ardour

Pros of LMMS

• More beginner-friendly interface with a focus on electronic music production
• Includes a wide range of built-in virtual instruments and samples
• Cross-platform compatibility (Windows, macOS, Linux)

Cons of LMMS

• Less suitable for recording and editing live audio
• Limited advanced audio editing features compared to Ardour
• Fewer professional-grade mixing and mastering tools

Code Comparison

LMMS (C++):

void InstrumentTrack::processAudioBuffer( sampleFrame * _buf, const fpp_t _frames, NotePlayHandle * _n )
{
    const float v = getVolume();
    for( fpp_t frame = 0; frame < _frames; ++frame )
    {
        _buf[frame][0] *= v;
        _buf[frame][1] *= v;
    }
}

Ardour (C++):

void
AudioTrack::process (BufferSet& bufs, samplepos_t start_sample, samplepos_t end_sample, double speed, pframes_t nframes, bool result_required)
{
    if (!_active) {
        silence (nframes);
        return;
    }
    // ... (additional processing logic)
}

Both projects use C++ for core audio processing, but LMMS focuses on virtual instrument handling, while Ardour emphasizes live audio processing and recording capabilities.

Pros of Audacity

• Simpler user interface, more beginner-friendly
• Lighter system requirements, runs well on older hardware
• Extensive plugin support, including VST plugins

Cons of Audacity

• Limited multi-track editing capabilities
• Less professional-grade features for advanced audio production
• Non-destructive editing is not as robust as Ardour

Code Comparison

Audacity (C++):

void AudacityProject::OnUndo(wxCommandEvent & event)
{
   UndoManager *um = GetUndoManager();
   if (!um->UndoAvailable()) {
      return;
   }
   um->Undo(&mViewInfo);
   ModifyState(true);
}

Ardour (C++):

void
Session::undo (uint32_t n)
{
	if (!_current_trans) {
		begin_reversible_command (_("undo"));
	}
	while (n--) {
		_history.undo ();
	}
	commit_reversible_command ();
}

Both projects use C++ and implement undo functionality, but Ardour's implementation appears more complex, potentially offering more advanced undo capabilities.

Pros of SuperCollider

• More flexible and powerful for algorithmic composition and sound synthesis
• Supports real-time audio processing and live coding
• Extensive library of unit generators and built-in functions

Cons of SuperCollider

• Steeper learning curve due to its text-based programming interface
• Less intuitive for traditional DAW-style music production
• Limited built-in MIDI and audio editing capabilities compared to Ardour

Code Comparison

SuperCollider:

{
    SinOsc.ar(440, 0, 0.5) * EnvGen.kr(Env.perc(0.01, 1), doneAction: 2)
}.play;

Ardour:

function create_sine_wave(session, track)
    local region = ARDOUR.AudioRegion("sine_wave")
    local buf = ARDOUR.AudioBuffer(session.sample_rate(), 1)
    for i = 1, buf:samples() do
        buf:data(1)[i] = math.sin(2 * math.pi * 440 * i / session.sample_rate())
    end
    region:set_data(buf)
    track:playlist():add_region(region, 0)
end

SuperCollider is more concise for sound synthesis, while Ardour's Lua scripting is geared towards session manipulation and automation.

Pros of Pure Data

• Visual programming interface for audio and multimedia
• Highly extensible with a large community of developers creating external libraries
• Cross-platform compatibility (Windows, macOS, Linux, and mobile devices)

Cons of Pure Data

• Steeper learning curve for users unfamiliar with visual programming
• Less intuitive for traditional audio recording and editing tasks
• Limited built-in support for advanced audio mixing and mastering features

Code Comparison

Pure Data uses a visual programming language, while Ardour is primarily written in C++. Here's a simplified example of how each might handle audio input:

Pure Data (visual patch):

[adc~] -> [dac~]

Ardour (C++):

AudioEngine::instance()->get_backend()->register_port(PortFlags::IsInput | PortFlags::IsAudio);

Pure Data focuses on real-time audio processing and synthesis, while Ardour is designed for multi-track recording, editing, and mixing. Pure Data excels in experimental and algorithmic composition, whereas Ardour is better suited for traditional music production workflows.

Pros of Csound

• More flexible and powerful for algorithmic composition and sound synthesis
• Supports a wider range of platforms, including mobile devices
• Has a longer history and larger community for educational resources

Cons of Csound

• Steeper learning curve due to text-based programming approach
• Less intuitive for traditional DAW-style music production workflows
• Limited built-in GUI options compared to Ardour's full-featured interface

Code Comparison

Csound example (simple oscillator):

instr 1
  aout oscili 0.5, 440
  out aout
endin

Ardour example (MIDI note to audio):

function filter_midi (event)
  local note = ARDOUR.LuaAPI.new_noteptr (event:buffer())
  note:set_velocity (127)
  return event
end

While both projects are open-source audio software, Csound focuses on sound synthesis and algorithmic composition, using a text-based approach. Ardour is a more traditional digital audio workstation (DAW) with a graphical interface for recording, editing, and mixing. Csound offers more flexibility for complex sound design but requires programming skills, while Ardour provides a more accessible environment for standard music production tasks.