Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
Erin Mungan
The Linux pundits say yes....
I say no....
My simplistic reasoning, lack of support for UAD, EzDrummer, Ivory,
Waves, etc....
Then there is lack of control surface support.\
Lack of sound card support.
....and on and on.
And of course this doesn't even include the lack of ProTools, the
industry standard, into the discussion.
For the record, I would love to see Linux break into this area but it is
not there and is not even close and all signs unfortunately lead to a
dead end.
Comments, discussion... ?
Cork Soaker
> Comments, discussion... ?
>
No, thanks for the offer.
Erin Mungan
Thund...@Intrepid.invalid says...
>
> Erin Mungan wrote:
>
> > Comments, discussion... ?
> >
>
> No, thanks for the offer.
Coming from a Linux zealot like yourself, that's no surprise.
Why the fear?
Your zealot brothers in Linux keep telling the professional audio
community how Linux is ready to replace the applications we already use.
You keep telling us how Linux is free and we are wasting our money on
applications like ProTools and Nuendo etc.
So why the fear when you are asked to produce instead of bullshit?
Scott Dorsey
>For the record, I would love to see Linux break into this area but it is
>not there and is not even close and all signs unfortunately lead to a
>dead end.
Oh, God, not this idiot again. Please, take this somewhere else.
>Comments, discussion... ?
Please, no. Not here in rec.audio.pro.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Erin Mungan
>
> Erin Mungan <mungan4ly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >For the record, I would love to see Linux break into this area but it is
> >not there and is not even close and all signs unfortunately lead to a
> >dead end.
>
> Oh, God, not this idiot again. Please, take this somewhere else.
>
> >Comments, discussion... ?
>
> Please, no. Not here in rec.audio.pro.
> --scott
I'll take that as a no, Scott Dorsey who sends out kits with incorrect
schematics and supplies..... see SOS for details.....
Again, is Linux a feasible platform?
Rick
--
Rick
Erin Mungan
no...@mail.invalid says...
>
> ... I say no.
Can you answer the question instead of acting like a typical Linux
zealot and attacking the messenger?
I say no.
High Plains Thumper
> Erin Mungan <mungan4ly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For the record, I would love to see Linux break into this area but
>> it is not there and is not even close and all signs unfortunately
>> lead to a dead end.
>
> Oh, God, not this idiot again. Please, take this somewhere else.
>
>> Comments, discussion... ?
>
> Please, no. Not here in rec.audio.pro.
He'd like people to believe he mixes studio midi "karaoke tracks" for
professional singers, but his trolling spiel shows anything but that.
I'd plonk him if I were you, Scott.
End-of-line.
--
HPT
John Williamson
> The Linux pundits say yes....
>
> I say no....
>
for audio with great enthusiasm. There are very few applications, it has
limited hardware support, and IME is a nightmare to configure.
It does , IMHO, have a place in the Studio area as a fileserver, which
is a job it does extremely well. It's also very good at office related
work, if you can live without Microsoft Office.
Just my experiences.
--
Tciao for Now!
JOhn.
Cork Soaker
> In article <ibf007-...@quarkbomb.dyndns.org>,
> Thund...@Intrepid.invalid says...
>> Erin Mungan wrote:
>>
>>> Comments, discussion... ?
>>>
>> No, thanks for the offer.
>
>
> Coming from a Linux zealot like yourself, that's no surprise.
>
> Why the fear?
No fear, you're just boring.
>
> Your zealot brothers in Linux keep telling the professional audio
> community how Linux is ready to replace the applications we already use.
This clearly causes a great deal of excitement for you, during these,
your lowest days.
>
> You keep telling us how Linux is free and we are wasting our money on
> applications like ProTools and Nuendo etc.
No I don't.
>
> So why the fear when you are asked to produce instead of bullshit?
I have no interest in producing anything for you, except another turd
you can call your brother.
Scott Dorsey
>In article <hgk4sc$eil$1...@panix2.panix.com>, klu...@panix.com says...
>>
>schematics and supplies..... see SOS for details.....
I'm sorry, you must be mistaken. None of the board kits I have ever
supplied in the past 30 years have ever come with any schematics or
supplies. That would rather defeat their purpose.
>Again, is Linux a feasible platform?
Take your religious war elsewhere, please. Have you considered seeing
a doctor about your obsessive behaviour?
Hadron
What is religious about asking Audio professionals, and I assume you are
one, if Linux cuts the mustard as an Audio processing platform?
Well? Does it?
dimercaprol
if I ask if any of you guys has info about using the M-Audio Firewire
410 in any version of Linux. The last I hear, it didn't work so I am
still using Windows. I would like to switch to Linux, but I don't want
to buy a new 2496 external sound card.
Thanks,
dimer
Richard Crowley
to a Linux ng? (or any "advocacy" ng?)
Mike Rivers
> What is religious about asking Audio professionals, and I assume you are
> one, if Linux cuts the mustard as an Audio processing platform?
Only that there are two camps and they never change. One is composed
entirely of
Linux zealots (which is like a religion) and the other is composed
entirely of audio
hobbyists who sometimes grow their hobby into a profession.
> Well? Does it?
It does, with professional programming support, which has nothing at all
in common
with audio processing. Harrison makes a good console and recorder based
around
Linux, but it's very different from a free distribution that you can
load on to your PC.
For the audio professional who would rather work with audio than work
with computer
programming and maintenance, Linux does not cut the mustard for audio
work. There
are some perfectly good off-the-shelf Linux server applications, and of
course the Open
Office suite for your bookkeeping and letter writing, as well as several
common and
uncommon web browsers.
An audio professional could set up a Linux system to do all the
non-audio things he needs
to do around the studio and business and save quite a bit of money over
getting another
PC. And an audio professional SHOULD keep his audio work on a separate
computer
from his e-mail, web sites, bills and promotion.
Jay Ts
>>>klu...@panix.com says...
>>>>
>>>> Please, no. Not here in rec.audio.pro.
>>>
>>>I'll take that as a no, Scott Dorsey who sends out kits with incorrect
>>>schematics and supplies..... see SOS for details.....
>>
>> I'm sorry, you must be mistaken. None of the board kits I have ever
>> supplied in the past 30 years have ever come with any schematics or
>> supplies. That would rather defeat their purpose.
>>
>>>Again, is Linux a feasible platform?
>>
>> Take your religious war elsewhere, please. Have you considered seeing
>> a doctor about your obsessive behaviour? --scott
>
> What is religious about asking Audio professionals, and I assume you are
> one, if Linux cuts the mustard as an Audio processing platform?
>
> Well? Does it?
NO. It's good for playing audio files, though, and I use it for that.
All of my other music and audio apps run on Windows XP. If Linux
worked better for those applications, I would use it instead.
Now go away. Whether you know it or not, your intrusion into
rec.audio.pro without having the slightest familiarity with
the group and its regular contributors only identifies you
as a TROLL.
Jay Ts
Linux and Windows user since 1996
Unix programmer and sysadmin since 1981
Author, Using Samba (2nd. edition), O'Reilly Media
Hadron
1) Who the hell do you think you are?
2) I never cross posted : I am merely interested to hear the facts and
following up.
3) The question is perfectly legitimate.
4) Why would you use Linux for "playing audio" while using XP for the
rest of your work?
4) If you're going to make sweeping statements like Linux is no good for
Audio applications then explain why.
5) You don't own the group and are most certainly not in charge. If you
feel incapable of answering a perfectly normal question feel free to use
your killfile. I feel sure that a big shot like you knows how to use
one.
Have a nice day now.
Richard Mann
At a local live music venue I have:
- Studio projects C4 mics
- Maudio Duo USB/ADC (gain set to fixed level)
- Simple linux machine
On boot the system runs a special script. Hit "R" to record, hit "S" to stop.
Will record for 6hrs or "S", whichever is first. Records date-stamped
44.1/16bit WAV files that I can upload.
This system has been deployed for (at least) two years and is working well.
I agree that Windows is more suited to interactive DAW work. Linux has a ways
to go IMO.
Richard
Keoki
audio and MIDI worked out of the box: Pure:Dyne and Indamixx
Transmission 3.0
If you care, details are at:
http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/gaming-games-multimedia-entertainment/155222-adventures-linux-midi.html
Mike Rivers
> I use Linux as a standalone audio recorder.
> On boot the system runs a special script. Hit "R" to record, hit "S" to stop.
> Will record for 6hrs or "S", whichever is first. Records date-stamped
> 44.1/16bit WAV files that I can upload.
This is an example of a dedicated system that just happens to use Linux, and
just happens to record audio. I'll be the person who hits the R button
(unless that's you)
neither knows nor cares that it's Linux. But someone had to make it do
that, and
nothing else but that. That's not something that a recording hobbyist is
likely to
be able to do, unless he's also a Linux hobbyist. However, people seem
to be
able to install the copy of Cubase or whatever that came with their
sound card on
their PC or Mac and figure out how to record and mix with it.
Mike Rivers
> So far I found two Linux versions (out of 16) on which multitrack
> audio and MIDI worked out of the box: Pure:Dyne and Indamixx
> Transmission 3.0
I don't know Pure:Dyne but I know that Indamixx really wants to sell
pre-configured computers, even though they'll sell you a CD or
flash drive version for $150. I thought the handheld touch screen
computer they were showing at NAMM or maybe it was AES last year
was pretty cute, but at least at that time there was no multichannel
interface for it. I didn't really see any advantage to it over a $200
Zoom H2 recorder unless you absolutely needed to take your mixing
to the beach with you.
And I like the support "Free Software Support (first 7 days). "
Richard Mann
I agree, this requires both audio and linux hacking!
I'm just putting it out there as one potential way to use a Linux system, to
build an institutional or commercial application.
So, the disadvantage of linux is the (many) application areas require
configuration. But that is an advantage too. If you want to do
*development* work on it, you can easily build a custom setup. Remember that
all the server tools (http, www, ssh, etc) are already in the base
distribution, so, unlike Windows, you don't need to buy or configure these.
Richard
William Poaster
Ts was heard to say:
FYI: "Hadron" is a self-confessed troll & binned in many groups.
Message-ID: <n145s4-...@news.individual.net>
<crossposting snipped>
--
Error #003: You're joking, right?
Les Cargill
> Hadron wrote:
<snip>
> An audio professional could set up a Linux system to do all the
> non-audio things he needs to do around the studio and business
> and save quite a bit of money over getting another PC. And an
> audio professional SHOULD keep his audio work on a separate
> computer > from his e-mail, web sites, bills and promotion.
>
>
Virtualization may change that:
http://www.virtualbox.org/
Soon as I can find out more detail, I may well go
that way myself.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
Reaper works very well under WINE.
--
Les Cargill
Mike Rivers
> So, the disadvantage of linux is the (many) application areas require
> configuration. But that is an advantage too. If you want to do
> *development* work on it, you can easily build a custom setup.
But most of us started out as musicians, then we had to become recording
engineers. Now we have to become Linux deveopers too? When's it
gonna stop? <g>
geoff
Jeepers, and to think tere are enough problems on quantified 'controlled'
systems, imagine how it could be on a system that you need to 'knit your
own' as you go !
geoff
Cork Soaker
Hadron is a well known troll, and idiot.
Scott Dorsey
It doesn't ever stop, Mike. We all came up in a world where studios
were filled with custom equipment. I think that's a good thing, really.
The software world should make this easier, not harder.
Richard Mann
I'm looking for a small, usb-powered device with four (simultaneous) inputs.
There are lots of two input devices, but four inputs is more rare, especially
in smaller devices.
Ideally I could use mic pres on two inputs, but that is not necessary, as I
can use an external pre if needed.
Thanks,
Richard
Laurence Payne
wrote:
Does it have to be usb-POWERED? As you are able to use mic preamps,
it sounds as if mains power might be available?
Mike Rivers
> It doesn't ever stop, Mike. We all came up in a world where studios
> were filled with custom equipment. I think that's a good thing, really.
True, but customizing off-the-shelf equipment or building even a fairly
complex piece such as a console usually involved packaging of standard
modules or well documented circuits. It was easier to figure out whether
a mic preamp module would work with a power supply than whether a
few hundred lines of DSP code would compile the same way in your
computer as it did in the computer of the person who wrote it.
