I agree with Damien, but i noticed that QWS is complicated for people
who are beginners in midi and who have a little knowledge about it. I
know about five persons from Slovakia and Czech republic who are using
QWS and they are still asking things. Mostly about ports, copypasting
multyple tracks, ETC. The problem is, that people (and i too) don't
thing about things a few seconds. For example how to create a echo -
another track, time glide...
I really want to say thanks to Andrew, who helps me with things arround
QWS. I am not a perfect-quantized man who know all aspects, but i am
using it for a year and it is the best solution for me, sometimes
combined with Lylipond.
Dňa 7. 8. 2011 22:24, Damien C. Pendleton wrote / napísal(a):
Hi Raymond,
In my opinion, QWS is certainly the best sequencer I have come across in
my time. I needed absolutely no help in using it, and in actual fact my
previous school over in Worcester have now started using QWS in their
music department. It was actually a member of the computer staff, Peter
Bryenton, that introduced me to QWS, and I have never, ever gone off it,
in the eight or so years I have been using it.
From a tools viewpoint, I think it has a lot more tools than Notepad
could ever give, and though it doesn't give most of the hardcore audio
productionist elements like Cubase or Cakewalk, it is certainly enough
to be able to record pure MIDI both quickly and efficiently.
Put it this way, even recording a full ten plus track song using the
on-screen keyboard is quicker than it took me to set up and record a
single drum track in Cubase. That was my primary method of recording
MIDIs until I got my keyboard fairly recently.
Hope that helps.
Regards,
Damien.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Raymond Grote <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* QWS list <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Sunday, August 07, 2011 8:56 PM
*Subject:* QWS List is QWS harder to use than most midi applications?
Hi all,
Here's an interesting question. When I learned QWS, I didn't have
anyone to help me out with it, just the setting up the keyboard
part. And I had to learn most of the tools and functions myself.
While I am a decent musician, I don't consider myself better than
everyone. But QWS just came natural to me, a little more than I had
expected. There are sighted people I know that know way more than I
do, who use other programs which are not at all accessible. They
have a whole workstation in front of them, and they can do way more
than impport midi data and play it back, they can tweak pretty much
every synth and effect peramitor there is. Whether they actually
know the ins and outs of it I don't know, but it sure seems like
they do.
Now the question. I know people who are impressed with the work I
do, contrary to my opinion, lol. but, they wanted to know how I did
it, but they're sort of geared into something like I said above and
I'm not sure exactly how to approach QWs. I initially said, "The
manual's really good, you should understand it." I was under the
impression that QWS's features were pretty familiar to any midi
sequencer that knows what they're doing, and it would be
ridiculously simple. But then an hour later they'd uninstall because
it was either too complicated for them or too slow. I then realized
that QWS and a DAW are pretty different, QWS is like Notepad, where
it doesn't offer amazing functions with one clikc. You have to use
the thirty or so tools that it provides you, in the way you want
them, not go by some factory of presets already made for you and
tweak it from there.
So am I even partially right? Is QWS really complicated from that
standpoint, or could it be lack of patience? We've all seen what
Andre can do with it, I myself found it hard to believe that he used
QWS at first since I'm nowhere near that level.
Maybe some of you here have had similar experiences and can give
more insight.
To unsubscribe or change list options, see http://lists.andrelouis.com
for archived list posts, see http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
