> On Sat, 15 May 2010 17:02:12 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> "Homer" <use...@slated.org> wrote in message >> news:rpn2c7-av5.ln1@sky.matrix... >>> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly: >>>> Sylvan Morein, DDS pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>>> Nevertheless, I do not feel that Linux is ready for A/V yet and since >>>>> I >>>>> have >>>>> over 15 years of college education, my views are very important.
>>>> Riiiiiiiiiight.
>>> Presumably his 15 year long education didn't include any contact with >>> the film industry, the majority of which now uses GNU/Linux almost >>> exclusively for many pre and post production A/V tasks:
>> Gentlemen, >> The comment is a forgery. Sylvan Morein is not on usenet.
>> Your observation about the film industry is correct.
>> Regards, >> Bob Morein >> (310) 237-6511
> Looks like Homer has been sucked in by "Buzzard news".
> Yea, Homer is correct in that a lot of the film production houses > are using Linux for RENDERING, but far less are using it as a > front end and even if they do, the versions are highly customized > versions of open source programs that the average person has no > access to.
> Like the Pixar stuff for example.
> Still, there is no arguing that this is a good application for > Linux software.
My understanding as of a few years ago was that because rendering technology advances so rapidly, they actually built a new render farm for each major production. These render farms have/had thousands of machines. They didn't want to pay for licenses for what was an essentially single-use render farm, and there was no direct access by artists, so as you say, it is a very good fit for linux.
In article <rpn2c7-av5....@sky.matrix>, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> [quote] > It turns out that Avatar, the hugely successful science fiction epic > film from James Cameron, was rendered using a huge Ubuntu rendering > server farm, at Weta Digital. > [/quote]
And what were they rendering? The answer is largely stuff created using Adobe proprietary programs running on Macs or Windows. Avatar was practically a showcase for Adobe pro software.
On Sat, 15 May 2010 17:47:35 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote: > "Moshe" <goldee_loxnbag...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:18006p00bz57y.5extw8u53nqs$.dlg@40tude.net... >> On Sat, 15 May 2010 17:02:12 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>> "Homer" <use...@slated.org> wrote in message >>> news:rpn2c7-av5.ln1@sky.matrix... >>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly: >>>>> Sylvan Morein, DDS pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>>>> Nevertheless, I do not feel that Linux is ready for A/V yet and since >>>>>> I >>>>>> have >>>>>> over 15 years of college education, my views are very important.
>>>>> Riiiiiiiiiight.
>>>> Presumably his 15 year long education didn't include any contact with >>>> the film industry, the majority of which now uses GNU/Linux almost >>>> exclusively for many pre and post production A/V tasks:
>>> Gentlemen, >>> The comment is a forgery. Sylvan Morein is not on usenet.
>>> Your observation about the film industry is correct.
>>> Regards, >>> Bob Morein >>> (310) 237-6511
>> Looks like Homer has been sucked in by "Buzzard news".
>> Yea, Homer is correct in that a lot of the film production houses >> are using Linux for RENDERING, but far less are using it as a >> front end and even if they do, the versions are highly customized >> versions of open source programs that the average person has no >> access to.
>> Like the Pixar stuff for example.
>> Still, there is no arguing that this is a good application for >> Linux software.
> My understanding as of a few years ago was that because rendering technology > advances so rapidly, they actually built a new render farm for each major > production. These render farms have/had thousands of machines. They didn't > want to pay for licenses for what was an essentially single-use render farm, > and there was no direct access by artists, so as you say, it is a very good > fit for linux.
> Bob Morein > (310) 237-6511
Could be. Linux is a perfect fit for stuff like this.
Technology changes so quickly its's getting scary.
I just watched the making of Halo the other night and it looks so "old" compared to what is being done now.
If Linux could somehow manage to perfect the front end and replace Adobe, ProTools, Nuendo, etc IOW the tools the designers are using, there would be no stopping Linux.
>>>> "Homer" <use...@slated.org> wrote in message >>>> news:rpn2c7-av5.ln1@sky.matrix... >>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly: >>>>>> Sylvan Morein, DDS pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>>>>> Nevertheless, I do not feel that Linux is ready for A/V yet and >>>>>>> since >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> over 15 years of college education, my views are very important.
>>>>>> Riiiiiiiiiight.