I think the same people who are baffled by the concept of signal flow
in an analog studio would be equally baffled by customizing a software
package (or even operating a turnkey one). But for those who want
to learn how to figure out how things work, it's much easier to do when
you have components that mostly work the same way every time.
> The software world should make this easier, not harder.
Right. And it will never go out of date, too. <g>
chrisv
>Hadron is a well known troll, and idiot.
As is his mentally-ill, nym-shifting pal Flatfish ("Erin Mungan").
--
"OK, so wheres the proof that hes a troll of any kind and does lots of
nymshifting?" - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark, defending
flatfish
Scott Dorsey
The problem is that the 410 has a nonstandard interface, and M-Audio won't
provide details of the interface.
This means that you are dependant either on M-Audio deciding to produce
their own linux driver, or on someone successfully reverse-engineering
the device well enough to put together a linux driver.
You know, twenty years ago when you bought a computer product, the
interface information you needed to write a driver was often in the
user's manual. But these days vendors have found that they can keep
stuff proprietary without people complaining... until they want to do
something that the vendor hasn't decided to support. Welcome to the
world of cheap commodity hardware.
Scott Dorsey
Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> It doesn't ever stop, Mike. We all came up in a world where studios
>> were filled with custom equipment. I think that's a good thing, really.
>
>True, but customizing off-the-shelf equipment or building even a fairly
>complex piece such as a console usually involved packaging of standard
>modules or well documented circuits.
This is true.
>It was easier to figure out whether
>a mic preamp module would work with a power supply than whether a
>few hundred lines of DSP code would compile the same way in your
>computer as it did in the computer of the person who wrote it.
I don't think it is. I think it's the same thing... you're taking a
predesigned module of code and dropping it into your own system.
>I think the same people who are baffled by the concept of signal flow
>in an analog studio would be equally baffled by customizing a software
>package (or even operating a turnkey one).
Yes, but hopefully we're not talking about those people.
>But for those who want
>to learn how to figure out how things work, it's much easier to do when
>you have components that mostly work the same way every time.
Once you get away from the Windows world, computers become deterministic.
This is a good thing. Reportedly Windows 7 actually fixes a lot of the
consistency issues with Windows too, though I cannot verify this.
>> The software world should make this easier, not harder.
>
>Right. And it will never go out of date, too. <g>
It doesn't. There's nothing to prevent you from running an operating system
from the 1970s today. If anything, it's a lot easier than it was in the
seventies.
Scott Dorsey
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Cork Soaker wrote:
>
>>Hadron is a well known troll, and idiot.
>
>As is his mentally-ill, nym-shifting pal Flatfish ("Erin Mungan").
Are these two people? I thought they were the same.
Cork Soaker
> Cork Soaker wrote:
>
>> Hadron is a well known troll, and idiot.
>
> As is his mentally-ill, nym-shifting pal Flatfish ("Erin Mungan").
>
And they both rape children.
Mike Rivers
>> It was easier to figure out whether
>> a mic preamp module would work with a power supply than whether a
>> few hundred lines of DSP code would compile the same way in your
>> computer as it did in the computer of the person who wrote it.
> I don't think it is. I think it's the same thing... you're taking a
> predesigned module of code and dropping it into your own system.
There's usually an extra layer of potential imcompatibility, though. If you
know that a circuit requires +/-15vdc at 150 mA, it might hum more when
powered by a less well filtered power supply than a well filtered one but
at least it'll work and it won't screw anything else up. But with code, you
need to compile it, and if your distribution's compiler doesn't work
identically
to that of the code author's, it may not run the same in your system as it
does in his.
Also, with hardware, there's usually a set of minimum requirements and
it's pretty easy to see if you're meeting those and not exceeding them in
a harmful way. But that's not true with software. If something requires
15v +/- 10% you know you can't power it from a 10v or 24v power supply.
But you don't see "compile with Debian 5.0.1 +/- 10%" because that
doesn't make any sense, particularly if you have Fedora. or SuSe. You
can probably compile it with other compilers, but it takes more than casual
knowledge to know where to look at what to fix if it doesn't work. It
probably requires modifying the source code. Kind of like modifying a
circut designed to run on 15v to run on 24v. While most of the studio
rats of the 70s could build something from a schematic few of them
were able to make design changes to accommodate integrating into
a different kind of application.
>> I think the same people who are baffled by the concept of signal flow
>> in an analog studio would be equally baffled by customizing a software
>> package (or even operating a turnkey one).
>
> Yes, but hopefully we're not talking about those people.
Unfortunaltey, there are too many of those people.
>>> The software world should make this easier, not harder.
>> Right. And it will never go out of date, too. <g>
> It doesn't. There's nothing to prevent you from running an operating system
> from the 1970s today.
You may need to find hardware from the 70s to run it on, though. The driver
that came with that operating system in 1979 to talk to an ST506 disk drive
isn't going to talk to an SATA drive in a new system. And there's probably
some stuff in an 8086 processor that isn't common to an i5. So I guess you
do what's common among the Linux writers and write new drivers for your
hardware.
Getting back to the scope of the original query, there's prescious little
Linux support for multi-channel audio interfaces even though they've been
with us for over ten years. And when you do find one that's supported, it's
usually an old model that you'd have to buy third-hand unless (most likely
like the one who wrote the support code for it) you have one in your attic
that you abandoned years ago.
So I still think Linux is only suitable for professional DAW work if you
buy a turnkey system that just happens to have Linux at its heart. And
when you're buying a turnkey system, you don't care what operating
system it uses, only that you'll be able to get support from your vendor
as long as you want to use it. (which is optimitistic for just about
anything).
Scott Dorsey
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>> It was easier to figure out whether
>>> a mic preamp module would work with a power supply than whether a
>>> few hundred lines of DSP code would compile the same way in your
>>> computer as it did in the computer of the person who wrote it.
>
>> I don't think it is. I think it's the same thing... you're taking a
>> predesigned module of code and dropping it into your own system.
>
>There's usually an extra layer of potential imcompatibility, though. If you
>know that a circuit requires +/-15vdc at 150 mA, it might hum more when
>powered by a less well filtered power supply than a well filtered one but
>at least it'll work and it won't screw anything else up. But with code, you
>need to compile it, and if your distribution's compiler doesn't work
>identically to that of the code author's, it may not run the same in your
>system as it does in his.
That's why it's important to write good code instead of sloppy lousy code
that is dependant on implementation issues. It's sort like doing things
like shielding inductors so that you can put your module next to a power
supply module, etc. And like proper design methods, it takes extra time
and extra money to do properly.
>Also, with hardware, there's usually a set of minimum requirements and
>it's pretty easy to see if you're meeting those and not exceeding them in
>a harmful way. But that's not true with software. If something requires
>15v +/- 10% you know you can't power it from a 10v or 24v power supply.
Yup, but you don't know how sensitive it is to ripple or whether it will
blow some caps up if you drop the 15V rail without dropping the -15V rail.
Early on in the audio world, sgtuff like that was an issue. Today it's
not so much one one, because people are more careful.
>But you don't see "compile with Debian 5.0.1 +/- 10%" because that
>doesn't make any sense, particularly if you have Fedora. or SuSe. You
>can probably compile it with other compilers, but it takes more than casual
>knowledge to know where to look at what to fix if it doesn't work. It
>probably requires modifying the source code. Kind of like modifying a
>circut designed to run on 15v to run on 24v.
All, all three of those distributions use the same gcc compiler. Perhaps
you are thinking about library compatibility issues? Those can exist, but
proper coding practices reduce those problems.
And yes, you need to have some basic notion of what is going on inside the
box before you can implement something. Just like in the analogue world.
>While most of the studio
>rats of the 70s could build something from a schematic few of them
>were able to make design changes to accommodate integrating into
>a different kind of application.
I think you're overstating how difficult this stuff is, Mike.
>>> I think the same people who are baffled by the concept of signal flow
>>> in an analog studio would be equally baffled by customizing a software
>>> package (or even operating a turnkey one).
>>
>> Yes, but hopefully we're not talking about those people.
>
>Unfortunaltey, there are too many of those people.
Right, and they had big trouble putting modules together and making them work,
and they're having the same trouble with software. That's a user problem,
not a problem with the technology. I don't know what technological change
will bring us in another 25 years but I guarantee those people or their
children will be having the same problems.
>>>> The software world should make this easier, not harder.
>>> Right. And it will never go out of date, too. <g>
>
>> It doesn't. There's nothing to prevent you from running an operating system
>> from the 1970s today.
>
>You may need to find hardware from the 70s to run it on, though. The driver
>that came with that operating system in 1979 to talk to an ST506 disk drive
>isn't going to talk to an SATA drive in a new system. And there's probably
>some stuff in an 8086 processor that isn't common to an i5. So I guess you
>do what's common among the Linux writers and write new drivers for your
>hardware.
No, that's what makes it that much easier. Today if you want to run RSX-11,
you don't need to find an old PDP-11/70, you can just run an emulated machine
on a cheap PC and get remarkably good performance. We have finally got to
the point where virtual machines can provide enough performance to split
the running hardware from the physical hardware.
>Getting back to the scope of the original query, there's prescious little
>Linux support for multi-channel audio interfaces even though they've been
>with us for over ten years. And when you do find one that's supported, it's
>usually an old model that you'd have to buy third-hand unless (most likely
>like the one who wrote the support code for it) you have one in your attic
>that you abandoned years ago.
It depends on the interfaces. A bunch of them used standard programming
interfaces and those are all very well supported because the hardware is
well-documented so it doesn't take that much to make a driver. The
BeBoP kit supports a pretty wide variety of them.
If it's not supported by FreeBoB, though, you're going to have trouble.
And that's the fault of the interface vendors for not providing technical
information about their products, if you ask me. I feel the same way about
companies who won't provide a schematic of their preamps.
>So I still think Linux is only suitable for professional DAW work if you
>buy a turnkey system that just happens to have Linux at its heart. And
>when you're buying a turnkey system, you don't care what operating
>system it uses, only that you'll be able to get support from your vendor
>as long as you want to use it. (which is optimitistic for just about
>anything).
I'd say that is the case for ANY system, not just Linux-based ones. Unless
you have a coding staff on hand, the way a typical studio in the seventies
had a maintenance and design staff on hand. And we're in a world where some
big studios do.
David Gravereaux
> Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>> But you don't see "compile with Debian 5.0.1 +/- 10%" because that
>> doesn't make any sense, particularly if you have Fedora. or SuSe. You
>> can probably compile it with other compilers, but it takes more than casual
>> knowledge to know where to look at what to fix if it doesn't work. It
>> probably requires modifying the source code. Kind of like modifying a
>> circut designed to run on 15v to run on 24v.
>
> All, all three of those distributions use the same gcc compiler. Perhaps
> you are thinking about library compatibility issues? Those can exist, but
> proper coding practices reduce those problems.
>
> And yes, you need to have some basic notion of what is going on inside the
> box before you can implement something. Just like in the analogue world.
Most of that is addressed by autoconf which is used to manage the
differences between systems through generation of a pre-compile script
called 'configure'. It's an excellent tool when it works right. I find
it a bear to use well from the POV as an author and have yet to feel
comfortable using m4. It's part of the classic:
./configure
make
make install
Mike, thanks for your level headed take on this.
If anyone feels like venturing into the dark murky depths, have a look
at the features of the PulseAudio sound server
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PulseAudio>
It might be capable for DAW work, or it might not. I really don't know.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
> dimercaprol <angshu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Since this thread has some knowledgeable people, I hope you don't mind
>>if I ask if any of you guys has info about using the M-Audio Firewire
>>410 in any version of Linux. The last I hear, it didn't work so I am
>>still using Windows. I would like to switch to Linux, but I don't want
>>to buy a new 2496 external sound card.
>
> The problem is that the 410 has a nonstandard interface, and M-Audio won't
> provide details of the interface.
>
> This means that you are dependant either on M-Audio deciding to produce
> their own linux driver, or on someone successfully reverse-engineering
> the device well enough to put together a linux driver.
