[HN Gopher] Zrythm: A highly automated and intuitive digital aud...
___________________________________________________________________
Zrythm: A highly automated and intuitive digital audio workstation
Author : Tomte
Score : 276 points
Date : 2021-12-05 16:02 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.zrythm.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.zrythm.org)
| owlbynight wrote:
| Just let me put FL Studio's piano roll into Ableton, please.
| BoysenberryPi wrote:
| I saw this a while ago and wanted to contribute so I found my way
| to their source. Unfortunately, this was my first interaction
| with SourceHut, the site they use as their central point of
| development, and found it completely unintuitive. After 15
| minutes of fumbling around I basically just said "I'll try it
| again later" and never got back to it. This might just be because
| this was my first encounter with the site.
| pengaru wrote:
| Were you unable to find the git URL for cloning the repository?
|
| Or was it non-coding contributions you were interested in?
| maximedupre wrote:
| I didn't even know about SourceHut. It seems like the weird
| cousin of Github. But I'm also a Github fan boiiiii.
| wrycoder wrote:
| Assume you found the code by clicking on "tree"?
|
| https://man.sr.ht/
| zucker42 wrote:
| You just use git-send-email[1] to send a patch to their mailing
| list[2]. Project page is here[3].
|
| [1] https://git-send-email.io/
|
| [2] https://lists.sr.ht/~alextee/zrythm-devel
|
| [3] https://sr.ht/~alextee/zrythm/
| alextee wrote:
| we keep a mirror there if you prefer to use github
| (https://github.com/zrythm/zrythm) but we don't actually use
| github for development
|
| if you really want to use github pull requests instead of
| sending patches feel free to do that and I'll still look at
| them but we recommend patches via email because it's an open
| and standard system
| 2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote:
| Just wanted to say that I personally really appreciate the
| setup, workflow and the way you are organized! It looks like
| you are really caring about building upon open tech both in
| development and communication. Actually made me very curious.
|
| Same for the choice of dependencies and the documentation in
| place, was surprised with how easy it was to compile myself.
| Hadn't had the time to give the program itself a full try
| yet, but I'm actually looking forward to do try some
| recordings with it next week.
| nerdponx wrote:
| I do wish we had an open standard for things like issues,
| pull requests, etc. that was a little more "featureful" than
| plain email. At least platforms like Gitlab, Gitea, etc. are
| self-hostable and open source, which is a start.
| [deleted]
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| ForgeFed[1] seems to be an attempt in that direction built
| on top of ActivityPub[2], but (from my very brief
| impression) seems to be stuck in something of a development
| hell. I'm willing to believe it'll get done at some point,
| but whether it'll get traction--or how a project of this
| sort should even go about that in general--is anybody's
| guess.
|
| [1]: https://forgefed.peers.community/
|
| [2]: https://activitypub.rocks/
| 999900000999 wrote:
| I understand why, but it's really hurting adoption of this
| project to lock the installers behind a paywall. When I'm looking
| to download something like this, I already have garage band and
| logic. I'm not willing to really give you 15$ without any proof
| this will work for me. However, if the installers were available
| for free, I would have no trouble paying EUR5 or so on the honor
| system. Assume it works for my computer and all that stuff
| alextee wrote:
| the "paywall" system has been proven to work by ardour and
| zrythm to fund the project's development
|
| >I'm not willing to really give you 15$ without any proof this
| will work for me
|
| if you want to try it out you can download the trial version at
| no cost. all features are there besides saving/loading projects
| (you can still export audio though)
| 999900000999 wrote:
| The problem here is it's competing against Audacity which is
| free.
|
| Then again audacity is selling user data. Even if I'm down to
| pay 15$ then I can't share projects with anyone who doesn't
| want to pay. Folks who , since it's proven, already use
| Logic.
| mixedCase wrote:
| Audacity is not a DAW. This is competing with Ardour, if
| you want to limit it to FOSS options.
| kekebo wrote:
| It appears you can compile the project yourself since it's open
| source[0].
|
| Besides that there's a free installer download option on the
| website.
