It looks nice, but, serious question, is there a reason why the UI in all screenshots is so dark and completely lacks contrast? I really couldn't look at black text or dark blue text on a dark background all day :/
I thought there was some sort of CSS overlay or something gone awry. But, seeing some of the images with the pd window being all white makes it clear that the color scheme is just ridiculous.
I even thought the images might be corrupted, saved them and opened them locally haha.
It really is an awful colorscheme and I wonder how anyone could think that's usable.
Ah, nice. I was just looking through the github repo and found some config files for qt with color schemes. And yet my question stands: Why present a project like that?
Because the team is primarily developers, not designers? That's my best guess... its quite common amongst open source projects (although this is becoming increasingly rare).
So, because I can't resist any new audio toy, I downloaded it and tried it...it locked up X, or the desktop or something, on Fedora 21. Which seems odd, as it's using tk for the interface, which ought to be old and stable, by now. But, maybe nobody is testing current desktops against tk anymore, so bugs don't get found.
Also, the color scheme in the screenshots is really the color scheme; it's not just botched screenshots. Completely unreadable, for me, at any reasonable distance from my monitor. I mean, I understand I'm not so young and my eyesight has never been great, but I can't believe this is a comfortable level of contrast for anyone. Hopefully this is easily configurable.
There was a relatively recent bug in X11 which would cause X to crash when any arcs were drawn on screen with certain beginning/ending angles. This might be what's affecting you at the moment.
A yum update and reboot allowed it to work. You're likely right (or it was some other Xorg bug). Getting color scheme readable was easy (making it look nice and be readable will take a lot more work).
It feels pretty complex, and it seems like it's heavily reliant on hotkeys to be able to do much of anything quickly/easily. I recall being very effective at getting ideas working on hotkey based trackers in the distant past, but it's been a long time, and I dunno if I have the patience to learn enough of it to be productive even approaching the level I'm productive on other tools. It almost feels like Impulse Tracker is its ideological ancestor, in its reliance on keyboard navigation. Which some folks love. I'm not necessarily in that camp these days.
But, still an interesting experiment and UI design for music.
Wow, this looks really impressive. I've messed around with trackers since the 90s, and I think lots of people who do kind of wish they operated a bit more like this rather than with fussy hex values and hard to remember effect codes. I've always, for example, just wanted to draw the shape of the track volume as a left-to-right line over top of a track rather than having to hand edit the volume column or use a volume effect (or use a track-effect that's in a different window somewhere).
This looks like it's really going the right direction.
A serious question from someone who is in and out of studios weekly and who works almost daily in Ableton and weekly in Pro Tools and Logic (doing production as well as post stuff).
Does anybody use something like this to make music for any professional/commercial use or is it really just of academic interest and for tinkerers (no offense - there is value there to I know).
I ask because when I look at this (and I'm also an EE and a software developer) I get a headache.
Maybe. I don't know what you're latching on to, but I know both Jeskola Buzz¹ and Renoise² (which has some connection to the Buzz community) have been used commercially. These cover the tracker style + extra learning curve + crazy piles of features + weird UI, which should cover most of the bases.
This is not so much stranger in absolute terms than the modular synths people build (and probably a bit less obsessive.)
I haven't used it, but imo if you're getting a headache that's a bad sign regardless of what it looks like. You should do most of the looking with your ears and not have to use your eyes too much. That's what I used to love about trackers, but I haven't used one seriously since Impulse Tracker.
It looks not dissimilar from other modular editor such as AudioMulch or Buzz. I think the highest profile musician that uses AudioMulch extensively is Girl Talk, but I'm sure others have as well.
Just like modular synthesizers are the purview of the... more obsessed sort, modular editors occupy a similar more specialized niche.
Edit: not dissimilar, but still different in a bunch of ways. Seems more like an attempt to marry the more common DAW audio-clip style with the modular synth environment (just based on screenshots).
The project is pretty much on hold since 2013 because the sole developer disappeared in June 2014... but the site and forums remain hosted, waiting for his return. The product looked so promising in its early 2012/2013 days but now lays dormant.
I wonder if you've ever tried Ardour and what's your take on it as recording pro? Personally I think it's wonderful. I haven't used ProTool and Nuendo etc for years (I produced a couple of albums about 15 years ago, but haven't done much professionally since), but it seems very nice and produces great results IMO.
Ardour looks pretty nice actually, but I haven't used it myself. Same goes for Reaper and Presonus Studio One.
