ciao a tutti voi sventurati che visitate nel mio blog ignari delle stupidaggini che state andando al leggere.
scherzi e convenevoli a parte vorrei entrare in medias ress nell'argomento che voglio trattare,
ovvero ardour, strano vero? è un argomento di cui non ho mai scritto.
come probabilmente sapete è appena uscita la beta 5 di ardour, inaspettata in quanto dopo la 4 doveva esserci subito ardour 3.0.
questa beta porta numerosi miglioramenti e bug fix, tra le altre cose anche un interfaccia grafica più carina (anche se continuo a pensare che ce ne sia ancora da lavorare parecchio) io l'ho provata su osx e ci sono ancora frequenti bug e crash..
ma oggi non scrivo per annunciare l'uscita di una beta, ma per provare a ispirare qualche programmatore di buona voglia, per creare un prodotto veramente professionale per linux..
chi ha letto i post precedenti saprà benissimo la stima che ho per ardour, ma conoscerà anche il mio rapporto di amore e odio verso questo sw, i motivi sono tanti, primo di tutti le potenzialità che ha questo che non vengono sfruttate, ovvero offre ancora delle funzioni troppo basilari per il nome che si porta dietro.
molte delle cose che elenco non sono veri difetti, ma di sicuro non rendono piacevole e snello il lavoro sopra la piattaforma.
ma andiamo con ordine:
prima di far sembrare che il mio intento sia smontare la reputazione di questo sw ci tengo a sottolineare che sto sottolineando gli aspetti negativi a fin di critica costruttiva, anche se le mie parole sembrano del tutto contro il programma sto solo andando a stanare dove dovrebbero esserci dei miglioramenti, perchè ardour le sue cose le fa bene. per questo iniziero a parlare brevemete dei punti di forza della daw, cosi da poter capire che prodotto e di quale qualita si potrebbe creare con un lavoro in questa direzione
lati positivi di ardour:
tendenzialmente molto stabile, se jack reggie ardour va che è una meraviglia.un buon punto di partenza, infatti ardour offre dei tool e dei servizi di base molto utili, e alcune cose molto ben sviluppate, a livello di codice credo sia tutto ben sviluppato.
un esempio lo si puo trovare nel fatto che offre supporto a tracce audio midi e si interfaccia facilmente con i vari controller.
è ben documentato, sul sito credo che si trovino tutte le informazioni necessarie per aiutare nello sviluppo o svilupparne un proprio. è multi piattaforma, fra un pò anche per window, e quindi vuol dire che anche i porting sarebbero più semplici perche è già stato tutto documentato.
e open source, il che vuol dire che puoi studiarne i sorgenti e lavorarci sopra tranquillamente senza infrangere la legge.
c'è ne sono molti altri, ma è inutile stare a scriverli tutti ora, in più si travano tutte le informazioni del caso in rete.
la solita pappardella critica ad ardour:
l'interfaccia grafica e poco gradevole e confusionaria:
in ardour troviamo un talento per effettuare una scelta dei colori abbastanza brutta, grigio topo e simili non sono il massimo se ci devi passare delle ore davanti. il channel strip riporta elementi utili e altri che veramente non capisco il senso, tipo i vari tipi di solo e muto per le tracce che onestamente non ho capito.
il design dei vari pulsanti dell'interfaccia lo trovo personalmente pessimo e poco intuitivo, come la scelta dei pulsanti messi in alto nella tool bar che mi chiedo perche siano stati inseriti quando basta una semplice interazione con la traccia tramite mouse e al massimo un tasto, non mettendo invece strumenti più utilizzati come i taglia la traccia che deve essere fatto tramite pressione del tasto s selezionando in un menù in alto se tagliare sulla played o dove si posiziona il mouse, comunque non molto comodo.
l'interfaccia e molto statica, poco interattiva con l'utente tramite il mouse, troppi shot curt da ricordare, e poche impostazioni possibili, come le scroll bar sempre a vista, molto scomodo a parer mio.