|
| [0] https://git.sr.ht/~alextee/zrythm/tree/master/INSTALL.md
| Severian wrote:
| Note: you must also build the software yourself to get ASIO
| support for Windows (which uses RtAudio). You'll be stuck
| with an order of magnitude greater latency under WASAPI (or
| worse under MME), assuming your device drivers are built to
| use it.
|
| https://docs.zrythm.org/md_doc_dev_windows_build.html
|
| IANAL, but it looks like maybe the devs don't want to to
| register the license with Steinberg and keep this free (as in
| beer) licensing-wise?
|
| This looks cool, but the barrier to entry to a bit steep
| under Windows. I want to make noise, not spend time messing
| around with building software.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| Thank you for proving my point.
|
| Assuming this works I have no problem donating 15 or 30$. I
| already know it's not going to work as Logic, so then it
| turns into $15 just to sort of see what it is.
| enumjorge wrote:
| For the average user, $15 is probably a lower barrier of
| entry than asking them to compile their own binaries.
| rvense wrote:
| I compile stuff for myself all the time and I bought the
| installer. As far as this category of software goes, $15 is
| cheap. (Although I think it was $5 when I got it.)
|
| It didn't work very well a year and a half ago or whenever
| it was, though. Maybe I should give it a look again.
| jturpin wrote:
| Yeah this is a turnoff for me. I get that I could compile it
| myself but since the authors clearly don't want that, I'd
| rather just put my money into tools I know will work.
| maximedupre wrote:
| So, I'm curious, what's the big thing about Zrythm?
|
| Is it that you can automate much more params than on
| Logic/Ableton?
|
| The fact that it's open-source is pretty cool though.
| odiroot wrote:
| I haven't tried it myself but at least the piano roll seems
| better than Bitwig's. And Bitwig is my current choice for
| Linux.
| adamgordonbell wrote:
| What I want is a way to run VSTs from the command line. Often I
| just have the same chain of VST with saved settings that I want
| to run a file through and a DAW shouldn't be required. mrswatson
| is the only thing close I have found but it doesn't seem to work
| at all.
|
| I'll admit my usecase is unique, just running certain Izotope
| plugins over interview audio to clean them up but I really wish
| command line composition and automation were possible.
|
| https://github.com/teragonaudio/MrsWatson
| wolfblood wrote:
| have you seen the pedalboard project? Might get you the outcome
| you're after if you want to dabble in python.
|
| https://github.com/spotify/pedalboard
| jdevera wrote:
| Maybe you can cook something quickly with Spotify's Pedalboard:
| https://github.com/spotify/pedalboard
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| What is "a file" in this case? Because VST don't have idea what
| that is, so you're still going to be generating your projects
| in _something_
|
| That said, what you're describing sounds pretty close to using
| cantabile in headless mode
| (https://www.cantabilesoftware.com/guides/commandLineOptions),
| where you just create a project with your desired VST chain,
| and then take it from there.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| If you don't mind a little bit of high level programming, I
| would recommend SuperCollider in NRT mode + the VSTPlugin
| extension or Pure Data in batch mode + the [vstplugin~]
| external. In both cases you'd generate the OSC command file
| resp. write the Pd patch once and then invoke it from the
| command line with any soundfile you want.
| mxmilkiib wrote:
| Check out https://github.com/falkTX/kuriborosu
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Look at gstreamer.
| alextee wrote:
| this is on the radar, what you are asking for is similar to
| lv2apply I guess
|
| you can already run guile scripts via the command line so you
| could run a few plugins and process audio if you wanted to
| assuming all the necessary API is exposed but I haven't really
| tried that yet
|
| for now, I recommend kuriborosu as well
| https://github.com/falkTX/kuriborosu/
| hunter2_ wrote:
| My first thought was to see if ffmpeg could do this.
| Unfortunately it seems like not currently [0] but what caught
| my eye is a mention that "the VST SDK has a linux command line
| VST Host you can compile" which might be all you need.
|
| [0] https://superuser.com/questions/1661505/naive-query-vst-
| plug...
| dandare wrote:
| With a free software like this I am always wondering what is the
| business model, how do they make money?
