Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Music Media Software

The Fix Is In: Ardour Set For Summer Release 254

uprightcitizen writes "Good news for the open source audio recording world! Ardour creator Paul Davis has announced a feature-freeze and has set a binary release date for the now-famous GPL multitrack audio recording application. Ardour has recently been featured in Sound on Sound and has been mentioned on Slashdot many times (here(1), here(2), etc..). The feature freeze is effective as of May 4 and the binary release date is set for sometime in July or August. Good Job Paul!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Fix Is In: Ardour Set For Summer Release

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05, 2003 @10:47PM (#5887773)
    Ardourous process.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05, 2003 @10:53PM (#5887818)
    One more pro use of linux to knock the proprietary big boys down. The article doesn't say it, so I will here. We're gaining on those markets where Apple and PC hardware have been used and how, simply because there were once the only solution. Where there was Photoshop, now there is GIMP. Where there was film editing, now there is Film Gimp. Where there were proprietary rendering, now movies like XMen2 use Linux. Where there was Pro Tools, now we have our own solution too.

    These may be relatively small markets compared to desktop users, but they are extremely solid ones. Once GPL software is usable there and the savings are being made (come on now, free software compared to over $14,000 for Pro Tools in audio) the hold will be unavoidable.

    It's a coming of age
    • by AusG4 ( 651867 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:21AM (#5888609) Homepage Journal
      This is just ridiculous.

      The ProTools software is FREE.
      $0. No money spent.

      The $14,000 you spend on ProTools hardware is for the very powerful (and very much worth the money) DSP cards that make ProTools -the- premier audio recording application among serious studios. I know that some people are going to respond with some justification as to why the MOTU 828 or the HammerFall is better then DigiDesign, and that's fine... we all have our preferences... but the DSP's offerred in addition to the audio interface in the ProTools TDM systems make them so much more powerful then CPU bound rigs for large projects.

      To compare what you get for $14,000 from DigiDesign to what you get for nothing in the OSS world is a very invalid, and very misinformed. There is simply no comparison between what you get.

      And don't even get me started on the rest of your examples. GIMP is cool, but Photoshop it ain't... Film Gimp is -really- cool, but it's not even close to Shake.

      Being part of the open source world, I'm so happy about the efforts and advances we're making in various places... but let's not get our heads stuck in the famous "reality distortion field"... there is a VERY LONG way to go before the projects discussed in this comment rival their commercially available conterparts.
      • You echoed my thoughts.

        I'm very grateful for what open source has given me, but the open source community needs to get their heads out of the sand. There are some very decent applications, but-- like you said-- some just don't cut it compared to their proprietary (expensive) counterparts. In some situations, the open source product may suffice, or even be preferable, but that's not the same as an equivalent. Photoshop has its place. GIMP has its place. GIMP != Photoshop.

        What I'd like to see in The Gimp is
    • by matvei ( 568098 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @03:53AM (#5889045)
      Where there were proprietary rendering, now movies like XMen2 use Linux. Where there was Pro Tools, now we have our own solution too.

      Earth to AC, the software packages that the big boys are completely proprietary and often developed in-house. Not all software that runs on Linux is open source. For example, you can get Alias|Wavefront Maya for Linux but it certainly is not GPL'd.

      There are no open source tools that could come even close to Maya (or other high-end packages for that matter). With the insane budgets that Hollywood movies have I doubt that they will choose inadequate tools just because they are free, beer or speech.

  • by mao che minh ( 611166 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @10:53PM (#5887822) Journal
    Solid audio software is the breaking point for many Windows and Macintosh users that mix music. I have a few friends that happen to actually be successful in the music biz (on a very small scale, of course), and they all use Macintosh (one has worked with Puff Daddy before, no shit). A few DJ friends use Windows for simple mixing and burning. All of them show an interest in Linux, but are put off by it's lack of a really good audio application. If this proggie is as good as it's makers are claiming it is, then Linux will have about (let me count....) 11 new users real fast.

    This same scenario has to apply to many others out there. My small group of musically talented friends can't be the only ones.