tutto tramite grossi menu contestuali:
l'editing e ogni cosa su ardour viene fatta passando da menù sia contestuali che quelli del programma in alto nella barra dei menù, questi menù sono pieni zeppi di voce e sotto menù come risultato ci metti un ora a fare delle semplici operazioni, facilmente risolvibile con la creazione di parti di sw ( visivamente anche) dedicati a operazioni specifiche, nelle quali mettere le operazioni di quel settore, oppure trasformando la determinata azione in un pluginmancanza di editor proprio separato dal sequencer
in tutti i sw di audio editing c'è un modulo di editing, appunto, per esegurie alcune operazioni un po più complesse del semplice tagliare la traccia in due pezzi, comprende operazioni sui transienti, la forma d'onda, la dinamica, la fraqenza ecc ecc. insomma tuttte quelle cose strane che piaciono a noi infognati di audio.
lavorare in maniera facile in questa fase e importante perchè determina in maniera fine il suono. arduor come tutti dispone di un centro proprio di editing, però tutto questo indovinate come viene fatto? tramite menù e menù contestuali, vi lascio intendere la comodità. poi si potrebbe mettere molte altre opzioni di editing.
midi
il miidi e ancora troppo difficile da giudicare, essendo la prima versione col midi è molto acerbo, il giudizio e inattendibile per ora.
l'unica cosa che mi sento di criticare è il ritardo con cui è stato inserito, un altra critica che muovo su questo argomento e che probabilmente molte cose sfiziose saranno aggiunte in un futuro molto lontano, se non mai.
non ha moduli dsp propri
cos'è il dsp? digital signal processing, ovvero moduli che ti permettono di elaborare il suono (inquanto segnale digitale) come equalizzatori effetti e filtri. il team sostiene che non vengano sviluppati per il fatto che poi uno si scarica e utlizza quelli che preferisce, che non è del tutto sbagliato, ma una lista di filtri di default come un buon eq e degli effetti dignitosi dovrebbero essere inseriti anche solo per rispetto dell'utente che ha diritto ad avere un prodotto finito e funzionale per le proprie esigenze. sarebbe opportuno anche perchè queste parti di programma possono essere vendute a parte.
è in oltre dovuto precisare che una sorta di plugin propri li possiede, anche se non si può definire proprio cosi in quanto sono ladspa che distribuiscono in bundle, ma sono effetti creati da altri...
è in oltre dovuto precisare che una sorta di plugin propri li possiede, anche se non si può definire proprio cosi in quanto sono ladspa che distribuiscono in bundle, ma sono effetti creati da altri...
un campionatore lv2 funzionante (magari)
gli voglio dedicare due righe, non c'è niente di più frustrante che provare a usare un campionatore lv2 su linux, già non somo molto user freendly di loro, quelli di linux o non funzionano proprio, o sono esterni alla daw, non sono la scelta migliore... un bel campionatore funzionale (soppratutto funzionante) farebbe la differenza.
channel strip
il channel strip è un componente fondamentale di ogni studio di registrazione, ovvero il canale di un mixer con le varie sue componenti.
il channel strip di ardour è molto simile a uno di un mixer analogico, ma perde di possibilità che il digitale può dare, ovvero è spoglio, composto solo da una selezione di entrata del segnale da registrare dove si decide da quale ingresso della scheda registrare, un inversione di fase del segnale audio, la zona dove mettere gli isert (effetti filtri plugin in genere) e le mandate aux (uscite che dirigono il segnale in altre direzioni ) con la parte dedicata ai muti e ai soli e il fader.
solitamente in questa sezione ci sono anche altri parametri, come la possibilità di ritardare di alcuni millisecondi tutta la traccia, o esempio la fantastica sezione di logic che permette di mettere un crosfade che invece di abbassare il volume ritarda gradualmete la lettura dei campioni dando un effetto molto utile assomigliante al un disco che si ferma.
step entry:
la tastiera virtuale, ovvero un tool che ti per
binomio con jack
molti lo vedono come vantaggio enorme, io lo vedo come pietra al collo jack (il server audio a bassa latenza per i sistemi opensource) l'ho sempre trovato problematico nel settaggio e utilizzo, anche adesso su osx credo che motli problemi di ardour siano dovuti a lui, poi non mi ha mai convinto molto l'idea di sincronizzare molti sw, può essere utlie, ma non è indispensabile
queste sono le cose che non mi stanno piacendo, cioò dei punti deboli che ho potuto riscontrare in anni di utlizzo di ardour, ci sarebbero molte cose proprio mancanti.