| FractalHQ wrote:
| Check out their download page- they offer premium subscriptions
| for access to more plugins
| tapland wrote:
| And for the save/load functionality? I'll check the free
| version out but that seems like a big hurdle of the free
| version
| schmorptron wrote:
| Meta: I always really like HN Threads about DAWs, a lot of people
| with a ton of knowledge and good recomendations tend to show up
| :)
| billfruit wrote:
| Does it have a tracker-style interface? I think trackers are more
| intuitive than the piano rolls many audio software have.
| emsy wrote:
| Trackers are just vertical piano rolls with all tracks visible
| concurrently. Piano rolls are is better, I'd argue, when
| working with audio clips and automation.
| 0des wrote:
| Always nice to see another SourceHut project :)
| no_time wrote:
| After taking a cursory glance at the sources, It's rather unique
| in a way that it's GTK based yet looks nothing the average GTK
| application. I wonder what made them pick GTK instead of QML or
| even something unique like many DAWs do.
|
| btw congrats to the team, I'm not musically gifted to give an
| opinion on how usable it is, but the design looks very crisp and
| more akin to something you see in closed source apps with an army
| of designers behind them.
| luckydata wrote:
| I've been making music for a LOOOOONG time (mostly Logic and
| Ableton user but I tried everything under the sun).
|
| I looked at it for a minute and the only thing I could think was
| "what a mess".
| Mizza wrote:
| Looks nice, particularly the piano roll.
|
| Do any Free DAWs have Ableton-like VST "hiding"? I can't leave
| Ableton because of how insane window management gets on complex
| projects when 10 different VSTs are all fighting for screen
| space. Even the screenshots for this app look chaotic from all of
| the VSTs covering the screen at the same time.
| maximedupre wrote:
| > Even the screenshots for this app look chaotic from all of
| the VSTs covering the screen at the same time.
|
| That's one of the first things I noticed - how messy it looks.
| Perhaps that's just because they tried to showcase all the
| features in one single screenshot lol.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Due to your question, I just added this feature to Ardour.
| There's now a user preference that if set will only allow one
| plugin GUI window to be visible at a time. Lots of our users
| would find that irritating, but you get the choice now.
|
| https://github.com/Ardour/ardour/commit/c7b70c6318456b375ccb...
| Mizza wrote:
| That's awesome! I've had Ardour on my systems for years,
| since the first Ubuntu Studio, thanks for all your work!
| themodelplumber wrote:
| Some Qs I've had about this recently in case you or someone
| else could offer insights: Is it realistic to run Ardour
| for music composition on regular Intel sound hardware these
| days? Is it still pretty easy to migrate from Ubuntu to
| (presumably realtime) Studio?
|
| Thanks for any input; I'm interested in Ardour, Jack, etc.
| but not "buy new sound card" interested, as LMMS on ALSA is
| not too bad for what I do.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Ardour does not have significantly higher requirements
| than other audio software and should work just fine with
| any decent-ish machine. The audio interface is really up
| to you, it's just a matter of sound quality. If onboard
| audio suits you, then who are we to judge?
|
| I myself used the onboard audio with an external mixer
| for quite a while. I've since upgraded to a 24 track
| FireWire rig assembled from cheap used hardware that no
| longer ran on Mac or Windows because of obsolete drivers.
| In-tree drivers is major advantage of Linux when it comes
| to hardware support.
| marcan_42 wrote:
| And this is why I use Ardour. It just keeps getting better
| and the devs are amazingly responsive! I'm really looking
| forward to Ardour 7 :-)
| mxmilkiib wrote:
| #zrythm on libera IRC is a very active channel (as is #ardour,
| #lad)
| wrycoder wrote:
| Distributed at Sourcehut under the GNU Affero license, with
| branding reserved to unmodified copies. The business model is
| interesting.
|
| https://git.sr.ht/~alextee/zrythm
| mhitza wrote:
| Wanted to give it a try, unfortunately under Fedora 34 the alpha
| AppImage segfaults when run via pw-jack (pipewire jack "bridge")
| spacechild1 wrote:
| > Fully JACK aware, including support for PipeWire, JACK
| transport, ALSA, PulseAudio, WASAPI, Windows MME, CoreMidi and
| CoreAudio.
|
| No ASIO support?
| chirau wrote:
| So how do we pronounce this? I think the name is unnecessarily
| complicated.