>
M-Audio seems to be in trouble even wrt to Windows 7 x64 (and even
Vista) drivers for some of their products. I would most definitely
read the user forum over there before purchasing an M-Audio
product.
They seem to be ignoring their customers.
FWIW I have a Delta 1010 that works fine with Windows 7 x64 and
they were a little slow, but did get drivers out to the field.
As for not releasing the specs, that's true but the Linux community
has managed quite well with the Delta series and in fact these are
amongst the best support prosumer level cards for Linux.
Gotta give credit to the ALSA developers for that.
geoff
>.
>
> Once you get away from the Windows world, computers become
> deterministic. This is a good thing. Reportedly Windows 7 actually
> fixes a lot of the consistency issues with Windows too, though I
> cannot verify this.
Was there a problem before with Windows ? I didn't see it.
But I cannot see how 'away from the Windows world' wrt to things like Linux
can fail to have consistancy issues with every Tom Dick and Harry
distributor, and ever Tom Dick and Harry user knitting their own os and
application components, or at least dicking (or having to) to get them to
work....
> It doesn't. There's nothing to prevent you from running an operating
> system from the 1970s today. If anything, it's a lot easier than it
> was in the seventies.
Bit tricky now my QDOS EPROM is corrupted....
geoff
geoff
>
> signature.asc (153 bytes) ATT00058.txt (1.13KB)
Absolutely !
geoff
Mike Rivers
> That's why it's important to write good code instead of sloppy lousy code
> that is dependant on implementation issues. It's sort like doing things
> like shielding inductors so that you can put your module next to a power
> supply module, etc. And like proper design methods, it takes extra time
> and extra money to do properly.
However, we must keep in mind that Linux thrives on open source software
and users who are drawn to it because of the great variety of free
software.
Some of it is indeed developed like a real software project, while others is
released in breadboard stage with a "OK, now someone else can finish the
job" notice.
> All, all three of those distributions use the same gcc compiler. Perhaps
> you are thinking about library compatibility issues? Those can exist, but
> proper coding practices reduce those problems.
I don't know exactly what I'm talking about here, but libraries are a good
thought.
> I think you're overstating how difficult this stuff is, Mike.
What I think is based on my own experience. I'm not a programmer. Given
source code, a compiler, and instructions, I'm sure I could run it, but I
wouldn't have any idea what to do if the compiled program didn't run.
Similarly
there are people who can solder well enough to construct something from one
of your DIY articles, but if it doesn't work, they don't have any idea
what could
be wrong. I suspect that those same people would have the same problems if
they were putting together software from parts even if they had the source
code, whereas I could troubleshoot something built from real components
that I measure with real tools.
I simply don't know any software builders who are also adequate
troubleshooters,
however, during my brief excursion into Linux, when I asked for help, I
didn't
get the kind of help that I give people to troubeleshoot their hardware
system
problems, nor was I able to fix my problems with the suggestions I
received. It
was more like "that CD drive probably isn't supported in that
distribution. I suggest that you
get one that is." (with no suggestion as to what to get. Linux people
just aren't
like me.
> Today if you want to run RSX-11,
> you don't need to find an old PDP-11/70, you can just run an emulated machine
> on a cheap PC and get remarkably good performance. We have finally got to
> the point where virtual machines can provide enough performance to split
> the running hardware from the physical hardware.
OK, then YOU can run an emulator. I never knew or imagined that such a
think existed.
> It depends on the interfaces. A bunch of them used standard programming
> interfaces and those are all very well supported because the hardware is
> well-documented so it doesn't take that much to make a driver. The
> BeBoP kit supports a pretty wide variety of them.
OK, so perhaps it's possible to write in support for a bunch of different
interfaces, but given that the manufacturers aren't doing it, and for
the most
part they aren't even cooperative enough with would-be developers to lend
them the hardware and give them the necessary software documentation, I
don't see it happening in the real world.
One of the things that I learned about Linux in my short stay was that
hardware
isn't supported with user-installable drivers like Windows is. You can't
stick the
disk you got with the hardware into the computer and make the computer
so that
it will talk to the hardware. You need to add a new bunch of code to the
program
and re-compile it. Or find a distribution that already has that hardware
support
compiled in. It's all there for the doing, but it's not something that's
easy for the
musician who wants to record, not fool with Linux, to do. It's hard
enough to get
them to go to the web site to get a newer driver and install it when the
one in
the box didn't work right.
> If it's not supported by FreeBoB, though, you're going to have trouble.
> And that's the fault of the interface vendors for not providing technical
> information about their products, if you ask me. I feel the same way about
> companies who won't provide a schematic of their preamps.
That's the problem with technology products in this era. They're
designed to be
here for a short while, then then to become obsolete so the developers can
continue to make more money from their established users. So it's not worth
the cost to publish the documentation, nor is it worth the risk that their
competitors will use that documentation to a commercial advantage. I
remember
when I was working for the National Weather Service having to sign all sorts
of non-disclosure documents in order to get the schematics for the ADM-3A
CRT terminals that we had all over the facility.
>> So I still think Linux is only suitable for professional DAW work if you
>> buy a turnkey system that just happens to have Linux at its heart.
> I'd say that is the case for ANY system, not just Linux-based ones. Unless
> you have a coding staff on hand, the way a typical studio in the seventies
> had a maintenance and design staff on hand.
Oh, I don't know about that. Look at how many people who don't even know how
to screw in a light bulb bought a PC and a box of ProTools stuff and are
recording
with barely the knowledge to plug in a microphone. It's true that
professional studios
often have their ProTools system experts, or general IT support person
on staff, but
there are a lot more one-person studios than staffed commercial studios.
And that
one person, unless his regular job is working with developmental
software, isn't
likely to have the experience to keep, or even get, a Linux-based audio
system
going and not get in the way of his music-making.
Of course there are the exceptions, but they're pretty rare.
Mike Rivers
> As for not releasing the specs, that's true but the Linux community
> has managed quite well with the Delta series and in fact these are
> amongst the best support prosumer level cards for Linux.
They're also among the oldest and most mediocre audio hardware in the
PC world. The Delta 1010 is OK, but pretty basic by today's standards.
I see that the ALSA project has a ton of cards listed, but I'll be darned if
I can even tell from the web site whether these cards are supported (and
to what extent) or if those are just names they know. One thing that's
clear is that "ya gotta know" stuff in order to get that card to work, and
when I tried to follow what I gotta know, I was very quickly lost.
I'm a pretty good electronics engineer, and I can usually dig up enough
information to be able to fix my Windows problems (though it's never
with a compiler), but I can't get out of the bullpen with Linux. I'm simply
not sufficiently immersed in, or dedicated to the sport. And I firmly
believe that there are a lot more like me.
Moshe Goldfarb
> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> As for not releasing the specs, that's true but the Linux community
>> has managed quite well with the Delta series and in fact these are
>> amongst the best support prosumer level cards for Linux.
>
> They're also among the oldest and most mediocre audio hardware in the
> PC world. The Delta 1010 is OK, but pretty basic by today's standards.
Agreed!
I use my RME for critical work, however my Delta has lasted for
years (I have the original) and with the exception of the bad caps
problem which M-Audio fixed/exchanged for me, out of warranty, the
card has been flawless.
I can easily hear the difference between the Rme and Delta though
on critical material.
> I see that the ALSA project has a ton of cards listed, but I'll be darned if
> I can even tell from the web site whether these cards are supported (and
> to what extent) or if those are just names they know. One thing that's
> clear is that "ya gotta know" stuff in order to get that card to work, and
> when I tried to follow what I gotta know, I was very quickly lost.
One problem with audio and even more so video work and Linux is
that the people writing these programs are programmers first, and
by a large amount, and musicians, graphic artists (professional or
otherwise), in most cases a distant second.
Not really much difference if we say removed the tech support
people from RME and the end user had to deal with egghead
programmers for support.
The typical Linux site and program is written with that in mind.
Try a Linux program called Cinelerra for example.
Excellent and powerful program, however extremely non-intuitive and
difficult to use.
> I'm a pretty good electronics engineer, and I can usually dig up enough
> information to be able to fix my Windows problems (though it's never
> with a compiler), but I can't get out of the bullpen with Linux. I'm simply
> not sufficiently immersed in, or dedicated to the sport. And I firmly
> believe that there are a lot more like me.
It's one reason why Linux lags in this area.
What I could suggest, is trying a ready to go audio specific
distribution like Ubuntu Studio or 64Studio or something like that.
These distributions are already setup with Jack, low latency kernel
(in some cases) and so forth.
Assuming your hardware is supported, they actually work rather
well.
They are not going to replace Nuendo or even something like Reaper
real soon, but they are workable depending upon what type of music
you are creating.
Moshe
Moshe Goldfarb
> Reaper works very well under WINE.
Yes it does.
Unfortunately my plugins like Ivory, Addictive Drums etc don't.
Moshe Goldfarb
So did/do I, but a case can be made for Linux if you think about it
as a piece of gear that you have the schematic for and can
customize much like you have no doubt done to commercial gear over
the years. IOW recapping, etc.
The fact that you could get a service manual made that possible.
Linux is similar in that you have the source code and can customize
to your hearts content.
This big difference I think is that while many musicians are also
engineers or technical types and can handle something like
recapping, programming, especially at the systems level, is a whole
other kettle of fish.
Les Cargill
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:19:40 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> They are not going to replace Nuendo or even something like Reaper
> real soon, but they are workable depending upon what type of music
> you are creating.
>
> Moshe
http://www.bradlinder.net/2007/11/reaper-wine-easy-audio-editing-on.html
--
Les Cargill
Moshe Goldfarb
We are somewhat like dinosaurs Mike!
I still remember your "FastEdit" thread (I think that was the name
of the program).
All you wanted to do was cut and paste across several tracks of
audio. IOW something a good splicing block, razor blade and
splicing tape could do.
A simple concept, yet many of the audio programs could not do it
that simply.
I thought to myself at that time, a couple of years ago I believe,
he does have a point!
Les Cargill
Does that generalize to all RTAS plugins? I understand VST to
work swimmingly.
--
Les Cargill
geoff
>
> All you wanted to do was cut and paste across several tracks of
> audio. IOW something a good splicing block, razor blade and
> splicing tape could do.
>
> A simple concept, yet many of the audio programs could not do it
> that simply.
And many do - far more simply, concisely, and quickly !
geoff
Moshe Goldfarb
I'm using VST plugins.
The problem is the copy protection, like iLok etc.
Yea, I know.....
I agree... Copy protection sucks.
However, Ivory is the "best" piano sound/playability out there IMHO
although I hear the new Steinberg Grand 3 is supposed to be
outstanding.
Then there is my UAD card.
So I'm kind of out of luck with Linux.
Moshe Goldfarb
I think what Mike was trying to do, and correct me if I am wrong
Mike, my memory ain't what it used to be, was something like 6
tracks of audio, and simply move the cursor across them all, at
once, highlight them all, and say cut out some audio and at the
same time keeping them in sync.
I know there was a big discussion here a few years ago about it.
Like I said, my memory ain't what it used to be.
They tell me that's the second thing to go as one ages :) hahah!
Moshe Goldfarb
I know.
I prefer to pick the program and then pick the OS which to me,
especially for a dedicated DAW is really secondary.
IOW if I fell in love with Logic, I would buy a Mac.
If I wanted to run Linux (actually I do for home servers) I would
use Ardour, which is a pretty decent IMHO program.
Different though,but powerful once you learn it.
I'm a firm believer that Linux does indeed have a future in
professional audio, but it's going to take time.
Scott Dorsey
>and users who are drawn to it because of the great variety of free
>software.
>Some of it is indeed developed like a real software project, while others is
>released in breadboard stage with a "OK, now someone else can finish the
>job" notice.
Yeah, this the second most serious problem with Linux. The first most
serious problem is that everyone wants to write code but nobody wants to
write documentation.
What's weird is that Linux seems to have these issues much worse than other
free operating systems (NetBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSolaris, etc.).
>> I think you're overstating how difficult this stuff is, Mike.
>
>What I think is based on my own experience. I'm not a programmer. Given
>source code, a compiler, and instructions, I'm sure I could run it, but I
>wouldn't have any idea what to do if the compiled program didn't run.