possiamo esmpio ipotizzare la pontenza che raggiungerebbe se venisse inserito anche un looper come ableton live e la possibilità di introdurre pattenr come fruitloops, con i propri tool ben studiati e insertiti nel conteso, dei motori di resintesi sonora che permetterebbero di ampliare le possibilità di questo sw all'infinito.
non ultimo e importate, il materiale che dovrebbe essere inserito è tutto ampiamente documentato in quanto esiste un software open source che ha quella funzione, sarebbe solo da mettere ricostruire.
hello to all of you unfortunates who visit my blog unaware of the nonsense that you are going to read.
jokes and pleasantries aside I would like to enter in medias ress in the topic I want to be treated,
or ardor, strange is not it? is a subject that I never wrote.
as you probably know is just out the beta 5 of ardor, unexpected because after the four had to be immediately ardor 3.0.
This beta brings many improvements and bug fixes, among other things, a graphical user interface nicer (although I still think that there is still a lot of work) I have tried it on osx and there are still frequent bugs and crashes. .
but today I am writing to announce the release of a beta, but to try to inspire some good programmer wants to create a truly professional linux ..
those who have read the previous posts will know that I have great esteem for ardor, but also know my relationship of love and hate towards this sw, the reasons are many, first of all the potential that this has that are not being used, that still offers functions too basic to the name that it carries.
many of the things you list are not real defects, but it certainly does not make it pleasant and streamlined work on the platform.
but first things first:
first to make it seem that my aim is to remove the reputation of this sw I want to emphasize that I am pointing out the negative aspects of a very constructive criticism, even if my words seem totally against the program I'm just going to dig out where they should be improvements, because his ardor things is good. for this I will start talking brevemete of the strengths of the daw, so you can figure out which product and quality which you could make with a job in this direction
positive aspects of ardor:
tends to be very stable, if reggie jack ardor goes like a dream.
a good starting point, in fact ardor offers tools and basic services very useful, and some things very well developed at the level of code I think it is all well developed.
an example you may find that it offers support for audio and midi interfaces easily with various controllers.
is well documented, on the site believe that they are all the information needed to help in the development or develop its own. is multi-platform, including some for window, and then it means that the port would be simpler because everything has already been documented.
and open source, which means you can study the source code and work on it safely without breaking the law.
There are many others, but it is useless to write them all now, plus you travano all the relevant information on the net.
pappardella the usual criticism of ardor:
the GUI and unpleasant and confusing:
in ardor find a talent to make a choice of colors quite ugly, gray mouse, and the like are not the best if you have to spend hours in front. the channel strip contains useful elements and others that really do not understand the meaning, such as the various types of solo and mute tracks that honestly I did not understand.
the design of the various buttons of the I personally find very bad and unintuitive, as the choice of buttons placed at the top tool bar that I wonder why they were included when just a simple interaction with the track using a mouse and a maximum of one button, not while putting the most used tools such as cutting the track to be done by pressing the s key is selecting a menu at the top if you cut or played on where you place the mouse, but not very comfortable.
interface, and much static, not interactive with the user via the mouse, too curt shot to remember, and a few possible settings, such as the scroll bar is always visible, very uncomfortable in my opinion.
all through large context menus:
editing and everything is made of ardor moving from contextual menu and those of the program at the top menu bar, these menus are full of voice and sub-menus as a result you put an hour to do simple tasks, easily solved with the creation of parts of sw (also visually) dedicated to specific tasks, in which to put the operations in that sector, or transforming the particular action in a plugin
lack of their own separate from the sequencer editor
in all sw audio editing is an editing module, in fact, for some operations esegurie a little more complex than simply cut the track in two pieces, includes operations on transients, the waveform, the dynamics, the fraqenza etc. etc.. short tuttte those strange things that we dislike holed sound.
work in an easy way at this stage and important because it determines quite end the sound. arduor as everyone has a heart just editing, but guess how this is done? through menus and contextual menus, I leave you mean comfort. then you could put many other editing options.
midi
the miidi and too difficult to judge, since the first version with midi is very immature, judgment, and unreliable for now.