| alextee wrote:
| zee-rhythm
| quitethelogic wrote:
| I'll use it if you allow zed-rhythm as well
| [deleted]
| kiddico wrote:
| This is a bit off topic, but this is the first time I've actually
| used sourcehut and I've got to say I love it. Nearly instant
| account creation and sometimes I don't notice a page is already
| loaded because I blinked when I clicked.
|
| well done sircmpwn
| udbhavs wrote:
| There was a comment on the recent Blender 3.0 thread posted here
| wondering why there isn't an equivalent program for audio. This
| looks very polished and much more approachable compared to Ardour
| or LMMS, and seems like a good candidate. But one feature I
| really wish my dream "Blender for audio" had would be the
| convenient device view that Ableton and Bitwig offer for working
| quickly with effects. It's so much faster than the type of effect
| chains offered by DAWs like FL and makes it fun to mess around
| and experiment with effects-based synthesis. Looking at the
| screenshots and videos it looks like Zrythm doesn't have this
| feature, although I understand how tedious it would be to
| implement because you would essentially have to write your own
| effects or create wrappers around others to expose an interface
| that can fit in a device view. Probably not high on the list of
| priorities for a work in progress DAW
| jbverschoor wrote:
| The value proposition is different. Blender is (afaik) free for
| your render farm.
|
| In general modeling is a huge team.
|
| Audio/composing is largely a solo activity. What good is "an
| alternative" if you can get Logic Pro for a few hundred
| alextee wrote:
| that's on the radar but after v1. what you are describing is
| probably similar to how the modulators look in the modulators
| tab (see https://manual.zrythm.org/en/modulators/intro.html)
| udbhavs wrote:
| Yeah, and the modulators themselves are a very cool feature
| too. Excited to see how Zrythm evolves, the UI looks great
| and it could be a good starting point for beginners.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I would argue there are many more, and much more widely
| differing, workflows for DAW use than there are for 3D (maybe
| even 2D) graphics. There are somewhere in the range of 12-20
| "significant" DAWs out there, with a very wide range of
| workflows supported (not all of them by all the DAWs).
|
| This doesn't include "generation environments" like VCV Rack,
| Reaktor, Bespoke and many others that don't have any
| traditional DAW features but are immensely powerful tools for
| synthesis and compositional discovery and creation.
|
| Depending on the uniqueness of your imagined or actual
| workflow, there is probably a tool that comes close, but the
| potential variations do imply that its not hard to come up with
| a description for "what I really want in an audio tool" that
| just doesn't exist (at least not without you doing significant
| work yourself e.g. programming in PureData).
| alextee wrote:
| >This doesn't include "generation environments" like VCV
| Rack, Reaktor, Bespoke and many others that don't have any
| traditional DAW features but are immensely powerful tools for
| synthesis and compositional discovery and creation.
|
| that's on the radar as well
| https://todo.sr.ht/~alextee/zrythm-feature/115
|
| although you can already do this if you use the carla plugin.
| that feature is about having a more native way to create your
| own "patches" by connecting various modules/plugins in a
| container plugin
| dmead wrote:
| are you the ardor guy?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| yes. alextee is the zrythm guy.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Note that the same is true for 3d/2d, there are a good 20
| significant applications all primed for doing "that thing
| that you wish other tools did" better than any other tool.
|
| If your application does 80% of all work 50% better than the
| rest, and the last 20% at least just as bad as everyone else,
| then even if there will be folks who want something that is
| more specifically tailored to that one thing they really want
| to do you still have an amazing product. That's certainly
| Blender, and if someone wants to try to achieve the same in
| DAW land, most folks who use DAWs will be watching that
| development with excitement.
|
| They may not switch primary DAW, but using different tools
| sparks different creative flows, and in a few rare cases, you
| stick with the new tool.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| As the author of another FLOSS DAW, I'd disagree with your
| closing sentence. The number of users of computer graphics
| tools outnumbers the computer audio tools by at least 10:1
| based on any metric I can find. Maybe I've grown immune to
| the "excitement" or maybe my 21-year old project is just
| shite, but I really don't think it works the same way.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| If after 20 years you're no longer excited about a new
| DAW, I'm sorry to hear that, but there are plenty of
| folks who still get excited when something new comes out
| that tries to address a gaping hole in the digital audio
| space. You can be set in which DAW you use because you've
| been using it for over a decade (even if you own all the
| other ones because things go on sale so much, and
| hardware comes with "cheap to upgrade to the full version
| from" licenses for everything that it's nearly impossible
| not to just own all the DAWs after a few years. Except
| maybe Pro Tools), and still go "this looks... really
| cool, actually. Let's see if it has magic".
