4 ms·

“I want to record audio” should not require even 2 hours of work. It’s still a 10 year learning experience in some circumstances. I’m at 20, hopefully I’m sayin

by b33j0r 4y ago

“I want to record audio” should not require even 2 hours of work. It’s still a 10 year learning experience in some circumstances. I’m at 20, hopefully I’m saying something useful. I support reaper, here’s an opinion. My problem with reaper is that I think it was trying to be protools for people who couldn’t afford protools. The thing is, most people aren’t recording 32 ADC channels and 1024 midi tracks on rackmount stuff. I think I have my dad’s last MIDI cables, and it makes me feel either ancient or hipster. Even pro studios are slimmer, cause it’s not 2003. Workflow is at a premium, and reaper… kinda feels like an expensive version of FOSS. Still so great in the ecosystem, and aw, a DAW love of mine. A chisel for the days when the 3D printer just isn’t robust enough. I use Logic Pro and bitwig. Bitwig fails the same test. I rarely say this, but this niche could inspire nerdy moments a bit less, and creative workflows a bit more to be attractive to a prosumer.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
The problem is that after your typical singer/songwriter spends a month or two working with the sort of tool they "really need", their sense of the possible expands. And expands. And expands. They may never get to 32 hardware channels, but they will get to automation, VCAs, plugin favorites, grouping, and much, much more. I've considered doing a crazy-simple version of Ardour (nominal name "arb" for "Ardour Recording Button"), but I'm still not convinced that writing a tool that will only be useful to most of its users for a couple of months makes sense.
- squarefoot 4y ago
  You probably mean the equivalent of a scratchpad for writing down ideas without caring about formatting, typos, small details etc. This is often accomplished much quicker in music by using a hardware platform such as a portable recorder with a set of effects and sometimes instruments too: plug mic and guitar, start drum machine and start recording, then add a few tracks, mix down to .mp3 and the quick demo is ready, when done you export the result into the DAW where the real work work happens. Zoom and Tascam have some really nice devices in their catalog. The same could be accomplished also in software, and it would have a huge success, however packing it with features can only slow down the work; everything should be thought without the idea of turning it into a full DAW but just putting it there the minimum necessary to be productive without distractions. Think about a mini Linux distro (Alpine?) that boots in seconds on a small netbook to directly load the "music scratchpad" at full screen and no other software in the background. Plenty of devices are out there ready to be repurposed for that, and good external USB audio card can be found for cheap. Years ago I used my old Samsung NC10 netbook to record my band. The internal mics were crap like with every laptop, but once I built a small stereo jfet preamp to connect two external dynamic mics, I got quite good results. It was a bit slow to operate, and more so managing the long files we created (~3 hours at 44.1KHz 16bit stereo .wav) but I used a full Debian plus Audacity without any optimization for speed and size.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    1. no, you should never ever "mix down to mp3 and export to the DAW, where the real work happens". If you're going to work in a DAW, please, please start with losslessly compressed or uncompressed PCM data. 2. > The same could be accomplished also in software, and it would have a huge success Odd how none of the proprietary DAW manufacturers believe this, isn't it? I've already described the basic problem with this idea: it starts out as being precisely what someone wants, but every few months, their desires/expectations expand. What "productive without distractions" means looks very different after you've done a bit of computer audio production for a year than when you're just starting out.
    - squarefoot 4y ago
      1. Of course I would export to the DAW in uncompressed format, the mp3 would be handy for quick listening and sharing among players. 2. Yes, that is odd (although I seem to recall Dr. T's did something like that ages ago). It doesn't bring money apparently, so they concentrate on much bigger overcomplicated software that does everything except simple things but shines when showed in ads. It seems to me this one could become the right niche in which FOSS can surpass commercial software: do 3 things and do them well.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        > do 3 things and do them well sure. But we take your 3 things, then Ben over there's 3 things, then Maggie's 3 things, and then Olafur's 3 things and add in Vieux's 3 things and pretty soon we're talking about a real DAW!

by b33j0r 4y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

The problem is that after your typical singer/songwriter spends a month or two working with the sort of tool they "really need", their sense of the possible expands. And expands. And expands. They may never get to 32 hardware channels, but they will get to automation, VCAs, plugin favorites, grouping, and much, much more. I've considered doing a crazy-simple version of Ardour (nominal name "arb" for "Ardour Recording Button"), but I'm still not convinced that writing a tool that will only be useful to most of its users for a couple of months makes sense.

squarefoot 4y ago
You probably mean the equivalent of a scratchpad for writing down ideas without caring about formatting, typos, small details etc. This is often accomplished much quicker in music by using a hardware platform such as a portable recorder with a set of effects and sometimes instruments too: plug mic and guitar, start drum machine and start recording, then add a few tracks, mix down to .mp3 and the quick demo is ready, when done you export the result into the DAW where the real work work happens. Zoom and Tascam have some really nice devices in their catalog. The same could be accomplished also in software, and it would have a huge success, however packing it with features can only slow down the work; everything should be thought without the idea of turning it into a full DAW but just putting it there the minimum necessary to be productive without distractions. Think about a mini Linux distro (Alpine?) that boots in seconds on a small netbook to directly load the "music scratchpad" at full screen and no other software in the background. Plenty of devices are out there ready to be repurposed for that, and good external USB audio card can be found for cheap. Years ago I used my old Samsung NC10 netbook to record my band. The internal mics were crap like with every laptop, but once I built a small stereo jfet preamp to connect two external dynamic mics, I got quite good results. It was a bit slow to operate, and more so managing the long files we created (~3 hours at 44.1KHz 16bit stereo .wav) but I used a full Debian plus Audacity without any optimization for speed and size.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  1. no, you should never ever "mix down to mp3 and export to the DAW, where the real work happens". If you're going to work in a DAW, please, please start with losslessly compressed or uncompressed PCM data. 2. > The same could be accomplished also in software, and it would have a huge success Odd how none of the proprietary DAW manufacturers believe this, isn't it? I've already described the basic problem with this idea: it starts out as being precisely what someone wants, but every few months, their desires/expectations expand. What "productive without distractions" means looks very different after you've done a bit of computer audio production for a year than when you're just starting out.
  - squarefoot 4y ago
    1. Of course I would export to the DAW in uncompressed format, the mp3 would be handy for quick listening and sharing among players. 2. Yes, that is odd (although I seem to recall Dr. T's did something like that ages ago). It doesn't bring money apparently, so they concentrate on much bigger overcomplicated software that does everything except simple things but shines when showed in ads. It seems to me this one could become the right niche in which FOSS can surpass commercial software: do 3 things and do them well.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      > do 3 things and do them well sure. But we take your 3 things, then Ben over there's 3 things, then Maggie's 3 things, and then Olafur's 3 things and add in Vieux's 3 things and pretty soon we're talking about a real DAW!