>>>>> Presumably his 15 year long education didn't include any contact with >>>>> the film industry, the majority of which now uses GNU/Linux almost >>>>> exclusively for many pre and post production A/V tasks:
>>>> Gentlemen, >>>> The comment is a forgery. Sylvan Morein is not on usenet.
>>>> Your observation about the film industry is correct.
>>>> Regards, >>>> Bob Morein >>>> (310) 237-6511
>>> Looks like Homer has been sucked in by "Buzzard news".
>>> Yea, Homer is correct in that a lot of the film production houses >>> are using Linux for RENDERING, but far less are using it as a >>> front end and even if they do, the versions are highly customized >>> versions of open source programs that the average person has no >>> access to.
>>> Like the Pixar stuff for example.
>>> Still, there is no arguing that this is a good application for >>> Linux software.
>> My understanding as of a few years ago was that because rendering >> technology >> advances so rapidly, they actually built a new render farm for each major >> production. These render farms have/had thousands of machines. They >> didn't >> want to pay for licenses for what was an essentially single-use render >> farm, >> and there was no direct access by artists, so as you say, it is a very >> good >> fit for linux.
>> Bob Morein >> (310) 237-6511
> Could be. > Linux is a perfect fit for stuff like this.
> Technology changes so quickly its's getting scary.
It is. I was referring to afew ye
> I just watched the making of Halo the other night and it looks so > "old" compared to what is being done now.
> If Linux could somehow manage to perfect the front end and replace > Adobe, ProTools, Nuendo, etc IOW the tools the designers are > using, there would be no stopping Linux.
> It would steamroll the Mac and Windows.
If there were such a front end, the above mentioned would port to it. But I don't think the linux guys want to work under the direction of "human factor experts", ie., psych majors. These are hard core programmers. In effect, they are selected for it because they do it for free. They love what they do too much.
On Sat, 15 May 2010 18:32:42 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote: > "Moshe" <goldee_loxnbag...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:3ljjbgus6i1j.17ghulgvigdw0.dlg@40tude.net... >> On Sat, 15 May 2010 17:47:35 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>>>> "Homer" <use...@slated.org> wrote in message >>>>> news:rpn2c7-av5.ln1@sky.matrix... >>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly: >>>>>>> Sylvan Morein, DDS pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, I do not feel that Linux is ready for A/V yet and >>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> over 15 years of college education, my views are very important.
>>>>>>> Riiiiiiiiiight.
>>>>>> Presumably his 15 year long education didn't include any contact with >>>>>> the film industry, the majority of which now uses GNU/Linux almost >>>>>> exclusively for many pre and post production A/V tasks:
>>>>> Gentlemen, >>>>> The comment is a forgery. Sylvan Morein is not on usenet.
>>>>> Your observation about the film industry is correct.
>>>>> Regards, >>>>> Bob Morein >>>>> (310) 237-6511
>>>> Looks like Homer has been sucked in by "Buzzard news".
>>>> Yea, Homer is correct in that a lot of the film production houses >>>> are using Linux for RENDERING, but far less are using it as a >>>> front end and even if they do, the versions are highly customized >>>> versions of open source programs that the average person has no >>>> access to.
>>>> Like the Pixar stuff for example.
>>>> Still, there is no arguing that this is a good application for >>>> Linux software.
>>> My understanding as of a few years ago was that because rendering >>> technology >>> advances so rapidly, they actually built a new render farm for each major >>> production. These render farms have/had thousands of machines. They >>> didn't >>> want to pay for licenses for what was an essentially single-use render >>> farm, >>> and there was no direct access by artists, so as you say, it is a very >>> good >>> fit for linux.
>>> Bob Morein >>> (310) 237-6511
>> Could be. >> Linux is a perfect fit for stuff like this.
>> Technology changes so quickly its's getting scary.
> It is. I was referring to afew ye
>> I just watched the making of Halo the other night and it looks so >> "old" compared to what is being done now.
>> If Linux could somehow manage to perfect the front end and replace >> Adobe, ProTools, Nuendo, etc IOW the tools the designers are >> using, there would be no stopping Linux.
>> It would steamroll the Mac and Windows.
> If there were such a front end, the above mentioned would port to it. But I > don't think the linux guys want to work under the direction of "human factor > experts", ie., psych majors. These are hard core programmers. In effect, > they are selected for it because they do it for free. They love what they do > too much.
