[HN Gopher] Ardour -Audacity Alternative to Record, Edit, and Mi...
___________________________________________________________________
Ardour -Audacity Alternative to Record, Edit, and Mix on Linux, OS
X and Windows
Author : noyesno
Score : 122 points
Date : 2021-07-05 19:04 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ardour.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ardour.org)
| gebt wrote:
| Stay safe, stay free.
| theproffesor wrote:
| imo ardour is a bit heavy as an audacity replacement, and I am a
| huge fan of ardour. I have been using ocenaudio with very good
| success and do think that it is a much closer "replacement"...
| with that said ardor is the best linux DAW!
| underseacables wrote:
| Alas, Audacity is free.
| [deleted]
| rcakebread wrote:
| AudioMass is very similar to Audacity, is open source[1] and
| browser based. Check out the online version[2].
|
| [1] https://github.com/pkalogiros/audiomass [2]
| https://audiomass.co/
| defensem3ch wrote:
| Ardour isn't free. You need to pay for it, unless you build it
| yourself, or you only want a demo version
| detaro wrote:
| It's Free Software. You can download builds from anybody else
| if you don't want to pay the project for theirs.
| trasz wrote:
| Or just use a system which provides packages for it, like
| FreeBSD.
| detaro wrote:
| I would count that as "download somebody elses build".
| Although I'm sure some Gentoo user is going to correct me
| on that.
| mrlonglong wrote:
| Yes, it's available!
| rvz wrote:
| Excuse me? You want those music producers to move from
| their whole OS (Windows or Mac) to something even less
| familiar than Linux? I don't think that is going to happen,
| and it's highly unlikely.
|
| I think they'll won't care to move and continue with
| Audacity or just pay for the binary for either Windows or
| Mac and that's that.
| ttctciyf wrote:
| Ardour is Free (source code available under GPL).
|
| Also, to get an executable version most users will just do:
| "apt install ardour" (or equivalent) which is pretty much beer-
| type free, in practice.
| _joel wrote:
| Ardour is a different tool to Audacity, it's meant to be used as
| a full on DAW, rather than just recording/editing audio.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| What does DAW mean?
|
| EDIT: Digital Audio Workstation?
| phaer wrote:
| Yes, Digital Audio Workstation
| tialaramex wrote:
| Right, this is a right-tool-for-the-job thing. Ardour is a
| chainsaw, and Audacity is a penknife. Can you cut down a tree
| with a penknife? Maybe, but that's clearly a terrible idea and
| will take ages. Can you remove the tape sealing closed your
| Amazon shipment with a chainsaw? Maybe, but you'd better be
| amazingly skilled with that chainsaw or it'll be very
| frustrating.
|
| Tools like Ardour are intended to have users who are mostly
| experts. It's OK if this is slightly harder to understand so
| long as it's also just better once you do understand. In
| contrast Audacity has a _lot_ of users who 've no intention
| (for now) of using it after today, they just want to fix one
| small thing about an audio file and they heard Audacity can do
| that.
|
| Once upon a time, a _lot_ of tools in the space Audacity
| occupies had significant technical misunderstandings baked into
| them. So by exposure to those tools, people learn things that
| aren 't true about digital audio, and that causes ongoing pain.
| But Audacity is _much_ better about this, and so today I don 't
| think you're more likely to actually understand what's going on
| with digital audio in Ardour than in Audacity.
|
| As with the penknife, if your experience with Audacity is "this
| wasn't powerful enough, I'll be here all week" then it is time
| to try a DAW (such as Ardour) but unlike the old days I don't
| think you'll spend the first week unlearning myths about
| digital audio that your editor taught you and the DAW now has
| to dispell.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| There is a guy on YouTube that reviews the durability of
| tools, he usually opens the boxes in some convoluted way,
| like with an electric chainsaw.
|
| https://youtu.be/ztpWsuUItrA
| Rodeoclash wrote:
| Funnily enough the musician Burial used a "pen knife" to
| craft entire albums:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_(musician)#Style_and_co.
| ..
| mike_hock wrote:
| > Ardour is a chainsaw, and Audacity is a penknife. Can you
| cut down a tree with a penknife? Maybe, but that's clearly a
| terrible idea and will take ages.
|
| Does "DAW vs. sound editor" really require an analogy?
| bbarnett wrote:
| _Can you remove the tape sealing closed your Amazon shipment
| with a chainsaw? Maybe, but you 'd better be amazingly
| skilled with that chainsaw or it'll be very frustrating._
|
| Youtube video coming soon...
| ttctciyf wrote:
| Looks like they released 6.8 a couple of days ago[1] with some
| significant fixes[2]!
|
| I wouldn't really call it an audacity alternative, though - you'd
| be dealing with a bunch of additional complexity to simply
| accomplish what most folks use audacity for I think.
|
| 1: https://discourse.ardour.org/t/ardour-6-8-released/106136
|
| 2: https://ardour.org/whatsnew.html
| IndySun wrote:
| This is useful. Not technically multitrack or an exact
| replacement for Audacity. It gives great info on the audio,
| records, and its interface is super slick.
|
| https://www.ocenaudio.com/download
| mortenjorck wrote:
| Ardour is an alternative to Audacity like Xcode is an alternative
| to TextEdit.
| drdavid wrote:
| A closer alternative is 'ocenaudio'.
|
| https://www.ocenaudio.com/en/
| gebt wrote:
| It's not even open source.
| jessaustin wrote:
| I've been using SoX [0] to edit my ringtones and other simple
| audio files. CLI FTW! Not only can you start, stop, and splice at
| precisely the right time, but you can adjust tempo, compress and
| expand dynamic range, all sorts of other things that don't create
| audio but make it sound better.