  • by zzxc ( 635106 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @10:55PM (#5887834)
    I recently set up an audio recording computer for a church. (433mhz, oss/free sound drivers, CMI8738 sound card) They were going to use windows, but I convinced them that Linux would be the better choice. I set it up so that recording is done from the command line, encoding ogg [] (ok, vorbis) or flac [] in realtime.

    For shorter tracks, ardour is used for more user friendly recording. (Audacity and sweep cause choppy audio in my experience)

    In addition, I have made command-line full duplex recording possible. (where the instrument track is done first, then vocals laid on top of it) However, be warned that you'll need to make a small program to write raw instructions to the soundcard if you want to turn off the audio loopback, as the CMI* OSS/free driver doesn't implement this for some reason. (I haven't checked if ALSA does this or not)

    One major bug that slowed it down was only recording .5 seconds for every second of audio, and thus it sounded like it was in fast forward. (44100hz 16bit) After reading the driver line by line, I fixed it with a one-line shell script.

    I have been getting extremely good sound out of it, however. In addition, I have only had to write about 50 lines of code. So if anyone has tried without success to record with a CMI8738 soundcard on linux - don't give up. If you want me to send you the fixes to the problems that I have created, contact me.
    • If you want me to send you the fixes to the problems that I have created, contact me.

      I'm not even going to say anything else.

    • by Yeroc ( 125826 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @11:04PM (#5887884) Homepage
      Whoah...the fact that you had to jump through all those hoops including reading source code tells me that Linux has a ways to go before your average musician is going to find it the easy route to go for audio recording...
      • His primary issues were with the sound driver/card he was using. It's best to go with linux friendly hardware to begin with.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      If you want me to send you the fixes to the problems that I have created, contact me

      Can you just not create the problems in the first place? I mean... that works for me

      (ok I couldn't resist. sorry. good points otherwise :)
    • You convinced them that using a linux system with a CLI interface and custom code would be a better solution than Windows plus readily available and supported software? Nice job, hope you are proud of yourself. I am quite sure your church pals are only humouring you my friend, and probably regretting it already. Wanna bet any amount that as soon as you leave they will replace that box?
    • Me, I'm just thinking that "Ardour" and "Church" just don't go together.
    • The joyful message you're spreading is that if we use free software, we'll have to labour for hours correcting it and extending it before it will work adequately.

      Own up -- you're really preaching for the Other Side [].

  • by tshak ( 173364 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @10:55PM (#5887835) Homepage
    Pro Tools is not just software - you'll normally find it installed as a hardware/software combo. This is in part due to the fact that modern CPU's can not handle mulitple high quality real time effects for larger studio projects. The other big factor with Pro Tools (and comperable systems) is the Control Surface. Sure, there are incredible MIDI controllers out there, but the proprietary Pro Tools control surfaces are second to none.
    • by questamor ( 653018 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @11:00PM (#5887860)
      One thing often mentioned with the 'big' apps compared to free software is the monetary cost. The software is minimal when it comes to the costs of an entire studio. For larger projects with big profit margins it's next to nothing. The embedded knowledge of thousands of Pro Tools users isn't going to go away just because a few thousand dollars can be saved on projects that are worth millions.

      Where inroads will be made for now, is in small productions that have no choice. Where once their project was impossible due to monetary constraints it will now be one step closer to reality.
      • by oscarcar ( 208055 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @11:49PM (#5888169) Homepage
        I think you have to look beyond the imitation of what is already out there. With Open Source you get possbilities of a lot more creative people doing original things.

        Some Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs) do a pretty good job of being able to have effects and such act as controllers, filters, what have you. But with the source code, a lot of really, really interesting things could develop that haven't been thought of.

        Now you have a few companies that all try to copy each other in getting certain tools in the hand of their users. And that's great, but we're better off opening the ability to creating tools to a lot more creative people.

        Would we have the electric guitar or a saxaphone, if it wasn't for the common man taking a hack at building an instrument?

        • Excellent point... you hit the nail right on the head. I believe that the greatest opportunity for open-source systems, in general, lies not in the already-entrenched markets, but in markets that have yet to be explored due to current cost constraints.