the only thing I would criticize is the delay with which it was entered, another critical move on this issue and probably many tasty things will be added in the very distant future, if ever.
does not have its own dsp modules
What is the DSP? digital signal processing, or modules that allow you to process the sound (Asthe digital signal) as equalizers effects and filters. the team claims that are not developed for the fact that one will then download and those who prefer using the shell, which is not totally wrong, but a list of default filters as a good eq and effects decent should also be inserted only for compliance the user has the right to have a finished product and functional for your needs. would be appropriate also because these parts of the program can be sold separately.
is over have stated that some sort of plugin their own them, even if you can not define precisely because they are so ladspa distributing bundles, but are effects created by other ...
a sampler lv2 working (maybe)
I want to dedicate the two lines, there is nothing more frustrating than trying to use a sampler lv2 on linux, already not very user freendly somo of them, those linux or just do not work, or are outside the daw, is not the best choice ... a nice sampler functional (soppratutto working) would make a difference.
channel strip
the channel strip is an important part of every recording studio, channel of a mixer with the various components.
ardor of the channel strip is very similar to the one of an analog mixer, but loses the possibility that digital can give, that is bare, made from a selection of input signal to be recorded where it is decided by which card input record, a reverse phase audio signal, the area where to put the Isert (filters plugin effects in general) and the aux sends (outputs that direct the signal in other directions) with the part devoted to silent and alone and the fader.
usually in this section there are also other parameters, such as the possibility of delay of a few milliseconds throughout the track, or example, the fantastic section of logic, which makes it possible to put a crosfade that instead of lowering the volume retards gradualmete the reading of the samples giving an effect very useful resembling a disc it stops.
step entry:
the virtual keyboard, which is a tool for you
combination with jack
many see it as a huge advantage, I see it as a millstone around the neck jack (the low-latency audio server systems opensource) I've always found problematic in the setting up and use, even now on osx I think motli ardor problems are due him, then I was never convinced the very idea of synchronizing many sw, can be utlie, but is not required
these are the things that I do not are willing, cioò weak points that I have found in years of the usage of ardor, there would be many things, just missing.
esmpio we can assume that the pontenza would reach if it were also included as a looper ableton live and the possibility of introducing pattenr as fruitloops, with its well-designed tool and insertiti in disputed, resynthesis engine sound that would allow to extend the possibilities of this sw infinity.
not last and imported the material that should be included is all well documented as there is an open source software that has that function, it would only put rebuild.
hello to all of you unfortunates who visit my blog unaware of the nonsense that you are going to read.
jokes and pleasantries aside I would like to enter in medias ress in the topic I want to be treated,
or ardor, strange is not it? is a subject that I never wrote.
as you probably know is just out the beta 5 of ardor, unexpected because after the four had to be immediately ardor 3.0.
This beta brings many improvements and bug fixes, among other things, a graphical user interface nicer (although I still think that there is still a lot of work) I have tried it on osx and there are still frequent bugs and crashes. .
but today I am writing to announce the release of a beta, but to try to inspire some good programmer wants to create a truly professional linux ..
those who have read the previous posts will know that I have great esteem for ardor, but also know my relationship of love and hate towards this sw, the reasons are many, first of all the potential that this has that are not being used, that still offers functions too basic to the name that it carries.
many of the things you list are not real defects, but it certainly does not make it pleasant and streamlined work on the platform.
but first things first:
first to make it seem that my aim is to remove the reputation of this sw I want to emphasize that I am pointing out the negative aspects of a very constructive criticism, even if my words seem totally against the program I'm just going to dig out where they should be improvements, because his ardor things is good. for this I will start talking brevemete of the strengths of the daw, so you can figure out which product and quality which you could make with a job in this direction
positive aspects of ardor:
tends to be very stable, if reggie jack ardor goes like a dream.
a good starting point, in fact ardor offers tools and basic services very useful, and some things very well developed at the level of code I think it is all well developed.
an example you may find that it offers support for audio and midi interfaces easily with various controllers.
is well documented, on the site believe that they are all the information needed to help in the development or develop its own. is multi-platform, including some for window, and then it means that the port would be simpler because everything has already been documented.
and open source, which means you can study the source code and work on it safely without breaking the law.
