4 ms·

I'm not sure why the amount of audio production experience is relevant in this case. I also don't have a horse in this race. I just find it curious that you see

I'm not sure why the amount of audio production experience is relevant in this case. I also don't have a horse in this race. I just find it curious that you seem to be so extremely passionate about taking a random item in a _design_ for an _MVP_ and drawing all sorts of conclusions about both the tool and the authors of this tool. Why does it matter so much that it doesn't align with what you find the most important aspect of an MVP? Again, this is even just a _design_ for an MVP. If it doesn't align with what _you_ find important then that's fine. Just use something else, you've clearly been doing so for about 15 years. I hope you've enjoyed working on your songs, just like the authors of Meadowlark are enjoying working on this DAW.

romwell 5y ago
TL;DR: you don't have experience in the subject you opine on, but wonder why someone who does would. I'll address these points below. --------- >I'm not sure why the amount of audio production experience is relevant in this case. Because that's what would make you qualified to have an opinion on the matter, or make an analogy. If you don't use a DAW regularly to make music, you are not qualified to say that lack of 3/4 support is just like having no parking sensor. You don't have an understanding of which features are important if you are not a user. (Speaking of which, I hope you at least drove a car!). >I also don't have a horse in this race Well, you commented on the issue. There's your horse. >I just find it curious that you seem to be so extremely passionate As a musician, yes, I'm so extremely passionate about the art and craft of music making - and the tools involved. Just like literally any other musician. We are passionate because music is how we express passion. On top of it, I get sad when people express unsubstantiated opinions when confidence on the issues that I care about. >Why does it matter so much that it doesn't align with what you find the most important aspect of an MVP? Why does it matter to the developers to say that this is a project "by musicians, for musicians"? For the same reason, it matters to me, as a musician, to note that their MVP is not heading in the direction of their claim. If anything, I'm helping that project by consulting them on the product / giving user feedback on the design. Because I care, and I don't want to see a development effort wasted on something that people won't use because the developers did not understand the needs of the people they are writing this program for. >I hope you've enjoyed working on your songs, just like the authors of Meadowlark are enjoying working on this DAW. Well I'm not posting my songs on HackerNews in a post saying "Background Music To Write Code To: By Programmers, For Programmers". That would be dishonest. It makes sense, therefore, for musicians to comment on the discrepancy of something aiming to be a "fully featured DAW" without having the most basic feature (but shooting for advanced stuff few people need).
- royjacobs 5y ago
  If you don't want to see development effort wasted I hope you'll contribute to the project. I'm sure the authors will applaud and enjoy your passion. >Well I'm not posting my songs on HackerNews in a post saying "Background Music To Write Code To: By Programmers, For Programmers". Neither were the authors of the DAW, someone else posted it using this title. (btw I do have plenty of experience using DAWs (going back to Notator on the Atari ST) and have been an amateur musician since childhood. I just don't see how it's relevant in a discussion about an aspirational MVP design. Thanks for assuming the worst, though!)
  - romwell 5y ago
    >I do have plenty of experience using DAWs Great! Made any music in 6/8, or signatures other than 4/4? That was supported in Notator back in 1990 (along with time signature changes mid-track IIRC). >I just don't see how it's relevant I specifically said why, right at the top of my response. >If you don't want to see development effort wasted I hope you'll contribute to the project A tempting idea, putting it on my list. See, there's value in these discussions!
- kodokoto 5y ago
  I'm also a music producer/sound designer and audio engineer. Not being able to change the time signature isn't that big of a deal... Well over 90% of music is 4/4 and even other common ones like 3/4 can still be written in a DAW set to 4/4. As a musician, I'd rather see them spend time working on some unique features rather than something niche that can be added on later (apparently somewhat trivially). Seems like a whole lot of puff over nothing.
  - romwell 5y ago
    I once wrote a track where 4/4 changed into 3/4 mid-song, and then back in a beta DAW that didn't have a time signature track at the time (Energy XT2). So while it's possible, it's also annoying. You can't use the DAW click, and clips don't align with (what the DAW thiks are) measures. This is added friction, and you know what it did? It made me stay away from making music like that because I don't want to be clicking around the DAW when I'm making music, I want things to work. Making the 10% use case annoying while prioritizing the 0.0001% use case (how much of music made today is microtonal?) does not result in a general purpose DAW. >apparently somewhat trivially As a software engineer, I can assure you that there is no such thing. The cost of changing something we a bottom level (and the grid in a DAW is such an object) is always high. If it's trivial to add later, it's less than trivial to add now. If it's difficult to add now, then the project is dead in the water because 4/4 is, for all intents and purposes, hard-wired. Either way, it's concerning either from product or engineering perspective.