          Why does Google use Linux on its machines? Linux did not become the best solution for high-end web servers overnight, taking large portions of that particular market share from proprietary rivals. Instead, by becoming the first* widely-used, affordable (read

      • sure, what's interesting is the sub 5ms latency with a common soundcard/computer. HIGH uptimes. Reliability. Availability. Sample accurate sync with other software through JACK ( SUPPORT AND price, of course.

        Possibility to run remote via X might be interesting for noise.

        (but the ardour website has more points about that)

        On the downside, many people are trained to use protools. but they can learn.

        NOTE : many people tend to think about the big music software companies. Ahem. This market is
    • by fishbowl ( 7759 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @11:07PM (#5887899)
      The problem with ProTools, is that you don't need a golden ear to recognize something that was produced with it.

      I don't mean to make a value judgement on it, just that there are some subtle characteristics, especially in the vocal effects department, that scream out at me "yep, protools."

      • by tshak ( 173364 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @11:13PM (#5887931) Homepage
        I don't dissagree, but I contend that this is practically impossible. You'd be amazed at what albums used Pro Tools. For example, many classical recordings use Pro Tools - but what they don't do is over-compress, over-EQ, or over-process the sound. What you're used to hearing has nothing to do with Pro Tools, and everything to do with the Pop Music Industry's production style.
        • Agreed. But what's really annoying is when you hear the same effect that just says "I used the default setting of the vox flanger."

          • Agreed. But what's really annoying is when you hear the same effect that just says "I used
            the default setting of the vox flanger."

            Damn straight!
            Which you can bet is usually because...
            The singer they are working with has a voice that requires hiding behind effects.
          • In analogue studios, default settings on fx-units are also the way to go. Nobody who likes to spend his time in a productive way is going to try to tweak these babies into anything better than the manufacturer allready has achieved.

            Besides of that, if you hear the same effect come back over and over again, it strikes me as a creativity problem of the producer, and not as a problem that ProTools itself has. (Except, but that doesn't seem likely to me, if the "vox flanger" has only 1 setting, and is the only
    • There are many good alternatives to slow tools. But protools was first and because compatility with other studios was important, it became the defacto standard. I Record with SAWstudio because It is great. but there are many other systems that work fine.

      What is needed is a standard way to save edit lists, to allow interchange between diffrent packages.Don't expect any help or support from protools. But ardour should shake things up a bit.
    • While Protools does represent a truly wonderful system, it's dated. It's fantastic in that, being hardware based, it doesn't require a monster machine to run, and it runs without falling over (with the possible exception of their shite win32 version).
      However, the playing field has changed tremendously since Protools came out. Significantly, CPUs are way more potent, to the point where I'd say that if you have a 2Ghz CPU, you can probably do more realtime FX than a Protools system can anyway.
      Now, by saying
  • I've heard the argument that OSS doesn't inovate like MS and IBM closed source projects do. But software like this is the counter argument. With Linux and BSD, on the desktop, it's relatively close to a fresh start. From scratch. You get the idea.

    Before, we had to get sound up reliably, window managers etc.. all that chewy good stuff. Windows was ahead of "us" on that since the boom of unix on the desktop didn't happen 'till a little later.

    MS can only inovate so fast. Problem is, duplicating what i
  • by Anonymous Coward
    i like ardour. I use ardour. I've probably submitted 20 bugfixes through the years.

    However, it's still not ready for prime time. A couple more years and it could be.

    The DSP framework needs a complete rewrite to fix some limitations, and the phase vocoder is 2nd generation, when most commercial tools use 4th or 5th generation.

  • by exhilaration ( 587191 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @11:02PM (#5887872)
    Woaw. This is pretty cool. Ardour might do for Linux and professional audio users what CinePaint (Film Gimp) did for Linux and movie studios.

    You know - I don't mean this as a troll - but I really have to wonder what the hell is going to happen to all the software developers working for closed source companies when mainstream users start adopting free products in droves.

    After all, if Microsoft's Palladium is successful, that could mean the end of software piracy - which probably accounts for a good chunk of the market. What will all those users do? Will they go out and spend $200 on Windows, $500 on Office, and $600 on Photoshop? No, they'll come running to Free and Open Source Software! And pretty soon, they'll be able to find replacements for EVERYTHING they need.