>Similarly
>there are people who can solder well enough to construct something from one
>of your DIY articles, but if it doesn't work, they don't have any idea
>what could
>be wrong. I suspect that those same people would have the same problems if
>they were putting together software from parts even if they had the source
>code, whereas I could troubleshoot something built from real components
>that I measure with real tools.
Could be, but they can learn, and you can learn too. My basic philosophy
is that it's important for people to learn what's inside the box, and
building something (either software or hardware) is a step toward that goal
as much as anything.
>I simply don't know any software builders who are also adequate
>troubleshooters,
>however, during my brief excursion into Linux, when I asked for help, I
>didn't
>get the kind of help that I give people to troubeleshoot their hardware
>system
>problems, nor was I able to fix my problems with the suggestions I
>received. It
>was more like "that CD drive probably isn't supported in that
>distribution. I suggest that you
>get one that is." (with no suggestion as to what to get. Linux people
>just aren't
>like me.
You're clearly not asking the right folks for help. Part of the problem
in the Linux community is that there has been a huge and rapid growth, so
the vast majority of the folks using it have really no idea what they
are doing. (Not that the Windows world is much better, mind you.)
>> Today if you want to run RSX-11,
>> you don't need to find an old PDP-11/70, you can just run an emulated machine
>> on a cheap PC and get remarkably good performance. We have finally got to
>> the point where virtual machines can provide enough performance to split
>> the running hardware from the physical hardware.
>
>OK, then YOU can run an emulator. I never knew or imagined that such a
>think existed.
telnet mim.update.uu.se and when you get the prompt type "login guest/guest"
and you'll be in. I'm working on getting a RSTS/E machine up and running
soon, but the guys working on the RSX-11 machine have been top notch.
>> It depends on the interfaces. A bunch of them used standard programming
>> interfaces and those are all very well supported because the hardware is
>> well-documented so it doesn't take that much to make a driver. The
>> BeBoP kit supports a pretty wide variety of them.
>
>OK, so perhaps it's possible to write in support for a bunch of different
>interfaces, but given that the manufacturers aren't doing it, and for
>the most
>part they aren't even cooperative enough with would-be developers to lend
>them the hardware and give them the necessary software documentation, I
>don't see it happening in the real world.
It's happening, it's just happening kind of slowly. If you want stuff
that just works out of the box, consider RME.
>>> So I still think Linux is only suitable for professional DAW work if you
>>> buy a turnkey system that just happens to have Linux at its heart.
>
>> I'd say that is the case for ANY system, not just Linux-based ones. Unless
>> you have a coding staff on hand, the way a typical studio in the seventies
>> had a maintenance and design staff on hand.
>
>Oh, I don't know about that. Look at how many people who don't even know how
>to screw in a light bulb bought a PC and a box of ProTools stuff and are
>recording
>with barely the knowledge to plug in a microphone.
Yes, this is bad! I get phone calls from these people at four in the morning
when they suddenly realize that they didn't make proper backups. I don't
like getting calls at four in the morning. This is very bad!
Moshe goldfarb
> Yeah, this the second most serious problem with Linux. The first most
> serious problem is that everyone wants to write code but nobody wants to
> write documentation.
True.
Writing doc is boring to these code bangers.
> What's weird is that Linux seems to have these issues much worse than other
> free operating systems (NetBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSolaris, etc.).
But they also have less conumser type programs and hardware support
compared to Linux.
> Could be, but they can learn, and you can learn too. My basic philosophy
> is that it's important for people to learn what's inside the box, and
> building something (either software or hardware) is a step toward that goal
> as much as anything.
Depends.
My physician doesn't have a clue how his network functions yet he is
connected to the Mayo clinic database etc all the time.
> You're clearly not asking the right folks for help. Part of the problem
> in the Linux community is that there has been a huge and rapid growth, so
> the vast majority of the folks using it have really no idea what they
> are doing. (Not that the Windows world is much better, mind you.)
Too many geeks with programmer mentality.
I asked a simple question in an ALSA group one time and got a whole
diatribe about little endian big endian etc.
I had no idea what the guy was talking about.
All I wanted to do was play 2 sounds at once from different programs.
The magic phrase is .asoundrc BTW, at least at the time.
>
> Yes, this is bad! I get phone calls from these people at four in the morning
> when they suddenly realize that they didn't make proper backups. I don't
> like getting calls at four in the morning. This is very bad!
> --scott
The shoemaker's kids.......etc.....
FWIW what is even worse is people who make regular backups but never do a
disaster recovery test to see if they actually work.
This happens quite often with major fortune 500+ companies as well.
Sad, but true.
David Gravereaux
You and Mike are both ringing bells for me the way you are making an
analogy to modding gear.
Unlike hardware, source code is easily shared via email, web, ftp,
CVS/SVN, etc..
One of the greatest programming moments for me when I was actively
working on an open source free software project (aside from getting paid
while doing it) was when it really started to roll and was getting well
used in my community. I'd make changes and ask for comments.. I'd get
them a day later from the folks using it (compiling along with debugging).
Those people would then add your stuff into other things. You'd download
the new WHATEVER app and didn't realize it had your stuff in it until
you asked it to do something your project does well and WOW... How's
this doing that? Oh, no way, my stuff is in here?, holy SH*T! That was
cool!
And it starts to really fly when those people start sending you patches
to add new features. That's when it hits the magical "critical mass"
and takes on an organic life of its own.
The free software model for creating things is a complete coin flip from
the standard method of purchasing a license seat of some proprietary
closed (source and inter-exchange formats) "product".
It's a great way to work. Even more so if you are lucky enough to be
earning a living assigned to doing it.
Not that I'd expect a ever hear that a studio tech in between fixing
broken mic cables or fried cans would be hunched over a computer monitor
actively debugging the DAW source used in the studio ;)
--
Neil Gould
Different though,but powerful once you learn it.
>
> I'm a firm believer that Linux does indeed have a future in
> professional audio, but it's going to take time.
>
in any endeavor, and they're willing to sing the same song for decades
("...it's going to take time").
Meanwhile, "professional" means that one can make a living in their area of
expertise, which rules out most applications under Linux. From what I've
seen, Open Office is about as good as it gets, and it isn't very competitive
with MS Office 2000 w/r/t user features. I've found some glaring errors in
its documentation that could not have persisted in a commercial app. I can
only conclude that the users don't care that it doesn't work as the
documentation says it does.
IMO, even the number of posts on this topic answers the OP's question
adequately.
--
Best,
Neil
Mike Rivers
> What I could suggest, is trying a ready to go audio specific
> distribution like Ubuntu Studio or 64Studio or something like that.
> These distributions are already setup with Jack, low latency kernel
> (in some cases) and so forth.
> Assuming your hardware is supported, they actually work rather
> well.
This is exactly where I started (and ended) with Linux. The "net wisdom"
was that
Ubuntu Studio was the place to get started so I could see something
working enough
to hold my interest. So I got what appeared to be the latest
distribution (it was dated
only a few days earlier than when I downloaded it) and installed it.
First thing it did
was went out and got updates that took a couple of hours to download and
install.
It all seemed automatic, but when it thought it was finally happy, one
of the first things
I tried was to play an audio CD just to see if I could get audio out of
it, and I found (sorry
if I'm not using the exact terminology - it was a year ago, for a week,
and not well ingrained
in my memory):
(a) It claimed that it couldn't find my CD drive even though I could
access it, and files on
the CD, when I went to the file browser (after I finally figured out
which oddly named
program on the desktop was the file browser).
(b) There were several possible "CD player" programs, none of which
worked, even after
letting them update themselves, and getting two others that were
recommended. Someone
told me "perhaps your CD drive isn't supported."
(c) I started Ardour (which was what I was after anyway). I couldn't
find support for any of
the external multi-channel audio hardware that I have. I eventually got
it to record and play
with the computer's internal sound card after jacking around with Jack
(and reading a very
detailed and circuitous document on the web, which I was told "had all
the answers to all
your questions."
(d) I could see absolutely no reason to want to use that program. When I
asked around for
what I could do with Ardour that I couldn't do with other DAW programs
that I had, even a
couple that were free (Reaper is perfectly happy with my Mackie 1200F,
Mackie isn't even
listed in the ALSA project), I got a really good answer from someone who
was using it to
control a 200 channel multi-speaker system. He said that there was no
other program that
would allow him to do that. OK. Other answers were related to ways that
the program could
be customized.
What I was after was to answer a variant of the question asked here -
Could someone who
wants to use his computer for multitrack recording, editing, and mixing
be happy with a Linux
system? And my conclusion was yes, but only if he cared enough about
learning a lot of new
things that had nothing to do with music, audio, or recording.
> They are not going to replace Nuendo or even something like Reaper
> real soon, but they are workable depending upon what type of music
> you are creating.
I think that for specal cases, for example, the guy who needed to put
200 independent speakers
under program control for his audio - he didn't even say that it was
music - installation, Ardour
might make something possible that wasn't possible with other tools he
had available. But few
people who want to record music have such specialized requirements.
Mike Rivers
> I think what Mike was trying to do, and correct me if I am wrong
> Mike, my memory ain't what it used to be, was something like 6
> tracks of audio, and simply move the cursor across them all, at
> once, highlight them all, and say cut out some audio and at the
> same time keeping them in sync.
I seem to remember posting something like that. It might have been
in Cool Edit Pro. I was trying to do the same thing in the program
as I could do on the Mackie HDR24/96 and couldn't figure out how
to do it. Someone told me the keystroke combination (which was
nowhere to be found in the docs I had) that would let me select
the same range on multiple tracks.
Fast Edit is indeed like a splicing block, and I still find it more
intuitive
for straightforward stereo editing than any DAW that I have. Everything
else is more flexible and more powerful, but requires that I remember
what buttons to press when, where, with Fast Edit, there are only two.
Moshe Goldfarb
Hehheh!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Linux zealot in any shape form or fashion and
fully agree that Linux has a long, long way to go before it can even think
of being seen in a professional studio. One excpetion is the Linux based
stuff that Harrison is doing.
The biggest problem with Linux is that you get the programs for free,
however the time required to make some of them work properly is all on your
own dime.
For some people they have all the time in the world.
I don't so I plunk down my cash and make music.
So in effect I do agree with you!
Moshe Goldfarb
Your experience Mike seems to be typical of people who have more advanced
audio interfaces.
Many times when a person starts evangelizing about how great an audio
platofrm Linux is, when pressed you find they are using a basic low end
Sound Blaster type card which of course is fully supported.
Try to get control surfaces to work, firewire interfaces etc and it's a
different ballgame.
As for the interface (CD problem), that's going to be the case when
learning any new OS.
I was totally stumped the first time I tried to use a Mac (MacOS not OSX).
Linux is pretty popular in Europe for electronic type music and like you
say the 200 speaker application, while a weird one, is valid.
I guess I'm like a lot of people who want to see Linux make it into
pro-audio, who appreciate the hard work done by the developers (I despise
zealots though) and of course want "free" or low cost programs.
Will I see it in my lifetime?
I have my doubts, I'm 49yo BTW.
BTW Ardour is used in one of the Harrison consoles and I believe they just
released some kind of Mixbus thingie (software) that runs Ardour as well.
http://www.harrisonconsoles.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
Mike Rivers
> The biggest problem with Linux is that you get the programs for free,
> however the time required to make some of them work properly is all on your
> own dime.
>
> For some people they have all the time in the world.
> I don't so I plunk down my cash and make music.
Do the people who have a lot of experience with Linux get things
working any faster than those of us who have to bungle through it
every time? Or do they just enjoy it more? Or it doesn't bother them
because once they got it working, they'd have to play music, and
then fix all their mistakes?
Mike Rivers
> Your experience Mike seems to be typical of people who have more advanced
> audio interfaces.
> Many times when a person starts evangelizing about how great an audio
> platofrm Linux is, when pressed you find they are using a basic low end
> Sound Blaster type card which of course is fully supported.
