On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:52:05 -0500 Paul Davis <p...@linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Fons Adriaensen > <f...@linuxaudio.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:39:04PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > > > >> the position that i take with N-point editing is not that there is > >> some other way to do "the following". There isn't. its that the > >> way of approaching the task that leads to needing to do "the > >> following" is rooted in an older way of thinking about the overall > >> workflow. > > > > Tell that to your customer when he (or she in this case) wants you > > to replace part of an edited track with the same fragment from > > another take. > > i'm confused about who the customer is. the older way of thinking > about the overall workflow is an attribute of the engineer/editor, not > the singer. > if the engineer/editor is the customer, i'd tell them to use another > program right now because ardour doesn't support their workflow. i try > not to spend much time convincing people to work in a different way > than they are used to, it seems pretty pointless to me since i don't > really believe that one way is superior to the others (though some are > definitely more connected to ideas rooted in some kind physical > operation like tape splicing). > > hint: there's no reason to replace the section from [2:03 to 2:27] > with another take at all. > hi, I'm noob with ardour but I'd like to understand, how would one solve a problem such as the one posed by Fons? If I understand correctly you're saying that if you use a different workflow while setting up the project / recording you wan't fall in this problem, so could you explain what is this different workflow? cheers renato _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev