[ddots-l] Re: How can I record audio with cubase 32?
- From: "William R. McCann" <BillList1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ddots-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 05:29:10 -0400
Hi, Lew,
I'll quote from your post and insert my responses below:
LJA: do forgive me for this posting but as a resident technician with
experience with all types of audio recording software, I have experience
with steinberg Cubase (all versions).
DD: That's fine. I don't see the need to have to forgive you for saying so
(smile). Over the years, I've heard everything from blind people saying
that Cubase is an accessibility nightmare to saying that it is somewhat
accessible. I suppose that that's because some versions have been better or
worse than others. I can say that every time I attempted to engage their
developers in a dialog the result was that nobody felt the need to return my
calls!
LJA: It [steinberg Cubase] is accessible to a limit and works quite well
with window eyes.
DD: Are you saying that Cubase is accessible to a limit using Window-Eyes
only or that it works quite well with Window-Eyes and it is accessible to a
limit using other screen readers? How do you define "works quite well" in
comparison to what is possible with CakeTalking or other access methods? Of
course, the key term which we all must define for ourselves is the word
"accessible" (smile)! To some blind people, a piece of recording hardware
or software is accessible if they can access its record function and stop
and start the project. Nothing wrong with that either. But those who use
SONAR with our CakeTalking scripts can independently do so much more. A
short and most incomplete list of things one can do with CakeTalking for
SONAR: punch in and out of record, change individual MIDI events such as
notes or apply global changes to all kinds of MIDI events, scrub from the PC
keyboard or integrate a piece of hardware like the TranzPort, check level of
meters, apply destructive and nondestructive audio effects, skip ahead or
back by various increments even during playback, insert plug-ins, quickly
move to a particular track on any column on that track, and on and on. And,
of course, there's the wealth of online help written especially for
CakeTalking users as well as hundreds of pages of tutorial documents also
written for the JAWS user.
LJA: at present I am working on scripting for cubase SX and the possibility
of getting dancing dots involved in this process as I strongly feel that
other software for the PC such as Cubase SX and NUENDO as well as Pro Tools
should be accessible to us.
DD: I invite you to contact me off-list to discuss. If you have tried to
contact me or anyone else at Dancing Dots about your work, I am not aware of
it. Naturally, we all would like the same choices as our sighted
counterparts when it comes to any kind of software application. We can all
dream of that day. Meanwhile, we must deal with the situation as it stands
and keep working to change it for the better. That situation is that the
developers from companies (relatively small companies, by the way) like
Cakewalk, Steinberg, Digidesign and others are competing for the business of
sighted people. We, blind musicians and audio producers, are a tiny blip on
their business radar screens. However, we have seen genuine and significant
progress through our ongoing relationship with companies like Cakewalk. The
model Dancing Dots has built has been founded on a long-term, mutually
beneficial relationship. We've been persistent and consistent in our
dealings with them and we've seen real results from an approach based on
cooperation and not confrontation. BTW, I'm not saying there's no place for
confrontation in general but, before starting a battle, we must assess the
likelihood of victory. We need to bring the people at these small companies
to the point where they see that their own enlightened self-interest will be
well served by adding access features. Yes, it may be enlightened
self-interest but it is self-interest all the same. Our strong feelings
that lack of access is unjust, valid as they may be, will do nothing to
change the situation in and of themselves.
LJA: at present we are forced to run Sonar and Soundforge and have to keep
a step or so behind the rest of the pro-audio market. I feel that we should
have equal access to these products which the mainstream community have full
reliance on.
DD: I don't think anyone, blind or sighted, should feel that if they use
SONAR or Sound Forge that somehow they're being forced to use some
second-rate tools. These packages are excellent and their use by hundreds
of thousands of sighted people speaks for itself. That being said, I am
definitely interested to see increased access to other audio production
tools. But, from a business point of view, we must take a careful look at
what it might cost to develop, maintain and support such access methods
before investing time and money to try to bring them to this tiny market.
LJA: If I am to be removed from this list or dealt with acordingly in
regards to the above comments then I understand. for anyone who wishes for
support with other applications, please contact me off list
DD: Our DDots-l list is primarily for discussion of use of products from
Dancing Dots. Moving detailed discussions of technical tips for using
Cubase or any other products which we do not support off-list and/or to
other lists is the appropriate thing to do. On the other hand, it would be
naive to suppose that their are no other options for blind people when it
comes to audio production or accomplishing other tasks. I refer to my
comments above about the advantages of using CakeTalking for SONAR. Blind
musicians all over the world have recognized its value by purchasing
CakeTalking and upgrading it repeatedly. They've voted with their dollars,
pounds, euros, etc. and I am not threatened by anyone who may mention the
name of a competitor to SONAR. Accordingly, I'm not interested in removing
you from our list but I would appreciate your continued sensitivity to the
main focus of the list. Again, if you have an interest to discuss some of
your own work, direct contact is most appropriate rather than saying so
publicly before, to my knowledge, you've actually made that direct contact.
Regards,
Bill
P. S. I can be reached at info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or [001] 610-783-6692.
Other related posts:
