Ardour 5

[ssj71]

I know of at least 2 active recording engineers in the ardour community, Ricardus and Seablade. There are possibly others, and both Paul and Robin have fairly significant music experience, as well as a whole lot of users of all different levels of experience. I'm not sure why you seem so willing to assign dark motives to everything ardour does.

[forestandgarden]

I'm not sure why you seem so willing to assign dark motives to everything ardour does.

Do I? I thought I had steared clear of precisely that. I have actually taken that my legitimation to utter my perspective be linked to my willingness to donate, without retailiating.

But, please, clarify: what are you saying about my motivation then?

[forestandgarden]

Ok, I will have to correct myself: I probably got the wrong impression from reading too many posts along the lines of 'oh sorry, can't help you with ardour anyway, since I'm using only mixbus'. But I now did the test I had admitted all the way to be due still, and tried to reproduce a few situations that tend to crash ardour4&5 on my particular system, but with a mixbus4 demo version instead, and it also crashed. So if I assumed that mixbus was inherently more stable than ardour, hence putting the latter into a 'beta' position relatively, I had obviously jumped to conclusions.
I would still hold that in the quest for a stable or functional environment, it's a legitimate approach to move back to something that worked, or at least to prefer to deal with known issues instead of surprise issues, and consciously forgo progress until you yourself decide that you're ready for it.
Of course, this is a question that reaches beyond ardour, and very philosophically phrased, it means that forward isn't inherently a 'better' direction than backward, or right, or left, up or down, and add dimensions as you please. If it is ardour I'm picking up on, it's for the vehemence that continued use of ardour 3 is categorically discouraged with.

[GuntherT]

I would still hold that in the quest for a stable or functional environment, it's a legitimate approach to move back to something that worked, or at least to prefer to deal with known issues instead of surprise issues, and consciously forgo progress until you yourself decide that you're ready for it.
Of course, this is a question that reaches beyond ardour, and very philosophically phrased, it means that forward isn't inherently a 'better' direction than backward, or right, or left, up or down, and add dimensions as you please. If it is ardour I'm picking up on, it's for the vehemence that continued use of ardour 3 is categorically discouraged with.

This makes perfect sense from the perspective of a user. If an old version of a program doesn't present issues for you that later versions do, and new features aren't needed, stick with what works. However, in this particular situation, I don't think you are going to find many people agreeing that Ardour 3 is better than Ardour 5. Ardour 3 risks data loss, which is unacceptable for most. That issue appears to have been resolved since Ardour 4.

I think the reason many quickly advise updating to Ardour 5 is because whatever the issue, it may have been solved. The fix may be available in a later version, so it makes sense to first recommend checking if the issue is still present after updating. If you know how to manipulate source code, you may be able to apply certain fixes to your copy of Ardour 3, but it is unrealistic to expect someone else to do this for you, or even troubleshoot it. Nobody with deep knowledge of the program is still using Ardour 3.

Ardour's developers choose to only support the latest version of Ardour downloaded from their site. They move forward while trying to avoid tackling issues beyond their control, such as packaging errors. They don't have the resources to go every direction requested by users, but users can go any direction they please with their code. You can take it to another dimension, if you like.