Didn't someone ask about "Professional" DAW work a while back? Of
course there's nothing wrong with an RME interface in a pro application,
but if it becomes effectively a "closed" system because only a limited
amount of hardware is supported, that doesn't give the professionals
much of a chance to excercise some of their professional preferences
and prejudices.
> As for the interface (CD problem), that's going to be the case when
> learning any new OS.
Well, I suppose, but the CD drive worked under Windows, and I've bought
random CD drives over the years, put them in Windows computers, and
they worked. I didn't even have to install the driver that came in the
package.
> I was totally stumped the first time I tried to use a Mac (MacOS not OSX).
Me, too. It was on a very early DAW. We were running short on disk space
so I thought I'd remove some junk files. I figured out how to drag them to
the trash, but I still didn't have any more disk space. A week later,
someone
told me that you had to empty the trash to actually get rid of files. I was
used to DOS where "delete" meant DELETE.
> BTW Ardour is used in one of the Harrison consoles and I believe they just
> released some kind of Mixbus thingie (software) that runs Ardour as well.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Harrison is a good example of an audio equipment
manufacturer (not a "professional" user) who has chosen to use Linux as
the platform for some of their products. They support their software and
if you BUY it from them, they'll help you to get it running. The console is
a turnkey system - you get the computer with the operating system
configured and the software installed. You don't go off and get updates
where you can find them, Harrison tells you when you need an update and
tells you where to get it and how to install it. But if you're going to buy
a system like that, you might as well get ProTools and be directly
compatible with other "professional" studios.
Moshe Goldfarb
Interesting point Mike.
I think it's a little bit of both but it depends upon what kind of Linux
user we are talking about.
In the case of installing, configuring etc Linux I do believe that some
people get satisfaction out of doing these things.
I've seen threads where this type of person actually calls operating
systems like Windows or OSX "boring" because there is nothing to tinker
with.
I suppose that's valid if your bag happens to be operating systems.
And then again, there is the person who buys a Linux netbook with Linux
pre-installed and it just works for them much like the Windows version
does.
So my answer is, depending upon the person it can be both.
My preference is to not have to screw with an operating system or programs.
I've been working with computers since the early 70's and have lived
through all the "tinkering".
In my view, the computer is now an appliance and the operating system is
the power cord.
It's the applications that matter and I just want them to work with a
minimum of fuss.
But that's just me.
Moshe Goldfarb
> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> Your experience Mike seems to be typical of people who have more advanced
>> audio interfaces.
>> Many times when a person starts evangelizing about how great an audio
>> platofrm Linux is, when pressed you find they are using a basic low end
>> Sound Blaster type card which of course is fully supported.
>
> Didn't someone ask about "Professional" DAW work a while back? Of
> course there's nothing wrong with an RME interface in a pro application,
> but if it becomes effectively a "closed" system because only a limited
> amount of hardware is supported, that doesn't give the professionals
> much of a chance to excercise some of their professional preferences
> and prejudices.
Exactly!
And the Linux pundits will argue over the term "professional".
They have a point, but I think in the context of this group, we are talking
about working studios, with working musicians. Maybe commercial would be a
better term. This of course can involve home users with project studios as
well of course.
When I hear the term professional used in the context of Linux vs Windows
vs OSX for DAW work, I immediately ask what interfaces are supported.
If only lower end products, or the older products of higher end
manufacturers are supported, then I start to wonder.
Of course the same thing can be said of Protools which is a closed system,
however it's different in that it is a total solution all rolled into one.
>> As for the interface (CD problem), that's going to be the case when
>> learning any new OS.
>
> Well, I suppose, but the CD drive worked under Windows, and I've bought
> random CD drives over the years, put them in Windows computers, and
> they worked. I didn't even have to install the driver that came in the
> package.
Yep.
Those days of cdrom.sys are long gone.
Linux is a little different in that devices need to be mounted in order to
be accessed.
Most modern distributions automount, but there are still bugs and noobs do
wonder why they can't eject their disk with the button when the drive is
mounted.
With a properly configured auto-mounter and a little education, it becomes
easy.
>> I was totally stumped the first time I tried to use a Mac (MacOS not OSX).
>
> Me, too. It was on a very early DAW. We were running short on disk space
> so I thought I'd remove some junk files. I figured out how to drag them to
> the trash, but I still didn't have any more disk space. A week later,
> someone
> told me that you had to empty the trash to actually get rid of files. I was
> used to DOS where "delete" meant DELETE.
Yep!!
I couldn't grasp the concept of one window (title bars, scroll bars etc)
being used for each application so I would close, or thought I was closing,
applications, only to find out they were really still open.
I was totally confused until I got used to it.
>> BTW Ardour is used in one of the Harrison consoles and I believe they just
>> released some kind of Mixbus thingie (software) that runs Ardour as well.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of that. Harrison is a good example of an audio equipment
> manufacturer (not a "professional" user) who has chosen to use Linux as
> the platform for some of their products. They support their software and
> if you BUY it from them, they'll help you to get it running. The console is
> a turnkey system - you get the computer with the operating system
> configured and the software installed. You don't go off and get updates
> where you can find them, Harrison tells you when you need an update and
> tells you where to get it and how to install it. But if you're going to buy
> a system like that, you might as well get ProTools and be directly
> compatible with other "professional" studios.
That's how I feel.
I give them credit for trying something different and new, but for me I'll
stick with Nuendo because it does what I need.
One side effect is that at least with the Mixbus software, Linux is being
used by people that may never have been interested to try it before so
maybe it will help the chicken and egg syndrome that Linux lives under.
Richard Mann
I think you've hit the nail on the head, Mike.
Some people just want tools to do music. Others want to hack. Whether
hacking involves analog electronics, computer hardware, or computer software,
it is all the same. Time spent hacking is time not spent doing music, or
whatever your "real" task is.
So, for music people, you're probably better off with Windows. Where Linux
shines is for institutional settings, where you have staff to maintain your
gear. Those staff will find Linux easier to maintain than Windows due to the
open nature of it. Also, you'll find a lot of scientific computation done
under Linux, because these people usually like a high degree of control (and
they like to know what the source code is really doing...). Finally, you'll
find linux in hacker communities where people are building wacky custom
hardware/prototypes, such as wearable computers, user interfaces, etc.
By the way, another great application of Linux is to backup and maintain
Windows systems. I use a special CDROM called "trinity rescue kit" to make a
raw image of my Windows filesystem so I can have a reliable restore point.
Ironically the only reliable backup and restore system I've found is
Linux-based.
Richard
Mike Rivers
>> Do the people who have a lot of experience with Linux get things
>> working any faster than those of us who have to bungle through it
>> every time? Or do they just enjoy it more?
> Interesting point Mike.
> I think it's a little bit of both but it depends upon what kind of Linux
> user we are talking about.
I thought there was only one kind of Linux user. <g>
> I've seen threads where this type of person actually calls operating
> systems like Windows or OSX "boring" because there is nothing to tinker
> with.
Similarly, I've heard people praise Linux because there's so much that you
can tinker with. You're not locked in to an operating system that operates
the way the programmers designed it.
> And then again, there is the person who buys a Linux netbook with Linux
> pre-installed and it just works for them much like the Windows version
> does.
That person is only a Linux user by chance - he bought a computer to do
specific jobs and that one was cheaper than the one that looked just like
it that ran Windows.
> In my view, the computer is now an appliance and the operating system is
> the power cord.
> It's the applications that matter and I just want them to work with a
> minimum of fuss.
I agree. And if professional DAW audio applications that just work is what
you're after, Linux doesn't yet have what you want.
Mike Rivers
> One side effect is that at least with the Mixbus software, Linux is being
> used by people that may never have been interested to try it before so
> maybe it will help the chicken and egg syndrome that Linux lives under.
The commercial release of Harrison's Mixbus program as a stand-alone
application
is for Mac OSX 10.4.11 and above. It appears to be intended to work
along side
of Logic, with Logic being the recording program, and JACK (which you also
need to install) being the interface between Logic and Mixbus. It's
almost like
you're running the Harrison-customized version of Ardour and taking
advantage
of Logic to allow you to use it with any audio I/O hardware that Logic
suports
(which is darn near everything) rather than just what the Ardour or ALSA
projects have got around to supporting.
I think it's a pretty cool idea, actually. However, the Mixbus Quick
Start Guide
http://www.harrisonconsoles.com/mixbus/Mixbus_Install_QuickStart.pdf
looks suspiciously like Linux documentation. It's not for the squeamish,
which most Mac users are (which is why they use a Mac).
Moshe Goldfarb
Yea I took a look at the documentation before I realized the software was
Mac only. I run Windows.
Seems like an interesting concept.
Mac with OSX has managed to hide some of Linux's "rough around the edges"
programs.
CUPS for example works rather well on a Mac.
Under Linux, it depends on the distribution.
Some do it well, others do not.
Also the numerous configuration tools for Linux CUPS confuses people.
Richard Mann
This looks interesting. What is it really? Is it just a customized version
of the Linux/Unix Ardour system?
I've tried to use Arbour a few times, but gave up because: 1) it seems like a
"protools" like interface, which I could never quite figure out. I prefer
something that looks more like the "cubase" interface. 2) it was hard to
figure out without documenation/configuration. My main problem is I could
never figure out what "jack" was doing, or how to get my interface (Presonus
Firepod) to work. Maybe that is what Harrison is providing. The
documentation doesn't look that good, though.
Richard
anahata
> Mac with OSX has managed to hide some of Linux's "rough around the
> edges" programs.
All the Linux distributions are getting better at that, though ease-of-
use-to-the-uninitiated has historically taken second place to under-the-
hood technical capability.
> CUPS for example works rather well on a Mac.
I should hope so, as CUPS was developed by Apple for OSX.
--
Anahata
ana...@treewind.co.uk ==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata
Mike Rivers
>> Harrison Mixbus
> This looks interesting. What is it really? Is it just a customized version
> of the Linux/Unix Ardour system?
I believe so. Harrison has been working with Ardour for quite a few
years now.
> I've tried to use Arbour a few times, but gave up . . . My main problem is I could
> never figure out what "jack" was doing, or how to get my interface (Presonus
> Firepod) to work. Maybe that is what Harrison is providing.
Ardour users will tell you that JACK is automatic ... unless .... You
won't, at least
not any time soon, be able to connect your PreSounus Firepod to Ardour
because
it's not supported by any of the distributions. What Mixbus does is lets
the Mac
(which supports the PreSounus hardware) route the data stream (via JACK)
into
Mixbus.
The system engineer in me likes this idea - you make one interface (the
Mac OS)
that can talk to a wide variety of hardware, then you put a box (the
program JACK)
between it and another program (Mixbus, or Ardour) that doesn't care
where the
data originated, as long as it looks like data it understands, coming in
through a
path it can use.
The practical engineer in me says that I should have to know that JACK
is there.
I should just be able to go to the setup menu or window of the DAW
program, see
a list of audio devices that it knows about (which should include
anything I can
throw at it, perhaps requiring only installing a driver) and pick the
one I want to use.
That user interface is what's missing, and what keeps non-Linux people
away from
using what might be a good program.
Moshe Goldfarb
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:09:44 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>> CUPS for example works rather well on a Mac.
>
> I should hope so, as CUPS was developed by Apple for OSX.
Actually not true.
CUPS has been around for years. Common UNIX Printing System.
Key word UNIX.
It was modified and much improved by Apple for OSX.
Moshe Goldfarb
Actually GUI front ends do exist for JACK, JackCtrl for example which
allow you to do what you are looking to do, I think.
However, you raise the point which is my personal reason why audio
under Linux is a mess.
Too many sound systems, and too much needed interaction by the user.
With Windows this stuff is almost totally transparent.
Choose ASIO or WDM and that's it.
You can move a latency slider to adjust your round trip latency for
say recording vs mixing.
Simple.
With Linux it's a mess.
Also, OSS, Arts, eSound, and now Pulse Audio the current prom queen of
the Linux world, comes along to confuse things even more.
The Linux community calls it choice.
I call it mass confusion.
Yes Jack, which is kind of like Rewire coupled with Steinberg's
Control Room, allows you to do a lot of things but it assumes you know
what you are doing, or are willing to scour the net to figure out how.
