have to, in order to make a living. That has not been the case for more than a decade now. We have many users who have used many other DAWs, including Reaper. A good chunk of them strongly prefer Ardour to Reaper. Another good chunk do not. Reaper is not the most powerful tool. There are dozens of things you can easily do in Ardour that you cannot do in Reaper, and just as many for which the opposite is true. Reaper has no clip launching model / session view, which is what allowed Live to change the entire zeitgeist of computer-based music production (now copied into Bitwig, Logic, DP and right about now, Ardour). It doesn't even get into the modulation ballpark that Bitwig is playing in, and completely lacks the freeform flow that FL Studio allows. The reality remains that there is no "best" DAW for anyone. Plenty of people think that Ardour sucks, and for their workflow, you just have to respect their verdict. Just as many people try Reaper and find it impossible to use. Fortunately these days there's a DAW for everyone, and Meadowlark will only make that more true.

bambax 5y ago
> It doesn't even get into the modulation ballpark that Bitwig is playing in I don't know if that's true. You can do a lot of modulation in Reaper directly, by chaining native LFOs or other modulation sources. Bitwig's UI is incredibly sexy and beautiful, and Reaper is kind of ugly and crude, yes. That makes it easier in Bitwig to just see what's happening, whereas in Reaper you have to hunt down inside effects' parameters. I think that's the main difference. But I don't think there are things you can do in Bitwig that you can't do in Reaper for a comparable amount of work. I'm not proficient in Bitwig, though. I would enjoy to see some comparisons.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  You can't do clip launching in Reaper. In Bitwig, almost any parameter of anything is both a modulation source and destination. This is not true in Reaper.
ZoomZoomZoom 5y ago
Thanks a lot for your reply. I admit I didn't check the details of the mentioned situation and, as you said, it was a long time ago, nor was my wording correct. Great to hear the financial situation is not dire. I also admit I haven't been following Ardour progress for some time, so my judgement wasn't fully informed. By "powerful" I meant not getting in the way and providing the wide set of tools. I mostly do mixing and editing, and I stand by my words that Reaper provides the most flexible and advanced workflow compared to Pro Tools, Logic and Studio One specifically, if you take the possibilities of 3d party enhancements of scripting/plugins. This doesn't mean it's the "best" DAW, as one doesn't necessarily want that, but for me it beats the mentioned competition hands down. It's definitely time for me to try Ardour again, though!
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  The problem with talking about DAWs and workflows is that there are so many distinct workflows that it becomes almost meaningless. Watch a discussion between e.g. an Ardour user and a Reaper user about how to do something, and it will often seem like they are in different worlds. "Well, I would never even begin to do it that way" will almost certainly come up.It would be even worse if you listen to, say, a Logic user and an FL Studio user. So many "basic concepts" that one of them uses every day, but that don't even appear on the other user's radar. That means that a given "most flexible and advanced workflow" that matters a lot one user will probably be awkward for another, but it won't matter to most people, because they do it a different way. Like I said, I'm glad for DAW users that there are so many choices, and I'm fairly sure that for the vast majority of people, there's one out there that will make them happy. What it is matters much less.