    (Sorry for jumping from topic to topic, it's late.)

    • How about a grant model? This already works pretty well for research, where the results are made available to the public. An agency (government, consortium of corporations who realize software is useful, but don't want to develop it alone, etc.) puts out a call for proposals for desired project, and funds one which seems best (by reputation, plan, etc.). The grant covers the developers' time, administrivia, etc.

      If this results in a smaller total number of employed software developers, does that mean the
  • Sync? Timecode? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05, 2003 @11:14PM (#5887942)
    Well, it might be good for standalone audio-only projects with only a few tracks. One feature I do not see listed is timecode, and support for hardware sync clocks. Without that, you are out of the running for A/V production. In pro audio, media-independent sync is absolutely necessary.

    Ah but the people who won't understand this, are the same people who don't understand why the lack of CMYK support is such a limiting factor for Gimp.

    • Re:Sync? Timecode? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      CMYK is only useful for legacy printing gear

      RGB works just fine for monitors, be they LCD or plasma or CRT or even projection, and it works well for RGB printers such as Durst Lambda or Fuji Pictrograph. Not only be RGB printing but continuous tone and hence without the bother of screening.

      The longer CMYK is supported as a legacy technology, the longer we'll be using outdated processes to provide inferior output.
      • Re:Sync? Timecode? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by BJH ( 11355 )
        Hate to tell you, but that 'legacy' CMYK technology is currently installed in just about every printer (think 'big book factory' rather than 'laser/inkjet/etc.') in the world. Not being able to submit graphic data in CMYK is a big limitation.
    • Because those people don't matter.

      The people who do matter understand that CMYK is important. There's not much to be done about it, though, because it is patented technology.

      As long as we're not dealing with a standard that is patent encumbered, it will come in due time. (Due time being the time of those who feel like working on it. They aren't on anyone else's time table.)
    • Re:Sync? Timecode? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Ardour supports MTC sync. From the FAQ at :

      * functioning as a MIDI Timecode master (it generates MTC)
      * functioning as a MIDI Timecode slave (experimental; send reports!)

      From browsing the mailing list archives, i gather that ardour does not directly support true SMPTE (which is timecode encoded as an audio signal); but if you have a hardware MTCSMPTE box you might be able to use SMPTE.
    • Re:Sync? Timecode? (Score:2, Informative)

      by croddy ( 659025 )
      ardour currently supports MMC (to a degree) and a lot of development has been specifically targeted at the mackie d8b. I can't find info on time code on the SF page, but I do believe it's implemented or on its way eventually. I know it's fun to be a naysayer. but a feature freeze is the first step toward a stable release, which is the first step toward binaries, and a wider test base . . . you get the idea.

      honestly it's not all that hard to compile from CVS if you're familiar enough with GNU/automake-type

    • Ah but the people who won't understand this, are the same people who don't understand why the lack of CMYK support is such a limiting factor for Gimp.

      Ah, but it's not. How many people do you know that have done image manipulation at some point in their lives with a computer? Lots, I'd expect. I know I do. How many of them need support for professional printing equipment? None.

      You'd be totally amazed at the number of people out there who write music using their PC, keyboard, sample editor and guitar. I

  • by jamienk ( 62492 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @11:16PM (#5887956)
    You record your interviews (best would be if you used a hard-disk recorder with a mic levels, not DAT). You transfer them to your computer. Speech recognition is performed. (Maybe interactively, so you can make rough corrections.) You cut, copy, and paste the text file and this assembles the audio. You refine the edits by hand.

    How close are we to this?
    • It's already possible - e.g. IBM have been at it [] for many years, not just in consumer products such as ViaVoice I suppose it depends... I mean, can you imagine what a speech recognition program would produce when confronted with your typical pop star radio interview? Any self-respecting speech software would abort when Eminem starts (c)rapping into the mike.
    • Check out the Sphinx [] projects for good VR. There are several different parts to it including a non-realtime, CPU intensive, but more accurate version that would be good for what you are talking about. This could integrated into a nice gui (if nobody has already done it) that would give you the text and allow you to listen to it in a piece by piece fashion to verify the text.
  • MIDI sequencer? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by FiloEleven ( 602040 )
    I've been thinking about doing desktop recording with Linux, but I haven't been able to find what I'm really looking for - an application that integrates hard disk recording and MIDI sequencing. Does anyone have experience with such an app, or even know of one's existence?
  • Great (Score:4, Funny)

    by KodaK ( 5477 ) <> on Monday May 05, 2003 @11:31PM (#5888054) Homepage
    Now I can sit in my basement holding a guitar, stare at an empty monitor and record nothing with FREE SOFTWARE.