|
| [0] http://sox.sourceforge.net/
| mike_hock wrote:
| Sounds like that really blew your sox off.
| noobermin wrote:
| Does anyone use Ardour for their audio work? Always heard great
| things about it.
| rvz wrote:
| So after looking around to see if it is stable on M1 Macs and
| there is some information about that [0]. It seems to be still
| 'experimental'.
|
| It's only 'free' as a demo version for now:
|
| > There's a free/demo version (with our usual free/demo
| limitation of going silent after 10 minutes, with the ability to
| ask for more time)
|
| As for the paid subscribers:
|
| > The full build is available to Ardour subscribers (including
| those who have already paid US$45 or more for version 6.x).
|
| To Downvoters:
|
| So there is NO native M1 version then? Just because you can try
| _' run it in Rosetta'_ doesn't mean it's going to be 'stable'. If
| it is not native, There is no guarantee on that. Not even Apple
| can guarantee it.
|
| Don't be so quick to shoot the messenger. I'm trying to give you
| information before you try it. While the smart ones stay on
| Intel, all I'll say to the M1 folks is to use with caution.
|
| [0] https://discourse.ardour.org/t/ardour-6-6-for-
| apple-m1-syste...
| mrlinx wrote:
| I wish there was a similar alternative to virtualdub.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Avidemux?
|
| Not restricted to .avi and multiplatform (Linux/Win/Mac/BSD)
|
| http://fixounet.free.fr/avidemux/
| zxzax wrote:
| I'm saddened that it's necessary to bother posting this, but
| Ardour also has a similar privacy policy, which you should read
| if you intend to use their services:
| https://ardour.org/privacy.html
|
| Ardour also has a compile time optional "phone home" feature
| which checks for update announcements, so you should disable that
| when building if you care about this sort of thing:
| https://github.com/Ardour/ardour/blob/13f5fb3dee640f0bfb1d66...
|
| Personal note: I do not consider these things to be issues with
| Ardour, or with Audacity. I commend PaulDavisThe1st and x42 and
| the rest of the Ardour contributors, as well as the Audacity
| developers, for their respective work on these two excellent
| projects.
| ianlevesque wrote:
| I just read the entire privacy policy and not only is the
| entirety completely reasonable and barely worth mentioning, the
| "phone home" section is just this: " If you download and use a
| ready-to-run version of Ardour from ardour.org, the program
| will attempt to contact ardour.org at startup to determine if
| you should be notified about a new release of the software. If
| the computer where you use Ardour is connected to the internet,
| this process will store the computer's internet address and an
| identifier for its operating system." So it's barely an http
| access log for whatever endpoint that is. The privacy policy
| hysteria has gone wayyyyyy too far.
| anotherevan wrote:
| > the program will attempt to contact ardour.org at startup
| to determine if you should be notified about a new release of
| the software
|
| I remember one developer who actually used a DNS TXT record
| to store the latest version, which I always thought was an
| interesting idea.
| noobermin wrote:
| The thing is at least from what I can gather, the Audacity
| issue is literally on the same level of this. The only added
| difference is optional bug reporting.
| danudey wrote:
| Optional, opt-in error reporting and telemetry, yes. This
| entire issue is a bunch of people freaking out over nothing
| and making baseless assertions about things that aren't
| happening.
| ratww wrote:
| As someone that worked in this area, IMO, the difference between
| DAWs and modern audio editors (especially a complete one like
| Audacity) is massively overstated.
|
| DAWs make fine audio editors for 99% of cases. The non-
| destructive workflow might even be simpler to most people.
|
| For recording a DAW is IMO a better option, since it's battle
| tested in critical environments where super-low latency and rock
| solid stability is non negotiable.
|
| On the other hand, modern audio editors like Audacity already
| have lots of complex features: complete multitrack recording,
| plugins, automation, so it's not as if the complexity difference
| is that big. Honestly, someone used to edit Audio on a DAW would
| also have a hard time picking up Audacity too, since it's complex
| on its own as well.
|
| If it were SoundForge vs ProTools 15 or 20 years ago I'd
| definitely agree that one is not an alternative to the other, but
| Audacity vs any DAW today? Yeah you can replace it without much
| difficulty.
| noobermin wrote:
| What are you thoughts on Ardour? Is it a good tool? Have been
| wanted to dabble in music making for a while.
| mat0 wrote:
| Why would anyone replace Audacity? Just because they are trying
| to get some data? Audacity is fine
| neolog wrote:
| I contribute to open source software but I don't use it to spy
| on people. I don't want software to spy on me either.
| drewolbrich wrote:
| This article explains the missing context of this post:
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/07/04/open-source-audac...
| swiley wrote:
| Even if it's fine now, using telemetry to make decisions is a
| pretty strong way to say "no power users or people with unique
| problems wanted."
| stilisstuk wrote:
| Fedora uses telemetry. audacity sounds bad, but not all
| telemetry is
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > Fedora uses telemetry
|
| Any chance you have details? All I can find after a few
| minutes of searching is [0] which was a proposal for
| counting installs.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18913955
| rbanffy wrote:
| We don't need to. We can fork it, remove the spyware parts, and
| fix the license compliance issues (the newer terms of use are
| incompatible with the license).
| speed_spread wrote:
| Try realtime mixing and recording of 32 tracks with added
| software effects and MIDI sync. Ardour is industrial studio
| console software. Nothing to do with Audacity.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-05 23:01 UTC)