|
| (Although of course, if you _make_ a DAW your story is
| vastly different from the end user experience. You are
| not hoping to find that magic, you'll have already
| determined what the magic is, and considered most ways to
| try to implement it, and maybe even fell out of love with
| it because of that)
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I didn't mean to imply that I'm no longer excited by a
| new DAW. We're in the middle of adding clip launching to
| Ardour right now, and that alone is fairly exciting. What
| I meant was that I don't really detect much excitement in
| the world from the emergence of a new DAW, and what I do
| see mostly comes from people who don't seem to actually
| know very much about existing DAWs. There are way more
| people talking about Blender 3.0 than anytime a new
| version of any major DAW is released.
| [deleted]
| gmueckl wrote:
| If you asked me, Blender is just insanely good at
| marketing itself. When it comes to software, having good
| marketing and sales is always more important than the
| quality of the product. The Blender team knows this and
| is very aggressive when it comes to keeping their product
| in the news. This worked in their favor even in the early
| days when there still were a few other open source 3D
| tools that had a chance of growing up to become seriously
| useful. These projects were starved out by drawing
| attention away from them. Twenty years later, that space
| is dominated by Blender so forcefully that there is zero
| room for an alternative, even as an underdog.
| eointierney wrote:
| Your 21 year old project is amazing and I'm grateful for
| your efforts.
|
| The slow development of DAWs and ther interfaces is
| really interesting and I'd love to know your thoughts on
| explorable UI/UX. You have a very hard job.
| Shared404 wrote:
| Just chiming in saying thanks for Ardour! I'm far from
| skilled, but it's one of the few programs I always have
| installed on at least one machine.
| fb03 wrote:
| I'm keeping an eye on Bespoke Synth for that.
|
| Am a keen user of Renoise which is not free but it's really
| good (if you enjoy trackers) and also very affordable.
|
| In the meantime, hyped for how the foss audio world is shaping
| up. We soon might not even a commercial daw at all anymore,
| just like Blender is doing in the 3D world (I work with artists
| in a studio and we switched almost our whole pipeline, sans
| simulations, to Blender).
| woldenron wrote:
| I don't get how people can compare anything to Blender, which
| gets many grants and funds from big corporations and would
| still be shit without it.
| udbhavs wrote:
| Well for audio I think most of the tools are already out
| there, it's just a matter of bundling them neatly into a nice
| open source package that has a good UX and workflow.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Could such a feature be implemented as a Zrythm plugin?
| delgaudm wrote:
| Seems pretty cool, but looking at the screen capture on the front
| page of that site makes me wonder, "intuitive for who?"
|
| (But, I use Reaper, so who am I to talk)
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| My remarks on this "intuitive" thing (I'm the lead developer of
| Ardour, another FOSS DAW):
|
| https://discourse.ardour.org/t/reflections-on-intuitive/7833...
| mhitza wrote:
| Thanks for Ardour. I've been using it on an off for a couple
| of years now (every time I get the itch to remix some pop
| song that's stuck in my head).
|
| I will say that I consider Ardour unintuitive, and reading
| your post on the forums I think we have different takes on
| the perspective used for this criteria. You seem to be making
| the argument for users coming from other DAWs to Ardour,
| whereas Ardour was for me was the first DAW I used. Thus
| rather than comparing it to existing tools I always try to
| find out how to do X, and often I have to Google for help
| because what I expect to be possible is not
| straightforward/"intuitive".
|
| Let me give out two examples that tripped me up recently
|
| 1) Wasn't able to easily reorder my tracks. I would have
| found intuitive to be able to drag & drop tracks within the
| main view. Instead I had to switch to the mixer view to
| reorder them.