  • hmm (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'll be happy once my creamwear card is supported with asio 2.
    That's the problem .. drivers.
    Another is of course .. plugins and vst instruments.
    • "Creamwear", "asio", "drivers", "plugins", "instruments"..damn, Come out of the damn closet already! You're just being transparent now! :-) (j/k)

      Please don't hurt me.

    • ASIO isn't needed on Linux. CreamWare drivers are apparently being written by CreamWare themselves [] and VST plugin integration via Wine was working months ago (though I dunno about integration with the tools).

      VST instruments I'm not sure about, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could do the same trick as for VST plugins.

      Too bad there are no specs for the CreamWare cards, but I guess binary only drivers are better than none. Open hardware is clearly going to be another days battle.

  • Audacity, Freshmeat (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @11:49PM (#5888164) Homepage
    How does this software compare to Audacity? Any comments from people who've used both? Personally I've only used Audacity. One thing I really like about it is that it's cross-platform -- cross-platform apps are the best way to spread the word about open source.

    And was anybody else bugged by ... -- ?

    1. This belongs on Freshmeat, not Slashdot.
    2. If this was submitted to Freshmeat, they'd tone it down, since it's so obviously a marketing blurb.
    • I'm not exactly the type you requested comment from -- I have yet to use Ardour -- but I have used Audacity (and looked at Ardour heavily). In my eyes, having used several audio programs, the intent seems different. Each one is produced for a "target audience", if you will.

      Now Audacity is a decent multi-tracking program for beginners. However, there are many limitations to the control users innately have. For instance, the compressor in the latest release has absolutely no settings -- it just compresses
    • by Wumpus ( 9548 ) <> on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @12:27AM (#5888352)
      How does this software compare to Audacity?

      It doesn't. Or hardly doesn't, at least. Ardour is a full featured professional recording application, designed to tackle any audio recording task you can throw at it. Have two studio quality sound cards, giving you a total of 20 cannels in/out, at 96Khz/24bit? Want to record a rock show, with live drums, backing vocals, and enough microphone cables to make AOL's server room look tidy? Ardour can handle it, and then some.

      Want to take that 20 track show, and overdub the guitars in the studio, while the whole mess is mixed in real time? It can do that, too.

      Ardour is the open source equivalent of Pro Tools (mentioned on slashodot a few days ago). Audacity isn't.

      Now, if you're not interested in any of these things, Ardour is probably overkill for you.

      And if anyone deserves the marketing here, it's Paul. Ardour is a massive piece of code, that took years of uncompensated full time work to get to its current state. It's well designed and well coded. No corners were cut in the making of this piece of software. Go get it, and pay for it.
      • This is all true. But don't forget the other side of the coin: want to open two mp3s, glue them end-to-end with a crossfade, and export to mp3? Ardour doesn't do mp3, and the rest of the process is going to take twice as much work. And you'll have to read the manual and become familiar with concepts like "diskstream," "route," "playlist," and "region." And you'll have to tweak JACK until it runs under your kernel and soundcard without xruns.

        Ardour does what it's designed to do: studio recording in prof
    • by groomed ( 202061 )
      Ardour is a bit overkill for my needs, and Audacity is too slow for my taste, so I wrote GNUsound []. You might want to give it a try.
  • Oh man! A binary?? I've been dying to try this piece of code, but was never successful compiling it from CVS. Ended up using ReZound and Audacity (which are both good in their own rights), but judging from the Ardour screenshots, I think I'll be switching once the binary comes out.