> Bob Morein > (310) 237-6511
I think you are spot on Bob! Part of the mystique of the Linux community is the unknown.
Put these same people under control of some "suit" say Microsoft, etc, and they will not be happy. They prefer being free spirits and that is fine but it's not the way to grow a business.
Hardware support needs to come first. Control surfaces, interfaces ALL OF THEM need to be supported.
Plugins like Ivory, Sonnox, UAD etc need to be supported and so forth.
That's a big order and I'm not convinced the Linux community with it's fragmentation and disorganization is prepared to deal with this.
They seem to put "it's got to be free or else" at the top of their list. Not good for gaining support from companies that use iLok etc.
> In article<rpn2c7-av5....@sky.matrix>, Homer<use...@slated.org> > wrote: >> [quote] >> It turns out that Avatar, the hugely successful science fiction epic >> film from James Cameron, was rendered using a huge Ubuntu rendering >> server farm, at Weta Digital. >> [/quote]
> And what were they rendering? The answer is largely stuff created using > Adobe proprietary programs running on Macs or Windows. Avatar was > practically a showcase for Adobe pro software.
Look for the video labeled "Adobe Software and Avatar"
> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly: >> Sylvan Morein, DDS pulled this Usenet boner:
>>> Nevertheless, I do not feel that Linux is ready for A/V yet and since I have >>> over 15 years of college education, my views are very important.
>> Riiiiiiiiiight.
> Presumably his 15 year long education didn't include any contact with > the film industry, the majority of which now uses GNU/Linux almost > exclusively for many pre and post production A/V tasks:
I don't believe a word Linux idiots like this guy Robin Rowe say.
"Linux is the most popular operating system for big budget feature film animation and visual effects, with more than 95% of the servers and desktops at large animation and visual effects companies." http://www.linuxmovies.org/
uh huh... and "half of Europe just dumped Windows", right Homer?
Get some real evidence, or it's more horseshit spewed by Linux "advocates".
> Most recently:
> [quote] > It turns out that Avatar, the hugely successful science fiction epic > film from James Cameron, was rendered using a huge Ubuntu rendering > server farm, at Weta Digital. > [/quote]
> If Linux could somehow manage to perfect the front end and replace > Adobe, ProTools, Nuendo, etc IOW the tools the designers are > using, there would be no stopping Linux.
On Sat, 15 May 2010 19:02:17 -0400, DFS wrote: > On 5/15/2010 6:04 PM, Moshe wrote:
>> If Linux could somehow manage to perfect the front end and replace >> Adobe, ProTools, Nuendo, etc IOW the tools the designers are >> using, there would be no stopping Linux.
>> It would steamroll the Mac and Windows.
> Keep hope alive!
Well that's what it boils down to. At the current state of things, Linux hasn't a prayer.
Still, I don't a musician alive that wouldn't love to see Linux take on Windows and Mac in a serious manner.
The problem is the Linux community is in effect Linux's worst enemy.
Moshe wrote: > If Linux could somehow manage to perfect the front end and replace > Adobe, ProTools, Nuendo, etc IOW the tools the designers are > using, there would be no stopping Linux.
> "Homer" <use...@slated.org> wrote in message >> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly: >>> Sylvan Morein, DDS pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>> Nevertheless, I do not feel that Linux is ready for A/V yet and since I >>>> have over 15 years of college education, my views are very important.
>>> Riiiiiiiiiight.
>> Presumably his 15 year long education didn't include any contact with >> the film industry, the majority of which now uses GNU/Linux almost >> exclusively for many pre and post production A/V tasks:
> Gentlemen, > The comment is a forgery. Sylvan Morein is not on usenet.
> Your observation about the film industry is correct.
> Regards, > Bob Morein > <phone number snipped>
I'm betting Bob's post is a forgery. Who posts their phone number on Usenet.
Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@launchmodem.com> writes: > CROSS POSTING SNIPPED
> Soundhaspriority pulled this Usenet boner:
>> "Homer" <use...@slated.org> wrote in message >>> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly: >>>> Sylvan Morein, DDS pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>>> Nevertheless, I do not feel that Linux is ready for A/V yet and since I >>>>> have over 15 years of college education, my views are very important.
