importing sessions from other daws?

4 replies [Last post]
User offline. Last seen 40 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-10-25

does ardour import sessions from any other daws?

i'm thinking of trying ardour out on my mac pro. have tried in the past using the
64 studio distribution in its own partition but that's almost impossible to configure
given my system setup. linux doesn't seem to like the mac pro, and to top that
off, i use four monitors, three for desktop, one large screen for video playback.
the three desktop monitors all run on a single port through a matrox triplehead2go.
this all works great on os x but is near impossible to set up on linux systems ( at
least for me ).

then i discovered the os x port of ardour. looks very promising. i do, however,
need to be able to exchange tracks with final cut and other workstations. to date
i've been using samplitude, running omf's through proconvert to translate the omf
to a samplitude edl. this has been working flawlessly. proconvert has many options
of formats to choose from, none of which are ardour, hence the queston:

are there any session formats i can import from other stations? omf would be ideal.


User offline. Last seen 2 hours 40 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-01-22

At this point no.

Some work was done a bit ago, and I believe may still be commerical availiable from Indamixx IIRC by John Emmas. I believe this was using the AAF format, but can't remember off the top of my head.


User offline. Last seen 40 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-10-25

thanks seablade. i've been reading some of the info on the aaf option. seems kind of
limited, though.

i find it interesting that solid state logic employed paul for a time (according to the
wikipedia article on ardour). assuming they parted company amicably, i wonder if
they might again be a resource in this regard. they bought proconvert from cui-bono
a couple of years ago. would be great to have ardour support folded into proconvert.

i used adobe premiere for years and constantly had to complain on their forums,
nagging to try to get some kind of interchange support but they never picked up that
ball and i finally had to abandon the app for final cut which, here in los angeles, is
dominant, thus making exchange of projects much simpler. without that capability,
it would seem an app is relegated to a hobbyist/limited professional use, something
like wedding videography, rather than 'the industry' as it's referred to here in la.

in the past, when i've tried using aaf (not with ardour, but with other video/audio apps),
i've had problems as different apps seemed to be implementing it differently; odd, in
that aaf is supposed to be a standardized format.


User offline. Last seen 3 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-01-28

BabaG: There is some good information about SSL, standard form/AAF and more in this recent interview with Paul Davis.

User offline. Last seen 40 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-10-25

thanks very much for this, kaimerra. interesting, if depressing.

one reason i'm attracted to ardour is that it is fairly early in its growth still, which means it's
still fairly lean. one station i use i've had and faithfully upgraded for something like fourteen
years, now. i'm getting pretty sick of subsidizing midi development in that case. i don't use
midi and i'm tired of watching my upgrade money go to subsidizing the incorporation of a
huge midi engine where once there wasn't one while only occassionally upgrading or adding
features i do use. i'd like to start using another station that's less midi intensive. it's depressing
hearing all of the talk of midi implementation in ardour.

as far as music goes, if i want something approaching conventional music, i play acoustic
instruments. i use a workstation to record them and facilitate distributing the music. if i want
to use the workstation in the active process of music making, i don't use it to mimic conventional
instrumentation, i use it in a more concrete context (musique concrete), composing the
interaction of recorded sounds from my sound libraries through editing, and adding to them
with things akin to foley made specifically for the piece. again, no midi needed.

one thing i take away from the discussion with paul is an interest in his perspective on
collaboration. the discussions of migration and collaboration are interesting. i'd point out,
though, that in some of the most prominent foss projects, projects like gimp and open office,
they have made a point of easing the ability of users to interact with the existing communities
for their types of work. they do so by making the file formats of the dominant apps in their
respective areas available to users. gimp opens and writes photoshop files, open office does
the same for microsoft office documents. ardour should do the same, reading and writing
either pro tools sessions or omf's.

some of the points regarding aaf are good. here in l.a. omf remains a common standard. the
lack of ability to work with these seems to miss a fundamental point with regard to collaboration,
though. growing a community based in isolation in the ardour platform is growing a closed
community. if you want growth, migration, and openness, give users the tools with which to
migrate. the film/video post workflow is, at least in the commercial arena, pretty much by
definition, collaborative. an editor will most always export their tracks, usually via omf, to a post
audio facility or individual: collaboration. concentrating on adding a lot of midi is great in an
egalitarian sense in that you encourage the participation of every talentless-would-be rock star
(apologies to the talented, always a small percentage). it won't, however, do much or anything
for a community which, by its nature, is already collaborative.

thanks again for the link,