romwell 5y ago

TL;DR: you don't have experience in the subject you opine on, but wonder why someone who does would. I'll address these points below. --------- >I'm not sure why the amount of audio production experience is relevant in this case. Because that's what would make you qualified to have an opinion on the matter, or make an analogy. If you don't use a DAW regularly to make music, you are not qualified to say that lack of 3/4 support is just like having no parking sensor. You don't have an understanding of which features are important if you are not a user. (Speaking of which, I hope you at least drove a car!). >I also don't have a horse in this race Well, you commented on the issue. There's your horse. >I just find it curious that you seem to be so extremely passionate As a musician, yes, I'm so extremely passionate about the art and craft of music making - and the tools involved. Just like literally any other musician. We are passionate because music is how we express passion. On top of it, I get sad when people express unsubstantiated opinions when confidence on the issues that I care about. >Why does it matter so much that it doesn't align with what you find the most important aspect of an MVP? Why does it matter to the developers to say that this is a project "by musicians, for musicians"? For the same reason, it matters to me, as a musician, to note that their MVP is not heading in the direction of their claim. If anything, I'm helping that project by consulting them on the product / giving user feedback on the design. Because I care, and I don't want to see a development effort wasted on something that people won't use because the developers did not understand the needs of the people they are writing this program for. >I hope you've enjoyed working on your songs, just like the authors of Meadowlark are enjoying working on this DAW. Well I'm not posting my songs on HackerNews in a post saying "Background Music To Write Code To: By Programmers, For Programmers". That would be dishonest. It makes sense, therefore, for musicians to comment on the discrepancy of something aiming to be a "fully featured DAW" without having the most basic feature (but shooting for advanced stuff few people need).

royjacobs 5y ago
If you don't want to see development effort wasted I hope you'll contribute to the project. I'm sure the authors will applaud and enjoy your passion. >Well I'm not posting my songs on HackerNews in a post saying "Background Music To Write Code To: By Programmers, For Programmers". Neither were the authors of the DAW, someone else posted it using this title. (btw I do have plenty of experience using DAWs (going back to Notator on the Atari ST) and have been an amateur musician since childhood. I just don't see how it's relevant in a discussion about an aspirational MVP design. Thanks for assuming the worst, though!)
- romwell 5y ago
  >I do have plenty of experience using DAWs Great! Made any music in 6/8, or signatures other than 4/4? That was supported in Notator back in 1990 (along with time signature changes mid-track IIRC). >I just don't see how it's relevant I specifically said why, right at the top of my response. >If you don't want to see development effort wasted I hope you'll contribute to the project A tempting idea, putting it on my list. See, there's value in these discussions!
kodokoto 5y ago
I'm also a music producer/sound designer and audio engineer. Not being able to change the time signature isn't that big of a deal... Well over 90% of music is 4/4 and even other common ones like 3/4 can still be written in a DAW set to 4/4. As a musician, I'd rather see them spend time working on some unique features rather than something niche that can be added on later (apparently somewhat trivially). Seems like a whole lot of puff over nothing.
- romwell 5y ago
  I once wrote a track where 4/4 changed into 3/4 mid-song, and then back in a beta DAW that didn't have a time signature track at the time (Energy XT2). So while it's possible, it's also annoying. You can't use the DAW click, and clips don't align with (what the DAW thiks are) measures. This is added friction, and you know what it did? It made me stay away from making music like that because I don't want to be clicking around the DAW when I'm making music, I want things to work. Making the 10% use case annoying while prioritizing the 0.0001% use case (how much of music made today is microtonal?) does not result in a general purpose DAW. >apparently somewhat trivially As a software engineer, I can assure you that there is no such thing. The cost of changing something we a bottom level (and the grid in a DAW is such an object) is always high. If it's trivial to add later, it's less than trivial to add now. If it's difficult to add now, then the project is dead in the water because 4/4 is, for all intents and purposes, hard-wired. Either way, it's concerning either from product or engineering perspective.