>>>> Riiiiiiiiiight.
>>> Presumably his 15 year long education didn't include any contact with >>> the film industry, the majority of which now uses GNU/Linux almost >>> exclusively for many pre and post production A/V tasks:
>> Gentlemen, >> The comment is a forgery. Sylvan Morein is not on usenet.
>> Your observation about the film industry is correct.
>> Regards, >> Bob Morein >> <phone number snipped>
> I'm betting Bob's post is a forgery. Who posts their phone number on > Usenet.
You posted with you real name don't you? Mad if you ask me, but there you go.
On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:52:07 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote: > Moshe wrote:
>> If Linux could somehow manage to perfect the front end and replace >> Adobe, ProTools, Nuendo, etc IOW the tools the designers are >> using, there would be no stopping Linux.
> You're mixing OS and applications up.
> Kind regards
> Peter Larsen
I know that. I include the applications with Linux, IOW Linux kernel, the OS, running Linux applications.
Moshe wrote: > On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:52:07 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote:
>> Moshe wrote:
>>> If Linux could somehow manage to perfect the front end and replace >>> Adobe, ProTools, Nuendo, etc IOW the tools the designers are >>> using, there would be no stopping Linux.
>> You're mixing OS and applications up.
>> Kind regards
>> Peter Larsen
> I know that. > I include the applications with Linux, IOW Linux kernel, the OS, > running Linux applications.
>> Real time was reasonably easy in TOS/Win3x/Win9x/Mac Finder you >> essentially wrote your own RT kernel that cooperated with the OS, this >> is not possible with a multitasking pre-emptive OS since it needs to >> be in control at all times, in that case you need a high resolution >> timer service within the OS itself
> Ah, the Amiga is all forgotten.
No, I loved it, got into it rather late, 1990 or so, but sadly the MIDI & audio apps were limited, one version of KCS, one version of Cubase and then nothing but Bars and Pipes and that was not really a pro application
>> Microsoft spent a lot of money and time in association with Steinberg
> But forgot to purchase the Amiga OS to get a proper multitasking kernel and > a proper taskpriority system as well as various other goodies that windows > still is woefully short of.
Win7 is fine
I thought the Metacomco V OS (AKA Amiga OS) was not fully memory protected due to the lack of such features in the orignal 68k chipsets?
> For a historical insight, it's worth reading the Microsoft paper "The > Problems You're Having May Not Be the Problems You Think You're > Having" (Results from a Latency Study of Windows NT - Michael B. Jones).
> One interesting point it brings up is that an operating system is only as > real time as it's drivers allow it to be. Of course, if no one has the > source code to validate the drivers and make them fully pre-emptable, > than you just have to hope you got lucky. There are Windows tools like > the DPC latency checker that help some people with this problem.
That is latency, while RT response and latency can be viewed as related they are not the same, an RT kernel should respond within a predefined period regardless of drivers et al and should do so independently of them al la Microware OS9 et al, this slightly disingenuous assertion on Microsofts part but not unreasonable for marketing papers like this I guess
however by the release of Win2000 the windows system got much better at this
> Even the vanilla Linux kernel is not too bad at latency nowadays, as > parts of the RT tree slowly get merged into it. Not as good as windows, > but usable.
Usable for what ? For recording your LP and cassette collection? certainly, but the original post assured that Linux could take over the tasks of Nuendo and Protools
> What are these high latency issues? I can do sub millisecond latencies > with my Delta1010 card, and don't feel the need to go much lower.
You misunderstood, or perhaps this is my fault and I should have made myself clear, the only advantage that JACK potentially has over other audio bussing technologies is transparent multi system usage, the latency issues are horrendus in that configuration and not something that can be overcome since that requires specialised hardware. As an intra system bussing tech, it has nothing novel to offer.
> Ah, I see. Your opinions are 13 years out of date.
No that was not an opinion, it was an observation, that should have been obvious, the rest of my post may have been a collection of worthless opinions but this certainly was not.
> Really, apart from midi (which is waiting on Ardour3), there is no > comparison between what I can do in Ardour, and what I could do on Falcon > Cubase, and I have used both. With midi, even Rosegarden is still more > advanced on the audio side that Cubase Falcon.
