[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)