There are many others, but it is useless to write them all now, plus you travano all the relevant information on the net.
pappardella the usual criticism of ardor:
the GUI and unpleasant and confusing:
in ardor find a talent to make a choice of colors quite ugly, gray mouse, and the like are not the best if you have to spend hours in front. the channel strip contains useful elements and others that really do not understand the meaning, such as the various types of solo and mute tracks that honestly I did not understand.
the design of the various buttons of the I personally find very bad and unintuitive, as the choice of buttons placed at the top tool bar that I wonder why they were included when just a simple interaction with the track using a mouse and a maximum of one button, not while putting the most used tools such as cutting the track to be done by pressing the s key is selecting a menu at the top if you cut or played on where you place the mouse, but not very comfortable.
interface, and much static, not interactive with the user via the mouse, too curt shot to remember, and a few possible settings, such as the scroll bar is always visible, very uncomfortable in my opinion.
all through large context menus:
editing and everything is made of ardor moving from contextual menu and those of the program at the top menu bar, these menus are full of voice and sub-menus as a result you put an hour to do simple tasks, easily solved with the creation of parts of sw (also visually) dedicated to specific tasks, in which to put the operations in that sector, or transforming the particular action in a plugin
lack of their own separate from the sequencer editor
in all sw audio editing is an editing module, in fact, for some operations esegurie a little more complex than simply cut the track in two pieces, includes operations on transients, the waveform, the dynamics, the fraqenza etc. etc.. short tuttte those strange things that we dislike holed sound.
work in an easy way at this stage and important because it determines quite end the sound. arduor as everyone has a heart just editing, but guess how this is done? through menus and contextual menus, I leave you mean comfort. then you could put many other editing options.
midi
the miidi and too difficult to judge, since the first version with midi is very immature, judgment, and unreliable for now.
the only thing I would criticize is the delay with which it was entered, another critical move on this issue and probably many tasty things will be added in the very distant future, if ever.
does not have its own dsp modules
What is the DSP? digital signal processing, or modules that allow you to process the sound (Asthe digital signal) as equalizers effects and filters. the team claims that are not developed for the fact that one will then download and those who prefer using the shell, which is not totally wrong, but a list of default filters as a good eq and effects decent should also be inserted only for compliance the user has the right to have a finished product and functional for your needs. would be appropriate also because these parts of the program can be sold separately.
is over have stated that some sort of plugin their own them, even if you can not define precisely because they are so ladspa distributing bundles, but are effects created by other ...
a sampler lv2 working (maybe)
I want to dedicate the two lines, there is nothing more frustrating than trying to use a sampler lv2 on linux, already not very user freendly somo of them, those linux or just do not work, or are outside the daw, is not the best choice ... a nice sampler functional (soppratutto working) would make a difference.
channel strip
the channel strip is an important part of every recording studio, channel of a mixer with the various components.
ardor of the channel strip is very similar to the one of an analog mixer, but loses the possibility that digital can give, that is bare, made from a selection of input signal to be recorded where it is decided by which card input record, a reverse phase audio signal, the area where to put the Isert (filters plugin effects in general) and the aux sends (outputs that direct the signal in other directions) with the part devoted to silent and alone and the fader.
usually in this section there are also other parameters, such as the possibility of delay of a few milliseconds throughout the track, or example, the fantastic section of logic, which makes it possible to put a crosfade that instead of lowering the volume retards gradualmete the reading of the samples giving an effect very useful resembling a disc it stops.
step entry:
the virtual keyboard, which is a tool for you
combination with jack
many see it as a huge advantage, I see it as a millstone around the neck jack (the low-latency audio server systems opensource) I've always found problematic in the setting up and use, even now on osx I think motli ardor problems are due him, then I was never convinced the very idea of synchronizing many sw, can be utlie, but is not required
these are the things that I do not are willing, cioò weak points that I have found in years of the usage of ardor, there would be many things, just missing.
esmpio we can assume that the pontenza would reach if it were also included as a looper ableton live and the possibility of introducing pattenr as fruitloops, with its well-designed tool and insertiti in disputed, resynthesis engine sound that would allow to extend the possibilities of this sw infinity.
not last and imported the material that should be included is all well documented as there is an open source software that has that function, it would only put rebuild.