    I feel like a little kid waiting for Christmas. Hurry 'dem binaries, pleease!
  • by bengoerz ( 581218 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @12:02AM (#5888231)
    I've experimented with Linux and other open-source OSes for a while now, but I've never found one that can make a permanent home on my desktop. One major reason: No good multi-track recorder! Sure, there are options like Audacity [], but there is nothing that can rival the mixing options of, say, Cool Edit Pro []. For my mixing, I absolutely NEED features that I can control -- a good compressor, gain control, some decent effects, a reliable GUI, etc. Now, it looks like Ardour may offer that, and so I rejoice. This may be the last rail laid on my transitional track, and the golden spike is beautiful. So Ardour, I say bring it on. Lemme see what you got!
  • by SJ ( 13711 )
    OK, so this seems pretty cool...

    Does it "just work", like my Mac does?
    Does it interface perfectly with all my audio hardware?
    Can I export directly from it to a DVD editing package on the same machine?
  • road map (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rtp405 ( 671252 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:42AM (#5888673)

    Yes, an official feature freeze and subsequent binary release have been announced. However, the release date of the binary is june 13. This will be followed by four weeks of the main developers absence. The binary is a 1.0.rc1. All the c++ dependencies will remain statically linked so it's likely that Debian won't be including this binary in official releases. I think the objective of this release is to increase testing from users but not create an all out marketing assualt.

    Reguardless, the announcement is seriously encouraging.

    IMO, a commercial studio owner and engineer/producer, professional audio production in linux is close to being a reality. To prove the point to myself, about six months ago I produced a commercial album from start to finish in Ardour. At the time, it was a serious challange which I expected. Since then, Ardour and JACK have seen alot of serious developement.

    Unlike what one commentor stated, syncronization in the form of MTC and MMC does exist and it mostly works. You're probably well advised to inquire about syncronization on the mailing lists.

    Equally interesting to Ardour is JACK which is a low latency, high bandwidth audio server. It enables port connections between software applications which is serious stuff.

    While many linux audio solutions are not > 1.0 there are interesting solutions for preproduction, production and postproduction audio work.

    My partners and I have been in business for 19 years. We've had four major studio redesigns and without hesitation I will say that the linux based solution is more interesting than any of the others.

  • I like their stance on libraries. It makes a lot of sense to link to a private version of the libraries if your goal is stability. Sure it increases disk use some (nothing compared to the output of a multitracker though) and memory use some (again nothing compared to having buffers for multiple high quality PCM streams in ram). This is similar to the way XP and even moreso longhorn are going for criticial libraries, if the version is different from the system default then it gets placed either in a subdirec
  • This is all nice and everything however are there any sound cards thats can support Full-duplex or more than on channel as even with ALSA just can't getit working

  • I never knew about this one. This finally looks like some serious reference grade quality audio app in the OSS dept. Cinelerra, Gimp, Sodipodi and now this. It's another patch closing a wide gap in open source and it seems a damn good one.
    I'm more the 3D guy rather than a sound fiddler and helped buy Blender ( free, but this is so cool I'll think I'll donate a little here too.
    If you've got a paypal account allready, spare an Euro, Dollar or two, it's a good deed for the day.
  • by divbyzero ( 23176 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @05:35PM (#5895361) Journal
    Kudos are definitely in order for Paul and the others working on Ardour. However, I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that ProTools is an unreachably expensive system. ProTools comes in multiple versions which have different levels of hardware acceleration. The more hardware acceleration, the more expensive the version.

    ProTools Free runs purely in software, using off-the-rack, home sound cards, and is free (beer, not speech). Nobody uses it for real work, but it makes for an okay functional demo.

    ProTools LE is targetted at home and small studios, and uses generic pro-level audio adapters. The software and hardware together come out in the $500 to $1000 range.

    ProTools TDM is what the big studios use. It requires proprietary hardware with extensive use of onboard DSP and dedicated control surfaces. This is the one for which the hardware and software together fall in the $10000 to $15000 range.

    The mid-level LE version is not a toy ... many professional albums are made on it. It competes directly with the likes of MOTU Performer, Emagic Logic, Steinberg Cubase, and Cakewalk Sonar.

I've finally learned what "upward compatible" means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes. -- Dennie van Tassel