Maybe this sounds like a cop out but all I want to do is make music.
hank alrich
That's not a cop out; that's just being practical about getting stuff
done with a computer instead of doing stuff to the computer.
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.html
http://hankalrich.com/
dawhead
> The commercial release of Harrison's Mixbus program as a stand-alone
> application
> is for Mac OSX 10.4.11 and above. It appears to be intended to work
> along side
> of Logic, with Logic being the recording program, and JACK (which you also
> need to install) being the interface between Logic and Mixbus.
This is not the case.
We worried a great deal about the reliance on JACK. It turns out to
have been a boon to many of the initial Mixbus users because rather
than grappling with the full DAW capabilities it has (because its
based on Ardour), they were able to route directly out of Logic (or
whatever other CoreAudio compatible software they were using) into
Mixbus and just use it "as a console".
However, this was purely a (positive) side effect of our use of JACK -
Mixbus was not ever conceived as some kind of "addon" or "frontend"
for other DAWs. Its just that the kind of modular environment that
I've worked at developing for the last 10 years makes this particular
workflow possible.
Users who have bothered to read the documentation, or even more so,
watch the video on Mixbus, have understood that its actually a full-
featured DAW (without MIDI editing/recording/playback), not just a mix
engine. The fact that it is usable as "just" the latter is a side
effect of Ardour's design, not a design decision.
>It's
> almost like
> you're running the Harrison-customized version of Ardour and taking
> advantage
> of Logic to allow you to use it with any audio I/O hardware that Logic
> suports
there is no hardware supported on OS X that does not work with JACK on
OS X. If it doesn't work well with JACK (e.g. digidesign I/O) then it
doesn't work well with Logic (if at all - digi's coreaudio driver for
their h/w is just almost laughably non-standard in how it does just
about everything.)
> (which is darn near everything) rather than just what the Ardour or ALSA
> projects have got around to supporting.
Ardour doesn't support hardware. Ardour doesn't interact with hardware
directly at all. ALSA is the HAL for audio devices on a platform
(linux) that has seen many manufacturers deliberately refuse to make
driver support possible. Thankfully, for those who have not (RME, M-
Audio, anything based on the ice1712/1724 chipsets (which is a lot)
Presonus, TC, and several others) their collaboration has ensured
stable, solid and full-featured driver support.
> I think it's a pretty cool idea, actually. However, the Mixbus Quick
> Start Guidehttp://www.harrisonconsoles.com/mixbus/Mixbus_Install_QuickStart.pdf
> looks suspiciously like Linux documentation.
I suggest you read it again before passing your judgement. The parts
that "look like linux documentation" probably refer to aggregate
devices, a lamentable state of affairs on Intel OS X caused by Apple's
curious refusal to provide duplex (simultaneous playback & capture)
capabilities for the builtin audio device on these systems - not
relevant for anyone with a 3rd party audio interface (and if you don't
what are you doing on rec.audio.pro?) or on a PPC system. Thankfully,
with newer versions of JACK, this issue has gone away too.
dawhead
> However, you raise the point which is my personal reason why audio
> under Linux is a mess.
> Too many sound systems, and too much needed interaction by the user.
one person's "too much interaction" is another person's "not enough
control". maybe we should pay more attention to the fact that there
are probably more people in the first situation than the second, or
maybe we're interested in a niche market of audio professionals who
actually want control.
> With Windows this stuff is almost totally transparent.
> Choose ASIO or WDM and that's it.
Really. A fascinating assesment of the windows situation. You know
that WDM is deprecated in Windows7, yes? That ASIO was never provided
by Microsoft and always relied on 3rd party drivers which didn't
always track the latest version of Windows precisely? That before WDM,
there was no reasonable "out of the box" low latency solution on that
platform? That most windows consumer desktop applications used MME,
not ASIO, for playback and capture, which could often conflict with
ASIO use of the audio interface? The situation is certainly cleaner
than Linux, but it hardly gets close to the cleanliness (for the user)
of CoreAudio.
> With Linux it's a mess.
> Also, OSS, Arts, eSound, and now Pulse Audio the current prom queen of
> the Linux world, comes along to confuse things even more.
What's a mess is that so many people, including you, have read so much
stuff that has led them to completely misunderstand the role of these
things in the Linux "audio stack".
For a report on my perspective, this is useful: http://lwn.net/Articles/355542/
> Yes Jack, which is kind of like Rewire coupled with Steinberg's
> Control Room, allows you to do a lot of things but it assumes you know
> what you are doing, or are willing to scour the net to figure out how.
If I could control the entire Linux "audio experience" of every JACK
user, you would never have this perspective. But Linux is not a
company. If you want a smooth experience with Linux audio, do you
randomly pick some distro, some machine, some audio interface and put
them together and expect that it will all just work? It appears that
many existing or potential Linux users do indeed expect this to be
possible. Sorry, its not. Its unfortunate that so many people believe
that it is, or even more irritatingly, believe that it should be. Its
not possible on Windows (you just have a higher success rate with
random selections of (windows-version,hardware,audio-interface) - many
audio forums for Windows DAWs are full of testimonies to problems that
people have with particularly bad combinations of choices. If you
want that kind of experience, you need to get your system from a
company that controls everything end-to-end, which means either Apple
or a company that specializes in building machines for media work that
run Linux. Unfortunately, I can't recommend any of them at this
particular point in time.
> Maybe this sounds like a cop out but all I want to do is make music.
Then why are you using computers? What is it that leads you to expect
that a general purpose operating system (windows/OSX/linux) on a
general purpose CPU on a general purpose motherboard is a sensible way
to build a tool that will let you "just make music" ?
Ian Bell
Spot on. Get yourself an AKAI DPS24 mate.
Cheers
Ian
Neil Gould
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:58:57 -0500, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>> Different though,but powerful once you learn it.
>>>
>>> I'm a firm believer that Linux does indeed have a future in
>>> professional audio, but it's going to take time.
>>>
>> I think this sums it up well. LInux users are "firm believers", a
>> scary lot in any endeavor, and they're willing to sing the same song
>> for decades ("...it's going to take time").
>>
>> Meanwhile, "professional" means that one can make a living in their
>> area of expertise, which rules out most applications under Linux.
>> From what I've seen, Open Office is about as good as it gets, and it
>> isn't very competitive with MS Office 2000 w/r/t user features. I've
>> found some glaring errors in its documentation that could not have
>> persisted in a commercial app. I can only conclude that the users
>> don't care that it doesn't work as the documentation says it does.
>>
>> IMO, even the number of posts on this topic answers the OP's question
>> adequately.
>
> Hehheh!
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Linux zealot in any shape form or
> fashion and fully agree that Linux has a long, long way to go before
> it can even think of being seen in a professional studio. One
> excpetion is the Linux based stuff that Harrison is doing.
>
gear. Some operating systems will be more cumbersome than others, and from
that perspective, Linux is a good choice. But, the benefits of a leaner OS
are minimal considering the requirements of audio and the power of today's
hardware.
> The biggest problem with Linux is that you get the programs for free,
> however the time required to make some of them work properly is all
> on your own dime.
>
I think the problem is managing people's expectations. Those who think
they'll get the same "appliance" level of functionality by going the Linux
route are likely to be disappointed.
--
Best,
Neil
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Les Cargill
> On Dec 23, 12:13 pm, Moshe Goldfarb <bricknst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, you raise the point which is my personal reason why audio
>> under Linux is a mess.
>> Too many sound systems, and too much needed interaction by the user.
>
> one person's "too much interaction" is another person's "not enough
> control". maybe we should pay more attention to the fact that there
> are probably more people in the first situation than the second, or
> maybe we're interested in a niche market of audio professionals who
> actually want control.
>
There really needs to be somebody doing value added, to cover up
the "control" from those who don't need it.
Where Windows was a win was the various phases of the multimedia
API, which gave people pretty finely-grained control. It's a
*sad* API, but by the time N-Track 2.0 was available, you could
get real work done.
>> With Windows this stuff is almost totally transparent.
>> Choose ASIO or WDM and that's it.
>
> Really. A fascinating assesment of the windows situation. You know
> that WDM is deprecated in Windows7, yes?
Does that mean it no longer works, or that it's not actively
supported any more? Got link?
> That ASIO was never provided
> by Microsoft and always relied on 3rd party drivers which didn't
> always track the latest version of Windows precisely? That before WDM,
> there was no reasonable "out of the box" low latency solution on that
> platform?
WDM isn't that low latency anyway... latency is a nonstarter... er,
it's nice if you can get it, but it's pretty easy to design workflows
that go around it.
> That most windows consumer desktop applications used MME,
> not ASIO, for playback and capture, which could often conflict with
> ASIO use of the audio interface? The situation is certainly cleaner
> than Linux, but it hardly gets close to the cleanliness (for the user)
> of CoreAudio.
>
>> With Linux it's a mess.
>> Also, OSS, Arts, eSound, and now Pulse Audio the current prom queen of
>> the Linux world, comes along to confuse things even more.
>
> What's a mess is that so many people, including you, have read so much
> stuff that has led them to completely misunderstand the role of these
> things in the Linux "audio stack".
> For a report on my perspective, this is useful: http://lwn.net/Articles/355542/
>
Thanks for that. Wow, 1998, huh? :)
>> Yes Jack, which is kind of like Rewire coupled with Steinberg's
>> Control Room, allows you to do a lot of things but it assumes you know
>> what you are doing, or are willing to scour the net to figure out how.
>
> If I could control the entire Linux "audio experience" of every JACK
> user, you would never have this perspective. But Linux is not a
> company. If you want a smooth experience with Linux audio, do you
> randomly pick some distro, some machine, some audio interface and put
> them together and expect that it will all just work? It appears that
> many existing or potential Linux users do indeed expect this to be
> possible. Sorry, its not.
But that's a defining difference between Dozers and Penguins.
> Its unfortunate that so many people believe
> that it is, or even more irritatingly, believe that it should be. Its
> not possible on Windows (you just have a higher success rate with
> random selections of (windows-version,hardware,audio-interface) - many
> audio forums for Windows DAWs are full of testimonies to problems that
> people have with particularly bad combinations of choices.
True! Various Firewire chips have been discussed here ad nauseum.
> If you
> want that kind of experience, you need to get your system from a
> company that controls everything end-to-end, which means either Apple
> or a company that specializes in building machines for media work that
> run Linux. Unfortunately, I can't recommend any of them at this
> particular point in time.
>
Or you can selectively buy known-good stuff for Doze.
>> Maybe this sounds like a cop out but all I want to do is make music.
>
> Then why are you using computers? What is it that leads you to expect
> that a general purpose operating system (windows/OSX/linux) on a
> general purpose CPU on a general purpose motherboard is a sensible way
> to build a tool that will let you "just make music" ?
FWIW, Mike frequently touts using units like the Alesis HD2424
plus a good, analog console for getting real work done. But DAW
stuff has been more-or-less possible for ten years now, and
we all pretty much know those will go by the wayside.
And what I am seeing is that virtualization seems to be able
to make the point moot - one may be able to run a Doze DAW on an
otherwise Linux box. I'm still researching this myself.
--
Les Cargill
Neil Gould
couple of decades using DOS then Windows systems, all on the professional
level. So, if one CAN'T do that with Linux, what does it tell you?
LittleShitt
> one person's "too much interaction" is another person's "not enough
> control". maybe we should pay more attention to the fact that there
> are probably more people in the first situation than the second, or
> maybe we're interested in a niche market of audio professionals who
> actually want control.
They want control of their music and the applications that record their
music.
They most certainly do not want to be playing with operating systems like
Linux forces the user to do.
>> With Windows this stuff is almost totally transparent.
>> Choose ASIO or WDM and that's it.
>
> Really. A fascinating assesment of the windows situation. You know
> that WDM is deprecated in Windows7, yes? That ASIO was never provided
> by Microsoft and always relied on 3rd party drivers which didn't
> always track the latest version of Windows precisely? That before WDM,
> there was no reasonable "out of the box" low latency solution on that
> platform? That most windows consumer desktop applications used MME,
> not ASIO, for playback and capture, which could often conflict with
> ASIO use of the audio interface? The situation is certainly cleaner
> than Linux, but it hardly gets close to the cleanliness (for the user)
> of CoreAudio.