|
| 2) I was playing around with a song that had around 20 stem
| tracks. Grouped them out by voice, melody, percussion. But
| once grouped I couldn't find an easy way to solo an
| individual track within a group, as the solo button would
| solo the entire group. For me a group specific set of
| controls would be intuitive, whereas existing buttons
| changing their behaviour is not. If I recall correctly I had
| to click the group name in the main view for it to become
| uncolored (disabled?) for individual controls to effect
| individual tracks.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Re: 1: View > Show Editor Lists and then you can drag &
| drop in precisely the same way as in the Mixer window.
|
| Re: 2: the primary modifier key (Ctrl on Linux/Window, Cmd
| on macOS) overrides group operations universally. So click
| on a solo button for one member of a group, solo the whole
| group; Primary-click ... solo just that member.
| mhitza wrote:
| 1) That's definitely useful info, I was not actively
| aware of the Editor List. If it shows up on the first
| Ardour startup I probably closed it out just to have more
| room available in the default setup.
|
| 2) Also wasn't aware of the "primary modifier key". What
| I noticed from giving it a quick try on my project is
| that when holding down Ctrl cannot solo a single track in
| the Show Editor Lists -> Tracks & Busses window (clicks
| are prevented). Nor does it allow me to adjust individual
| volume sliders per track within a group. But seems to
| work for all the other track controls.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Re 2: the editor list "Tracks&Busses" tab uses a GTK
| TreeView for displaying status and offering controls.
|
| GTK's treeviews don't make it very easy (understatement!)
| to make cells in the treeview detect keyboard modifiers.
| When you click on the green/gray box in the solo column,
| mostly what we know is that you clicked, we don't tend to
| get modifier info. I was referring to tbe buttons in
| track headers/mixer strip, but you're right it should be
| consistent/universal. I'll see what I can do.
|
| Regarding faders not being group-overridden by the
| Primary modifier ... yes, that's true. Ctrl-drag on the
| fader provides finer-grain control. However, there's a
| reason for this difference. In general, we recommend that
| people use VCA's for group gain control and disable
| shared gain control in a group. It gives you a much more
| flexible working style, and is a feature typically found
| only on extremely expensive mixing consoles. Ardour
| offers both SSL and Harrison style VCAs (i.e.
| heirarchical/stacked or parallel), depending solely on
| how you set things up.
| rvense wrote:
| I don't like the word at all when describing interfaces. It's
| an overly broad term that in my experience doesn't tend to
| lead to very good conversations about what's good or bad.
| Case in point, we recently did a complete UI make-over at
| $JOB and the bossman keeps referring to it as the new 'more
| intuitive UI'. We moved a few buttons around and changed some
| font sizes, but the most visible change is the completely new
| colour palette. So yeah.
|
| I'd also argue that nobody is born with an intuition to work
| a DAW or any other piece of software, and in that sense I
| think it's just a misleading term.
|
| I think there are much better words to use to talk about
| whether a UI is successful or not: "Familiar" is a good word,
| because then you can ask "familiar to whom" and have a good
| conversation about what kind of users you have, their
| backgrounds, how much work you expect them to put into
| learning your software, etc. "Internally consistent" is
| another thing you can talk about and to some extent quantify.
| Being "discoverable" is another thing where you can talk
| about the balances between having everything right in front
| of you and a complete information overload. And of course,
| you can't really get around whether or not a UI is
| attractive, displaying good colour sense and being visually
| balanced and such. While you can certainly make pretty things
| that are impossible to understand, I would tend to argue that
| there is a bare minimum of prettiness needed to make
| something that's friendly and engaging.
|
| (PS: Thank you very much for Ardour, it is a remarkable piece
| of software.)