In the end, in my experience, it comes down to a few things:
- stability and available support for problems
- ability to share native sessions w/ other users (as opposed to just stems)
- support for hardware (audio i/o and controllers, including mixing surfaces)
- ease of use - so the interface and process doesn't get in the way of the creative process
I am not necessarily a fan of ridiculous skeuomorphism in things like plugins, but at the same time a big knob or fader on the screen makes a lot more (and a lot quicker) sense to me than a little box w/ a hex value in it. I think the advent of touch screens in pro installations reinforces this - see Slate's Raven controllers, which are becoming very popular now - http://www.slateproaudio.com/products/raven-mtx/
In the end though this is just me - more power to anyone making good music anyway they can.
I am a big advocate of Ardour. But I really hope they get their act together and stop adding new features, but start making the release more stable. The last really stable and great version for me was the last of the 2.x releases.
They improved the looks but there was always something that didn't work quite right. IN the 3.x series Midi was introduced, but it crashed all the time (and I've updated every time there was a new release).
Now I am using 4.x and it is dog slow for big sessions (which I originally recorded and mixed in 2.x on a much lesser PC with no problems).
I do understand their arguments. I know that they want to release something for Windows, Mac and Linux to improve their customer base (greatly). But I really hope that Ardour solidifies and they start improving the quality that it comes back to the quality of the 2.x releases.
I used 3.5 about a year ago for a few months, and it was pretty stable once I got my Jack setup stable. It seemed like most problems were with iffy drivers and plugins. Installing everything from Ubuntu Studio's apt repos seemed to produce pretty stable setup and it was also pretty fast (I used a VERY strong machine thuogh). Haven't tried 4.0 yet.
I didn't had any problems with Jack or plugins - the problem with 3.x was Midi editing. Well it was introduced in this release, but I did some drum programming (our drummer was sick, so we've programmed drums to our music) and it sucked.
It was totally normal that Ardour crashed at least twice in the 1 or 2 hours when we were editing drums. And the devs knew that this problem existed, but they've basically told, that it should be fixed in 4.x.
That is, it assumes no modifications have been made to the table, and restores the original standard layout. This is a serious problem if you use utilities like xmodmap(1).
Information to warez groups: Since the source is open, it should be simple to turn the demo into a fully featured version. Please let me know of any problems. (Just compiling the source is cheating!)
First thing that looks like candidate for contributions is a build system. I tried to build a package out of it and it is a collection of Makefiles and shell scripts that for sure can be used to build the thing on a developer's machine, but not useful outside that context.
"The linux binaries have only existed a few months, and I've got requests to add a "make install" option to the makefile for a couple of years, so that it would be easier to package. And I've refused to to it for the same reasons as above. So this has got very little to do with "selling builds".
Of course, I can't deny anyone to make custom radium packages, but I hope they won't. It's simpler and safer if everyone uses the official package, which I also know is packaged (fairly) properly."
The features mention "Extension language support" that lets a user write programs to generate music / modify songs. Anyone care to elaborate on this or provide some examples of extension languages (maybe integration with ChucK or Max/MSP)?
Ah, thanks! It even looks like Pure Data is already embedded (says it's linux-only for now). According to Pd's homepage it looks like you can even use "externals, i.e. objects developed in another programming language" as part of your workflow.
The developer says: "Pd should be included in both windows and osx as soon as I convert Radium to use the new multi-dsp system in Pd that Miller made last year."
Might want to change the name, Radium is an internet streaming application that has been around for years. People might find it confusing, I did..: http://catpigstudios.com
REAPER and Ardour and ProTools - Multitrack recording tools, used for recording live performances, with some basic MIDI capabilities built up over the years.
Cubase and Logic - MIDI sequencers, with multitrack capabilities accreted over many years to the point where multitrack recording (in the same contexts as the above category) is not unheard of, though the UI focus is different.
Fruity Loops and Ableton Live - Loop composition tools (for lack of a better description). Both are designed around loops as the basic building block of sound. While they have limited recording and MIDI capabilities, one likely wouldn't use FL or Ableton to make a symphonic soundtrack for a film, and certainly wouldn't use either to record a full band of performing musicians.
Renoise and apparently Radium - Trackers for the current century. These evolved out of the old Soundtracker style music programs (including Protracker, MED, etc. on the Amiga and then onto FT and Impulse Tracker on early PCs). They've acquired most of the functionality one expects from sequencers and loop based music programs, but don't usually have any multi-track recording facilities.
All are called DAWs by their developers and users, and yet how one uses them is pretty different. I pretty regularly use Ardour and REAPER for multitrack recording. And, I occasionally use Fruity Loops and LMMS for tinkering with remixes. And, I occasionally use Renoise for making electronic music.
