On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 22:53 +0200, [email protected] wrote: > On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 08:23:50PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > I guess a developer just needs to take a look at what is supported by > > (in lexically order) Ardour, Qtractor and Rosegarden as host. > > Depends on the developer's own interests and target audience. > For production tools I keep an eye on Ardour, and that's it > more or less. > > If people think that Autotalent is really great then they > should just use it. Even if its resampling code distorts as > hell. If they believe that the Calf Compressor really has > an RMS mode as it claims it has, let them be happy believing > that. I don't care. > > Ciao,
That explains why you're happy with PCs to produce music, you don't use MIDI ;). Anyway, some developer might care about at least the most common hosts. Until now those are Ardour + Rosegarden and Qtractor gets more and more fans too. Now, autotalent might become better and might be important for the more up to date pop music orientated crowed while people might use Calf compressor without RMS mode. I don't need autotalent. I do need a compressor, but if possible I avoid using a compressor and try to do a good mix by using EQs instead of a compressor. Anyway, we do have different needs and I would welcome if you coders take care of Ardour, Rosegarden and Qtractor. IMO anything else is less important. Note, it's not unimportant! 0,02 € _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