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| "The only intuitive interface is the nipple, everything
| after that has to be learned."
|
| And even that's not universal, it's quite normal for
| newborns to struggle with feeding.
| rectang wrote:
| My instinctive reaction to any software product advertised as
| "Intuitive", "Simple", or "Fast", is full-on Generation X
| "what utter bullshit" skepticism.
|
| A greenfield software project in an inherently complex domain
| may be intuitive, simple, and fast at first, but claiming it
| will stay that way is like advertising a rock you throw into
| the air as "Flying".
| dvtrn wrote:
| > (But, I use Reaper, so who am I to talk)
|
| Reaper is a fantastic DAW, at a great price point IMO. I've had
| a side hustle for a while now editing podcasts and doing voice
| overs for a couple of corporate clients (my former job being
| one of them) and Reaper is the chefs knife in my kitchen of
| sound
| squarefoot wrote:
| I'm also a Reaper user. The Windows version is so snappy that
| it runs perfectly under WINE and, as a Linux user, I didn't
| feel the lack of a native version before it existed. And I
| still use it; unfortunately something happened on my 6+ years
| old installed machine and I'm not able anymore to run Linux
| VST hosts under native software; all attempt to use linvst
| now fail, etc, so I'll be soon building a new machine
| dedicated only to music.
|
| Anyway, one feature I'd like to be addressed in DAWs is
| pattern based drum programming, just like we did with old
| drum machines in the 80s, but on steroids. I wouldn't use it
| for electronic music however; I'd like to quickly create
| patterns with an UI that for example let me show them like
| boxes on a flowchart (double clicking for editing), then
| drag, move, connect, copy them, apply variations, different
| time signatures, etc. The mouse interface would allow
| extremely quick creation and managing of a rhythm track, but
| unfortunately all we got is piano/drum tracks that are good
| for fine editing but IMO aren't the best tool when composing.
| They surely allow selecting areas then copying, moving etc,
| but in most DAWs the interface is so much crammed with
| objects that can be dragged and dropped that mistakes are a
| regular thing. We lack something in between that helps
| organizing drum tracks areas as patterns, then treat them as
| such.
| delgaudm wrote:
| I couldn't agree more, Reaper is awesome and totally worth
| the learning curve. I'm a voice actor by trade and I consider
| Reaper my "IDE of choice".
| throwvirtever wrote:
| "Intuitive for who" is a good question, and I hope the answer
| is "intuitive to the new/occasional user".
|
| I've used a number of different DAWs, and the main challenge is
| that if I haven't made any music for several months, I don't
| _really_ remember all the various maneuvers that a daily user
| would have in muscle memory. I end up having to re-learn
| everything, and experience extra special frustration along the
| lines of "I know there was a trick to moving this thing to
| that place, but I can't remember what it is".
|
| Almost every time, it's hard to argue that the way the DAW does
| it "doesn't make sense"; it generally does make sense. But a
| lot of the time the maneuver is so different than the things
| one does in a non-DAW for basic clicking, editing, and dragging
| things around, that it gets frustrating having to re-learn it
| over and over again.
| marcodiego wrote:
| I don't know exactly what kind of software is better suited for
| FLOSS. I'm a bit sad that there are no AAA FLOSS games. Open
| source libraries have been in common use for games for long time,
| there are a few somewhat adequate engines and Godot is a major
| promise for changing the landscape.
|
| Now, consider linux, gcc, llvm, apache, the rest of the gnu
| project... these are technical projects. It looks like "technical
| people" are willing to improve the tools they use and that drives
| FLOSS technical/system software to continually evolve through the
| years.
|
| Regarding artistic software... well they are definitely technical
| and advanced, but an artist is much less willing or knowledgeable
| to make any contribution. But, when the right sauce finally mixes
| in, we get Blender.
|
| So, I think there is hope for the DAW market. If proprietary
| options don't take care to make good offers, they will be eaten
| just the same way the traditional proprietary UNIX world was.
| MacOS survives, but the market the survive into is very
| different.
| egypturnash wrote:
| _I 'm a bit sad that there are no AAA FLOSS games_
|
| AAA games are typically the result of a small army of artists,
| working overlong hours for a year or three. Go read the credits
| of one all the way through sometime, and compare to the credits
| of a summer tentpole action/effects film.
|
| Do you have any proposals for ways to get this many people to
| work for that long for free? Or for a way to fund them and
| release the full source for the executables _and_ the assets
| for free?
| marcodiego wrote:
| I said nothing about the assets. Actually I really think this
| is a path for good FLOSS AAA games: paid assets. Not even
| Stallman is opposed to that:
| https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.en.html the part
| that says "Game art is a different issue, because it isn't
| software."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-05 23:00 UTC)