I'd like it if there were separate terms for each of these concepts, as it would give folks a good language for talking about what each of these types of tools do. It would also rule out a lot of the stupid confrontational crap that often comes up ("Your program sucks because I can't do X, Y and Z, and I only ever use this other program!" where X, Y, and Z are functions specific to one of the above types of DAW...like "I can't easily do loop-based remixes in ProTools. ProTools sucks!").
I wouldn't say that one certainly wouldn't use Ableton to record a full band of performing musicians. Because I've tracked multiple bands in Ableton. I patched my rig into SSL G and J-series consoles at mid to large sized studios, rather than using the in-house Pro Tools setup.
I worked as a recording engineer for 7 years before becoming a programmer, and I've seen top engineers doing things that I thought was a horrible idea, but they would end up with amazing sounds.
Otherwise, I agree with the other stuff you're saying, just felt like nitpicking about that.
Yes, there's tons of overlap in all of these (sequencers and multi-track recorders were the first to begin to blur the lines, but now basic loop-based features are creeping into sequencers and both FL and Ableton can be used for nearly any basic sequencing task), but the focus of the tool makes a difference in workflow.
And, the tools that pros use for specific tasks can also be indicative. You won't be surprised to find ProTools in a high end recording studio, and you won't be surprised to find a film soundtrack composer using Logic or Cubase. Likewise, you won't be surprised to find an EDM producer using Ableton. There's less overlap in what pros use than in what the tools are capable of in the hands of someone really good with that specific tool.
Anyway, doesn't matter. My point is that there are several different categories of program called DAW. The way they display and receive data varies wildly, and the use cases for them is pretty diverse, and I think it's weird to call them all the same name.
It's strange to have Ardour and Reaper up there with ProTools and Logic described as a MIDI sequencer. That's how it started but at some point it crossed over into a full-featured professional DAW and I'm not sure even Reaper has caught up to its live instrument mixing and editing capabilities.
Ableton is literally a sequencer (and much more) and probably belongs in your MIDI sequencer category.
No, the point doesn't hold up. That's like saying 'workbench' or 'car' is too general to mean anything. It's a general category and you put adjectives in front of it as needed.
And if you're going to eschew the term and use descriptions instead, then it's important to get the descriptions right and not arrange them just so your favorites are up top next to ProTools even though they don't belong there.
Better categories:
Professional DAWs - these do everything well: ProTools, Logic, (maybe) Cubase.
Consumer DAWs - these aim to do most things well: Reaper, Ardour, GarageBand.
Sequencers - geared for hip-hop and electronic music: Ableton Live (yes, it's awesome and will probably become full-featured), Fruity Loops.
Trackers....
My point is being fussy about the term DAW derailed GP's question, when they asked if it's a DAW they're asking if it's a general purpose or specialty platform which is frankly a good question.
I said not all of these things should be called "DAW", but they are all called DAW by many people. I'm saying that is confusing terminology and I wish we could settle on calling some of these things something else. I don't care which things get called "DAW" and which ones get called crows or other types of corvid.
But, the term "DAW" is overloaded, and one of the negative side effects of that overloading is that whenever the discussion comes up somebody has to argue that a bunch of these things that people call "DAW" are stupid and we should hate them because they aren't good for X, Y, and Z. As you have eloquently demonstrated.
Were you trying to demonstrate that fact?
Also, I not only had no intention of derailing OP's question, I answered it by explaining that Radium is in the "modern tracker" category.
To be clear, I'm not agreeing with you and it's bizarre that you think I am. The term DAW is just fine, it's not overloaded and I found grandparent comment's usage of it to be perfectly clear.
Rereading your post I see you did put Radium under your 'modern tracker' category, I think I was so appalled at how you described the other products that I didn't pay attention to where you put it because at that point you had already demonstrated the depth of your knowledge.
It seems pretty tracker-like, with columns for instruments and rows containing notes, but what makes it different is the focus on graphical editing and automation. The node editor thing on the right for connecting effects looks pretty cool, too.
It looks like it is indeed a DAW (supports VST and LADSPA, which is a tell-tale sign), but with a lot more/better features and a pretty visible tracker heritage.
it would be nice to see an editor that stops locking pitch, time, and velocity together. i made a prototype where you can manipulate sequences of pitch, velocity, time, and other concepts independently- its really awesome!
_teaching2.jpg){kind=link}
Examples of what I mean:
- http://users.notam02.no/~kjetism/radium/pictures/overview1.p...
- http://users.notam02.no/~kjetism/radium/pictures/pluginmenu....