You're kidding right?
What I *do know* is that I plug in my audio interface, under Windows 7 x64
BTW, my control surface, select ASIO (my choice) and it all works.
I never have to touch a single thing other than latency.
I fire up Nuendo 4, Reaper, Sonar 8.5 and it all works.
All my plugins, well most of my plugins work.
Some, like Toontrack are having some growing pains with Windows 7 x64, but
that's coming shortly.
Linux doesn't even support this stuff.
And you are deluding yourself if you think for one instant that a
professional, like myself or Mike or Scott or Hank or Fletcher will for
even an instant claim that the Linux solution is "cleaner".
Maybe it's cleaner from a programmer perspective, a developer perspective
and maybe in theory ie: crunchy code and all that gibberish.
However I can tell you that if Linux were the only software choice for a
DAW we would all still be using tape and a razor blade.
Try that under Linux.
Oh yea, if you have SoundBlaster, it will probably work fine.
>> With Linux it's a mess.
>> Also, OSS, Arts, eSound, and now Pulse Audio the current prom queen of
>> the Linux world, comes along to confuse things even more.
>
> What's a mess is that so many people, including you, have read so much
> stuff that has led them to completely misunderstand the role of these
> things in the Linux "audio stack".
Why should I have to even read?
The reason is none of this crap works correctly.
Mike's venture into this is a prime example.
You Linux developers are all doing your own thing and apparently nobody is
talking to the other people.
Example: Pulseaudio.
Yea, I know Ardour etc doesn't deal with it because it's ALSA based.
So why is that?
If ALSA works fine, and it does IMHO, why all the others?
Oh yea, "choice"...
No, it's not choice.
It's a clusterfuck.
Take a look a the Ubuntu forums and see how many Pulseaudio problems you
will find.
> For a report on my perspective, this is useful: http://lwn.net/Articles/355542/
Fair enough...
My personal feeling is ALSA should be tightly integrated with the kernel
(I'm not a programmer so please excuse the simple language) and the others
should disappear.
>> Yes Jack, which is kind of like Rewire coupled with Steinberg's
>> Control Room, allows you to do a lot of things but it assumes you know
>> what you are doing, or are willing to scour the net to figure out how.
>
> If I could control the entire Linux "audio experience" of every JACK
> user, you would never have this perspective. But Linux is not a
> company. If you want a smooth experience with Linux audio, do you
> randomly pick some distro, some machine, some audio interface and put
> them together and expect that it will all just work? It appears that
> many existing or potential Linux users do indeed expect this to be
> possible. Sorry, its not. Its unfortunate that so many people believe
> that it is, or even more irritatingly, believe that it should be. Its
> not possible on Windows (you just have a higher success rate with
> random selections of (windows-version,hardware,audio-interface) - many
> audio forums for Windows DAWs are full of testimonies to problems that
> people have with particularly bad combinations of choices. If you
> want that kind of experience, you need to get your system from a
> company that controls everything end-to-end, which means either Apple
> or a company that specializes in building machines for media work that
> run Linux. Unfortunately, I can't recommend any of them at this
> particular point in time.
Bit that's exactly the problem!
Too many hands in the pot and too many "solutions".
Put it this way, if I had you in my studio for a couple of hours, I am
certain you could show me things that Jack/ALSA etc can do, that I could
not even in my wildest imagination conceive.
But I don't have you and documentation is poor so I am left to mostly fend
on my own, like most people.
The closest example I can give is Linux Konqueror.
How many people really realize how powerful that application is?
It goes far, far beyond a browser.
>> Maybe this sounds like a cop out but all I want to do is make music.
>
> Then why are you using computers? What is it that leads you to expect
> that a general purpose operating system (windows/OSX/linux) on a
> general purpose CPU on a general purpose motherboard is a sensible way
> to build a tool that will let you "just make music" ?
Ivory.
Garritan
Addictive Drums
UAD
Sonnex
Nuendo.
ProTools.
Do they run under Linux?
That's where Linux loses, at least for me.
You see, you look at the computer from a programming POV.
I look at it from a musician's POV.
Big difference.
For me, the computer is a gigantic tape drive and the editing is the mother
of all splicing blocks.
The effects are the racks of equipment I used to have (I still have some
BTW) or the units I could not afford back in the 70's.
Ivory is the Steinway, Bosendorfer, Yammy etc I cannot fit in my living
room as well as the superb mics needed to record such fine instruments I
could not afford.
Actually I have a Steinway B now and some very nice mics, but the acoustics
in my living room where the piano is are marginal.
Ivory or Garritan is a much better choice in MOST situations.
It goes on and on.
I leave you with one thought, Linux is free and a lot of musicians and
engineers know about it.
Why are so very few using it at a professional level?
Moshe Goldfarb
You need to try an audio tageted Linux distribution instead of using a
generic one.
Try UbuntuStudio which will eliminate many of the problems you are talking
about.
Just my 2 cents.
Anahata
> What leads ME to expect it is that I've been able to do just that for a
> couple of decades using DOS then Windows systems, all on the
> professional level. So, if one CAN'T do that with Linux, what does it
> tell you?
DAWs are just one example of speciality applications (CAD is another)
where there'll only ever be a small population of users but the software
itself is very complex. Consequently anybody investing development time
on such software commercially is only going to go for the most widely
used platform, or their already tiny market will become even smaller.
Actually if Pro Tools, Nuendo or whatever were ported to Linux, I'm sure
it would run like a champ, but there just isn't the commercial incentive
to do it.
--
Anahata
ana...@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
Scott Dorsey
>Meanwhile, "professional" means that one can make a living in their area of
>expertise, which rules out most applications under Linux. From what I've
>seen, Open Office is about as good as it gets, and it isn't very competitive
>with MS Office 2000 w/r/t user features. I've found some glaring errors in
>its documentation that could not have persisted in a commercial app. I can
>only conclude that the users don't care that it doesn't work as the
>documentation says it does.
Open Office is interesting, because the technical documentation is better
than the user documentation. Contrast that to MS Office, where the user
documentation is excellent but the technical documentation is nonexistent.
This is probably the best example of what I mean when I say that there is
a lot of excellent open source stuff out there which is poorly documented.
But then, I'm a guy who would say that what is -wrong- with MS Office is
that Microsoft keeps burdening it down with more and more useless "user
features."
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
dawhead
> They most certainly do not want to be playing with operating systems like
> Linux forces the user to do.
Then for the time being, at least, they probably shouldn't bother.
> What I *do know* is that I plug in my audio interface, under Windows 7 x64
> BTW, my control surface, select ASIO (my choice) and it all works.
> I never have to touch a single thing other than latency.
What I do know is that I plug in my audio interface (an RME hdsp9652)
under Linux (Fedora 11 x86_64), plugin in my control surfaces, start
JACK and it all works. I never have to touch anything except hdspmixer
to reset the initial matrix mixer settings for the hdsp, and JACK to
adjust latency.
> I fire up Nuendo 4, Reaper, Sonar 8.5 and it all works.
I fire up Ardour and it all works.
> All my plugins, well most of my plugins work.
All of my plugins, well most of my plugins work.
> Linux doesn't even support this stuff.
Wrong way around. The developers of those plugins don't support Linux.
Can you run Ardour on Windows? Same deal. Linux' job isn't to support
pre-existing software, just like OS X's job isn't to support Windows
software. Clear thinking about where responsibilities lie here would
help.
> And you are deluding yourself if you think for one instant that a
> professional, like myself or Mike or Scott or Hank or Fletcher will for
> even an instant claim that the Linux solution is "cleaner".
Fortunately, I am not deluding myself for one moment into thinking
that any professionals like yourself, Mike or the other people you
mention (the last 3 I do not know) will claim that the Linux solution
is "cleaner". I'm not even sure that I am claiming that. However, I
can point you in the direction of a roughly equal number of people,
all audio engineering professionals, who find the Linux solution
compelling for a variety of reasons. Whose vote wins? Who even cares?
Certainly not me.
> Maybe it's cleaner from a programmer perspective, a developer perspective
> and maybe in theory ie: crunchy code and all that gibberish.
> However I can tell you that if Linux were the only software choice for a
> DAW we would all still be using tape and a razor blade.
On this point, you're sadly delusional. There are many valid
criticisms to be made of Linux as a platform for audio engineering
professionals. Many. This is not even close to one of them.
> Try that under Linux.
> Oh yea, if you have SoundBlaster, it will probably work fine.
Or any RME interface except the Fireface's (coming soon), or any
ice1712/1724 device, or any of the following firewire devices:
ECHO AudioFire 2
ECHO AudioFire 4
ECHO AudioFire 8
ECHO AudioFire 12
Edirol FA-101
Edirol FA-66
ESI Quatafire 610
Focusrite Saffire
Focusrite Saffire LE
Focusrite Saffire Pro 26 I/O
Focusrite Saffire Pro 10 I/O
Mackie Onyx Mixer FireWire Option
Terratec Producer Phase 88 Rack FireWire
TerraTec Producer Phase24
TerraTec Producer Phase X24
TerraTec Producer MIC 2/MIC 8 FireWire
Of course, that is subject to my previous comments about choosing the
right linux distribution. And if that's confusing to you, that is
because you don't understand that "Linux" isn't a unitary thing. If
you can't deal with this idea, then give up.
> Mike's venture into this is a prime example.
I followed Mike's venture into this and interacted with him a lot on
r.a.p as it happened. Mike went into his venture with a particular set
of expectations and prior experience. His goals and requirements were
not met, that was clear. However, his prior experience and his model
of how things should be made it very much harder for it to work. I've
had that discussion once (I think I wrote at least 20 posts on this at
the time)
> You Linux developers are all doing your own thing and apparently nobody is
> talking to the other people.
You have no idea who I talk to, how or where. Why do you insist on
speculating, no *asserting* stuff that you simply don't know?
> Example: Pulseaudio.
PulseAudio is a consumer/desktop audio architecture targetting
consumer media workflows and applications. It is also very focused on
low power/mobile devices, a market where Linux is growing increasingly
dominant, and the requirements for the audio infrastructure are
entirely different.
If you are attempting to do pro-audio or music creation using
PulseAudio, then you've already done way down the wrong track. Is it a
problem that this is not more obvious from the outset? Sure. Is it
partly related to what I said earlier about Linux not being a unitary
thing in the way that Windows or OS X is? Absolutely.
> Yea, I know Ardour etc doesn't deal with it because it's ALSA based.
Ardour doesn't use anything except JACK. Which is why it works on OS X
(and has, historically been built and run on Windows).
> So why is that?
> If ALSA works fine, and it does IMHO, why all the others?
ALSA is primarily a set of device drivers and a thin abstraction over
them. That doesn't make it (necessarily) the appropriate API for
developers to use when writing applications.
> Oh yea, "choice"...
> No, it's not choice.
> It's a clusterfuck.
Sure. That's why people who are using ALSA drivers they created for
data collection (i.e. non-pro-audio, just massively high sample rates)
are finding it a clusterfuck. Once again, you fail to grasp that linux
isn't a unitary thing. Its a way for people to put together systems
that can do certain tasks much better than most other operating
systems. Does that mean that when you install J. Random Linux Distro
on your J. Random Hardware that it will make a superb DAW? It most
certainly does not.
> > For a report on my perspective, this is useful:http://lwn.net/Articles/355542/
>
> Fair enough...
>
> My personal feeling is ALSA should be tightly integrated with the kernel
It is.
> (I'm not a programmer so please excuse the simple language) and the others
> should disappear.
If you talk to any audio developer who has written applications for
JACK, CoreAudio, ASIO, WDM and ALSA (to name a few), I am fairly
confident that they will tell you that JACK provides the simplest,
easiest to use and most powerful abstraction for audio of any of them.
None of these other systems provides the same kinds of capabilities,
or the same ease of development. They don't make it possible to make
arbitrary applications do arbitrary things. Ergo, unless ALSA were to
incorporate all these things, its not likely that JACK is going to go
away, for the same reason that JACK doesn't "go away" on OS X -
CoreAudio just doesn't provide the same stuff. Same with any Windows
audio API.
