lordnielson wrote:Have Nat rescources been tilted in favour of commercial developers ?
If by commercial developers, you mean, people who:
a) Have a better than average grasp on recording principles and the properties of analogue equipment and the dynamic properties of real world audio systems
b) Have spent a lot of time playing with the tool and have had some input into its development
c) Also have access to high quality dacs/equipment to compare and experiment and have an intention of selling presets
You'd probably be barking up the right tree.
I believe personally that the tooling is:
Complicated enough that it's not like a microwave oven for most applications i.e. you hit the defrost button and at some point your chicken is adequetely defrosted (but even with modern appliances, it takes some common sense approach to understand what "Defrost" means when examining your food afterwards right?)
Significantly different from most other applications given the wide range of possible, potential applications
Close to a paint by numbers system in certain cases, but only if you understand the context of certain paradigms and use the templates as a starting point. Some tasks are more of a "doodle" than others
CDSoundMaster wrote:there are some things that still require fine tuning
Correct. The tooling/templates are not perfect as is for all possible permutations of every type of capture. I might also add that such a statement is not analogous to "it's full of flaws" either.
I'll leave CDSM to answer his own statements......