Yes, hardware wise it is since the Falcon is limited to a 20 year old computer technology, however there is no tool or a synchonisable collection of tools on Linux that allows me to integrate and control my studio like that thing did (and does to a degree although these days I use it mostly as an sequenceing slave with less timing problems)
The closest thing to a workable DAW or MIDI/Recording software on Linux remains Energy XT and has been so for some time, and that thing is buggy and for some reason the MIDI editing is less functional in the current 2.5 version that it was in v1.4 or its prdecessor (Muse? cant remember its original name), making it a neat toy for my sub-notebook, not a tool I can use on a daily basis to solve problems, hey I bought it anyway but I mostly use it as a VST slave.
As for pro recording, there is no tool on linux that offers the latency multi-compensation for instance that Cubase/Nuendo offers, so no integration with my outboard at mix time
What are you guys comparing Ardour with?
Cubase 5? Pro-Tools? Nuendo? Logic?
I am not commenting on something like A3 that is not out yet
A DAW is not a piece of recording software like Ardour, it is a tool that allows me to record, control and integrate my studio, be that virtual or hardware, for that I need MIDI, people do not seem to realise how important MIDI is and seem to view it as almost a physical thing, something that was used to hook up synths with in the 80's
MIDI is a protocol, it is the only thing that will talk to, control and automate the parameters on my external reverb, my internal VST reverb and all the junk I have in my studio, real, virtual or imaginary. For the DAW to be something more than a tape recorder on steroids, a good MIDI editing option is essential
Ardour is not even anywhere close to being as useful as Adobe Audition is just as a recording program, what sort of chance do you think it has next to Cubase 5, even if it gains some rudimentary MIDI editing options in the near future?
This is not a Linux problem specifically, we get this with REAPER as well, those that use the program basically as a recorder love its simplicity and do not realise that some of us NEED really good MIDI editing, and REAPER simply is not up to the job, and then go mental on various forums on the net if someone states that simple fact.
Take for instance my setup, I cannot fit a proper mixer in here for space, budget and other reasons but nor am I willing to mix with the native or protools DSP mixers, they just sound crap with multitrack mixing, so I use some old Creamware cards as a mixer placed in a secondary computer, the AD DSP summing for some reason sounds much better than the Moto one. Now the only way I have to control that without any latency issues is MIDI and to be able to automate my mixes I need seriously good midi editing, there simply is no way out of that.
People have to realise that in pro or semi-pro audio as in any specialised field there is investment in hardware that cannot be discarder for financial, emotional or practical reasons, any new player in the field either has to work with that existing investment or to change the field completely.
If Linux wants to dig a niche in the audio field they will need to either integrate into an existing setup which is unlikely due to the aforementioned RT issues, lack of drivers for specialised hardware and a complete lack of an ecosystem. That only leaves changing the field with something compleatly integrated, does not have to be be an out and out pro program, look at something like Steinberg Sequel that can operate on its own without any external soft or hardware, not for everyone but enough for a large chunk of users.
How likely is that to happen? Last time I asked about a synthesis program on Linux about a year ago or so I was directed towards Csound, now I do not want to sound too negative, but I was using Csound 15 years ago on an old and clappy 286 and its predecessor 25 years ago on an early mac, I was hoping for some progress in the meantime ....... the sad truth is that my faith in innovation from the Linux field is tad on the limited side.
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Olafur Gunnlaugsson<o...@audiotools.com> wrote: >> boot, when the first multitrack recorder for linux shipped in 1997 I >> read a lot of articles like this, that was 13 years ago and nothing has >> happened in the meantime ...
> The main thing that hasn't happened in the meantime is music that > doesn't suck.
Plenty of good new music out there, I happened unto this last year
The funny thing is that it is for some reason more difficult to find new music with the internet, myspace and search engines and all that, than it was with badly photocopied fanzines and compilation tapes
> Moshe wrote: >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:52:07 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote:
>>> Moshe wrote:
>>>> If Linux could somehow manage to perfect the front end and replace >>>> Adobe, ProTools, Nuendo, etc IOW the tools the designers are >>>> using, there would be no stopping Linux.
>>> You're mixing OS and applications up.
>>> Kind regards
>>> Peter Larsen
>> I know that. >> I include the applications with Linux, IOW Linux kernel, the OS, >> running Linux applications.
> That would be pretty much just "Ardour" then ?
