acousmod's Forum Page

I think the “hype” is caused by the fact that it is free.
But I doubt that the hype for Reaper will last longer than a few more months..

I would not risk such pronostics…

The comparison of softwares is always a difficult exercise, which don’t give any benefits if it doesn’t help to improve something.

If I have well understood, this discussion is about “why so much people supporting Reaper, and why so few supporting Podium” ?

Personnaly, I was, and I am already, very pleased to see Reaper, not because it is free, but because it has already all the audio editing tools and ergonomics that I need in Podium since soon two years… (but Podium has of course also some other things that make me use, and love, it !).
Even if everybody has a different approach with audio softwares, when you see after a short or a long time, it doesn’t matter, that you can work in an effective manner, you wish to support it.

Justin and Frits have certainly opposed developpment methods.

I think that Frits is a perfectionnist, who takes all the time that is needed for every feature he adds to be perfectly in place with the others and is fully tested before integrated.
The result is a regular but rather slow progressing, which will give a wonderfull tool for people who can wait and who can accept to do things sometimes with more pain, because they can be confident in the long term.
I must say that for me it is worth the effort !

Justin adds a lot of things simultaneously, even if it can be improved and can cause problems. He can of course do that because the software is in beta state.
The soft is not very buggy but not very stable, it has a rather bad look but the programmer seems to favour the tools rather than the appearance, and people too.

For me, it is very logical that people “prefer” Reaper (I think that they even don’t know Podium) because it corresponds to what we generally want : something that is at the same time powerfull and easy to use.
Podium cannot really compete in this domain, due to specificities that make it irreplaceable, and if they change, it will not be Podium anymore…
The workflow is one of these, so easy and logical (without the sends) when we have understood it, but so strange before !

I think that there is also a problem of the terms that are used (already discussed) and the manner to do things.
Podium remembers me about the DX7, 20 years ago (!) : it was indeed a simpler synthesis than the “analog” model that we were used to, but because it used “operators”, “index” or “rates” instead of “oscillators”, “modulation” and “times”, because it needed the push of a lot of buttons to make easy tasks, there was very few people that made sounds.

I’d suggest that you colour your tracks in a way that helps build a better image in your mind of what’s going on.

Concerning the readability of the flow, I am used to color the tracks depending on their function : audio track, plugin track, MIDI programs, volume, plugin automations, bounce…

I suppose that the Freeze function that speaks Sardaukar must be a transparent process for the user, no need for some new bounce track in the hierarchy, just the background creation of a file that is played INSTEAD OF what is seen on the selected track(s).
There will be no visual change in the arrangement other than a different aspect of the track and the fact that it is locked.
When the Freeze button is unpressed, the hidden file is destroyed and the track can be edited etc.
Is this what you mean ?

If yes, I think that this feature would correspond to a different usage than the Bounce, and will be a good complement.

What I like with the bounce is that it makes a new file that I can eventually edit and copy to another arrangement.
What would be nice with a transparent Freeze feature is to help the CPU during editing before the final bounce, without having to create and see new tracks which are only duplications of others and take some space on the arrangement for nothing.

Frits,

I didn’t receive any password.
Could you send it another time ?

Thanks.

It seems to me that what they refer to as ripple editing is how Podiums segment selection/editing is working. Deleting a segment will remove anything inside the segment and move following events back to close the gap. Using the ‘insert blank’ edit menu on a segment selection will move events forward to make room for the empty segment.

Yes, I use this some times to split all the tracks at the same position which is otherwise very complicated, or to push all the following events when there is a silence on all the tracks.
It will be a good complement to a Ripple Edit feature.

+ 1