(no title)
wdfx | 1 year ago
Some have developed much further though to support a more digital-first approach.
But it's true that the barrier to entry can still be very high. Trying to explain any of these packages to a musician who is not also a computer power user is extremely challenging, believe me I've tried.
If we could arrive at a point where a DAW can be intuitive to a musician and not technically overwhelming that would be very interesting.
What would be more interesting though would be if that same project could be viewed in an "engineer mode" which exposes the technical view for someone else to work on at a different level.
catapart|1 year ago
As far as the "engineer mode" that's what I think galls me most: You can't really write audio software without all of the technical stuff so you're going to NEED that stuff anyway. AND, as someone matures in their musical ability, they often need to do more specific fine-tuning which would require those features. And that means that you could basically funnel non-audio-engineers into understanding at least the parts they need to make their own music when the time came. There's no better way to learn than to solve a "problem", even if that "problem" is just "how do I tighten up the high end on this so it makes this cool sound I want?"
In short: making a DAW for musicians is not only accessible to non-audio-engineers, it's also a gateway drug to semi-audio-engineers and their explorations. I'm just all for that!
wdfx|1 year ago
If the software was primarily driven by a command list back-end, had a bunch of semi-preset solutions to common problems, and also could be "spoken to" - would that feel more comfortable for our musician user?