> geoff
There are other Linux applications like Energy XT, however the designers of that program have actually been so rude as actually ask for money in exchange for their software which apparently makes them some sort of Luddites in the Linux world, or something worse....
>> Even the vanilla Linux kernel is not too bad at latency nowadays, as >> parts of the RT tree slowly get merged into it. Not as good as windows, >> but usable.
> Usable for what ? For recording your LP and cassette collection? > certainly, but the original post assured that Linux could take over the > tasks of Nuendo and Protools
> <snip>
Nonetheless, a significant class of users can be satisfied with
- Rosegarden - Ardour - Energy XT - etc.
Here's a much more comprehensive list of open-source "music" tools for Linux.
A few years ago, you could do some decent stuff with the Atari ST and with Windows NT. But the programs of those days are positively primitive compared to the programs of today, and that includes the Linux-based programs.
-- Try the Moo Shu Pork. It is especially good today.
On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:14:22 +0100, Olafur Gunnlaugsson wrote: > ann 17/05/2010 09:19, skrifa i geoff: >> Moshe wrote: >>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:52:07 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote:
>>>> Moshe wrote:
>>>>> If Linux could somehow manage to perfect the front end and replace >>>>> Adobe, ProTools, Nuendo, etc IOW the tools the designers are >>>>> using, there would be no stopping Linux.
>>>> You're mixing OS and applications up.
>>>> Kind regards
>>>> Peter Larsen
>>> I know that. >>> I include the applications with Linux, IOW Linux kernel, the OS, >>> running Linux applications.
>> That would be pretty much just "Ardour" then ?
>> geoff
> There are other Linux applications like Energy XT, however the designers > of that program have actually been so rude as actually ask for money in > exchange for their software which apparently makes them some sort of > Luddites in the Linux world, or something worse....
Linux users don't like paying for software. It's one of the key reasons the game company Loki went out of business.
And like a bad apple, pun intended, they spoil the bunch for the people who don't mind paying a little for a quality product.
Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
> A few years ago, you could do some decent stuff with the Atari ST > and with Windows NT. But the programs of those days are positively > primitive compared to the programs of today, and that includes the > Linux-based programs.
Surely the quality of the result is all that matters, and that is much more dependent on the skill of the musician than the primitiveness of the instrument. Indeed, I'd argue that instruments which make it /too/ easy to compose music only diminish true creativity, which probably accounts for why most of today's music all sounds the same.
> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>> A few years ago, you could do some decent stuff with the Atari ST >> and with Windows NT. But the programs of those days are positively >> primitive compared to the programs of today, and that includes the >> Linux-based programs.
> Surely the quality of the result is all that matters, and that is much > more dependent on the skill of the musician than the primitiveness of > the instrument. Indeed, I'd argue that instruments which make it /too/ > easy to compose music only diminish true creativity, which probably > accounts for why most of today's music all sounds the same.
An interesting case is Synergy (Larry Fast). He released an album called "Reconstructed Artifacts", in which he remixed a number of his old tunes -- built using tapes, click-tracks, analog synthesizers and primitive digital ones -- using modern equipment.
Although the sound quality was better, on a few of the tunes* I actually preferred the analog version. Much richer, and, if not better mixed, at least I liked the weighting of the sound in the older versions.
Olafur Gunnlaugsson wrote: > In Linux you have to compile your own real-time kernel and live with > the fact that not all programs work in that configuration and even > more annoyingly that most music programs do not take advantage of it, > there is a real time Linux distribution out there, granted, but it is > outdated and has an annoying habit of not working out of the box
FUD. There is a real time patch and it is easily applied.
> And Linux people do not want to discuss the issue, they just go into > religious nutcase mode and start waffling on about JACK being a > ground-breaking technology that will change the face of the market, > not realising that the high latency issues with that technology make > it unusable for studio usage
Sounds like flatfish. So all Linux users are nut cases. Figures.
> Unless major distributions start shipping with an RT kernel by > default and we start seeing some industry strength software, there is > no software available on linux that would replace my old Cubase > Audio Falcon installation for instance and that thing is getting on > 20 years old, making posts like yours are just a sick joke, and an > old one to boot, when the first multitrack recorder for linux shipped > in 1997 I read a lot of articles like this, that was 13 years ago and > nothing has happened in the meantime ... except that I no longer > have a linux partition on my disk