> Put it this way, if I had you in my studio for a couple of hours, I am
> certain you could show me things that Jack/ALSA etc can do, that I could
> not even in my wildest imagination conceive.
>
> But I don't have you and documentation is poor so I am left to mostly fend
> on my own, like most people.
Sure, the documentation is not good. But its improving, and unlike the
code, is an area where actual audio engineers could contribute a lot.
Do they? A few.
> Ivory.
> Garritan
> Addictive Drums
> UAD
> Sonnex
> Nuendo.
> ProTools.
>
> Do they run under Linux?
Sample libraries that use Gigasampler and a few other formats: yes.
Pianoteq (a physically modelled piano that to my ears is more powerful
than any sample library): yes (and windows and OS X too)
Ardour: yes
many VST plugins: actually yes. i helped make this possible, but i
can't say i recommend it.
so, your chosen tools don't support Linux (see notes above). how is
this linux' fault? does it make an unsuitable platform for you?
probably. but so what?
> I leave you with one thought, Linux is free and a lot of musicians and
> engineers know about it.
>
> Why are so very few using it at a professional level?
Because most of them are as confused and ignorant about it as you.
Their/your fault? Not entirely, no.
Moshe Goldfarb
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:11:19 -> Actually if Pro Tools, Nuendo or whatever were ported to Linux, I'm sure
> it would run like a champ, but there just isn't the commercial incentive
> to do it.
The problem with ProTools being ported to Linux is that the Linux community
would expect to see it as a free download.
Loki, a major game manufacturer tried to release Linux versions of their
games to the Linux community.
They failed miserably, in part because the Linux community, at least the
radical portion of it, wanted this stuff open source and for free.
IOW paying customers were hard to find.
geoff
> Really. A fascinating assesment of the windows situation. You know
> that WDM is deprecated in Windows7, yes? That ASIO was never provided
> by Microsoft and always relied on 3rd party drivers which didn't
> always track the latest version of Windows precisely? That before WDM,
> there was no reasonable "out of the box" low latency solution on that
> platform? That most windows consumer desktop applications used MME,
> not ASIO, for playback and capture, which could often conflict with
> ASIO use of the audio interface? The situation is certainly cleaner
> than Linux, but it hardly gets close to the cleanliness (for the user)
> of CoreAudio.
Well WDM and ASIO are real and work, for the most part, just fine now and
for the last 5 years.
geoff
Moshe Goldfarb
> On Dec 23, 6:18�pm, LittleShitt <littleshitt_...@mailg.org> wrote:
>> They most certainly do not want to be playing with operating systems like
>> Linux forces the user to do.
>
> Then for the time being, at least, they probably shouldn't bother.
Most don't, hence the popularity of the Mac.
>> What I *do know* is that I plug in my audio interface, under Windows 7 x64
>> BTW, my control surface, select ASIO (my choice) and it all works.
>> I never have to touch a single thing other than latency.
>
> What I do know is that I plug in my audio interface (an RME hdsp9652)
> under Linux (Fedora 11 x86_64), plugin in my control surfaces, start
> JACK and it all works. I never have to touch anything except hdspmixer
> to reset the initial matrix mixer settings for the hdsp, and JACK to
> adjust latency.
You are cherry picking.
Try a Euphonix.
Try an Alesis.
Try the Cakewalk/Roland V7xx systems.
>> I fire up Nuendo 4, Reaper, Sonar 8.5 and it all works.
>
> I fire up Ardour and it all works.
My 10 year old Soundblaster Live! works with Linux as well.
Your point?
>> All my plugins, well most of my plugins work.
>
> All of my plugins, well most of my plugins work.
>
>> Linux doesn't even support this stuff.
>
> Wrong way around. The developers of those plugins don't support Linux.
> Can you run Ardour on Windows? Same deal. Linux' job isn't to support
> pre-existing software, just like OS X's job isn't to support Windows
> software. Clear thinking about where responsibilities lie here would
> help.
Doesn't matter to the end user.
The end user wants the stuff he reads about in the trade rags to work.
While some of this stuff is hyped junk, I agree, a lot of it is very useful
and used every single day to produce what you hear in the media.
>> And you are deluding yourself if you think for one instant that a
>> professional, like myself or Mike or Scott or Hank or Fletcher will for
>> even an instant claim that the Linux solution is "cleaner".
>
> Fortunately, I am not deluding myself for one moment into thinking
> that any professionals like yourself, Mike or the other people you
> mention (the last 3 I do not know) will claim that the Linux solution
> is "cleaner". I'm not even sure that I am claiming that. However, I
> can point you in the direction of a roughly equal number of people,
> all audio engineering professionals, who find the Linux solution
> compelling for a variety of reasons. Whose vote wins? Who even cares?
> Certainly not me.
I've yet to work in a studio that is running Linux other than as a back up
system/server or in a Receptor module which I believe (correct me if I am
wrong) runs Linux as it's base system.
I work in NYC mostly and it's all ProTools or Nuendo.
Smaller studios, like jingle houses are running everything from Cubase to
Logic to Reaper and even Sonar.
>> Maybe it's cleaner from a programmer perspective, a developer perspective
>> and maybe in theory ie: crunchy code and all that gibberish.
>> However I can tell you that if Linux were the only software choice for a
>> DAW we would all still be using tape and a razor blade.
>
> On this point, you're sadly delusional. There are many valid
> criticisms to be made of Linux as a platform for audio engineering
> professionals. Many. This is not even close to one of them.
So then why aren't people flocking to Linux?
The OP makes a valid point.
>> Try that under Linux.
>> Oh yea, if you have �SoundBlaster, it will probably work fine.
>
> Or any RME interface except the Fireface's (coming soon), or any
> ice1712/1724 device, or any of the following firewire devices:
>
> ECHO AudioFire 2
> ECHO AudioFire 4
> ECHO AudioFire 8
> ECHO AudioFire 12
> Edirol FA-101
> Edirol FA-66
> ESI Quatafire 610
> Focusrite Saffire
> Focusrite Saffire LE
> Focusrite Saffire Pro 26 I/O
> Focusrite Saffire Pro 10 I/O
> Mackie Onyx Mixer FireWire Option
> Terratec Producer Phase 88 Rack FireWire
> TerraTec Producer Phase24
> TerraTec Producer Phase X24
> TerraTec Producer MIC 2/MIC 8 FireWire
>
> Of course, that is subject to my previous comments about choosing the
> right linux distribution. And if that's confusing to you, that is
> because you don't understand that "Linux" isn't a unitary thing. If
> you can't deal with this idea, then give up.
That's a small subset of what is out there and again what level of support
is given and how well is it documented?
Do all of the features work?
>> Mike's venture into this is a prime example.
>
> I followed Mike's venture into this and interacted with him a lot on
> r.a.p as it happened. Mike went into his venture with a particular set
> of expectations and prior experience. His goals and requirements were
> not met, that was clear. However, his prior experience and his model
> of how things should be made it very much harder for it to work. I've
> had that discussion once (I think I wrote at least 20 posts on this at
> the time)
I read it in Google after the fact so some stuff might have been missing,
but I would classify Mike as your poster child for Linux acceptance.
He is very, very typical of the genre.
>> You Linux developers are all doing your own thing and apparently nobody is
>> talking to the other people.
>
> You have no idea who I talk to, how or where. Why do you insist on
> speculating, no *asserting* stuff that you simply don't know?
He makes a point.
Why so many versions of Linux?
Why doesn't one work with the other?
Why 5 different package manageers?
Why do some systems use Xorg.conf and others do not?
Why real time kernels?
etc.
It's a mess.
And it's hindering Linux.
You see only your little world, and that's ok but Joe user sees it a
different way.
>> Example: Pulseaudio.
>
> PulseAudio is a consumer/desktop audio architecture targetting
> consumer media workflows and applications. It is also very focused on
> low power/mobile devices, a market where Linux is growing increasingly
> dominant, and the requirements for the audio infrastructure are
> entirely different.
But it's still there.
When Joe user installs his Ubuntu, he sees Pulseaudio and I can almost
assure you that he will have troubles.
In fact, with Ubuntu, he will have troubles with 9.10 and ICE1712 right
from the start because one of the config files is missing a line.
I can't believe they even test that garbage and pleas don't get me going on
Ubuntu because it sucks IMHO.
Debian great.
Redhat great.
Fedora, not bad.
SuSue pretty good.
Ubuntu,,,sucks...
>
> If you are attempting to do pro-audio or music creation using
> PulseAudio, then you've already done way down the wrong track. Is it a
> problem that this is not more obvious from the outset? Sure. Is it
> partly related to what I said earlier about Linux not being a unitary
> thing in the way that Windows or OS X is? Absolutely.
And how is Joe user supposed to know this?
He installs "Linux" whatever Linux it may be, tries to run Ardour and is
baffled.
>> Yea, I know Ardour etc doesn't deal with it because it's ALSA based.
>
> Ardour doesn't use anything except JACK. Which is why it works on OS X
> (and has, historically been built and run on Windows).
So it will work without ALSa installed?
Will you get the same latency specs?
Performance?
etc?
>> So why is that?
>> If ALSA works fine, and it does IMHO, why all the others?
>
> ALSA is primarily a set of device drivers and a thin abstraction over
> them. That doesn't make it (necessarily) the appropriate API for
> developers to use when writing applications.
From and end user perspective, ALSA works.
Pulseaudio does not, in many cases.
The net is full of problems with sound that disabling Pulseaudio fixes.
>> Oh yea, "choice"...
>> No, it's not choice.
>> It's a clusterfuck.
>
> Sure. That's why people who are using ALSA drivers they created for
> data collection (i.e. non-pro-audio, just massively high sample rates)
> are finding it a clusterfuck. Once again, you fail to grasp that linux
> isn't a unitary thing. Its a way for people to put together systems
> that can do certain tasks much better than most other operating
> systems. Does that mean that when you install J. Random Linux Distro
> on your J. Random Hardware that it will make a superb DAW? It most
> certainly does not.
I'm talking about professional audio/DAW work.
IOW recording the next Aerosmith CD.
Not some scientist in a lab recording the sounds of carpenter ants mating.
Wonder if they can do "Close to You", hahaha!
>>> For a report on my perspective, this is useful:http://lwn.net/Articles/355542/
>>
>> Fair enough...
>>
>> My personal feeling is ALSA should be tightly integrated with the kernel
>
> It is.
Yes, but why RT kernels and normal kernels.
More confusion.
>> (I'm not a programmer so please excuse the simple language) and the others
>> should disappear.
>
> If you talk to any audio developer who has written applications for
> JACK, CoreAudio, ASIO, WDM and ALSA (to name a few), I am fairly
> confident that they will tell you that JACK provides the simplest,
> easiest to use and most powerful abstraction for audio of any of them.
> None of these other systems provides the same kinds of capabilities,
> or the same ease of development. They don't make it possible to make
> arbitrary applications do arbitrary things. Ergo, unless ALSA were to
> incorporate all these things, its not likely that JACK is going to go
> away, for the same reason that JACK doesn't "go away" on OS X -
> CoreAudio just doesn't provide the same stuff. Same with any Windows
> audio API.
The problem is the end user can't figure out how to make it work.
>> Put it this way, if I had you in my studio for a couple of hours, I am
>> certain you could show me things that Jack/ALSA etc can do, that I could
>> not even in my wildest imagination conceive.
>>
>> But I don't have you and documentation is poor so I am left to mostly fend
>> on my own, like most people.
>
> Sure, the documentation is not good. But its improving, and unlike the
> code, is an area where actual audio engineers could contribute a lot.
> Do they? A few.
Point taken!
>> Ivory.
>> Garritan
>> Addictive Drums
>> UAD
>> Sonnex
>> Nuendo.
>> ProTools.
>>
>> Do they run under Linux?
>
> Sample libraries that use Gigasampler and a few other formats: yes.
> Pianoteq (a physically modelled piano that to my ears is more powerful
> than any sample library): yes (and windows and OS X too)
> Ardour: yes
> many VST plugins: actually yes. i helped make this possible, but i
> can't say i recommend it.
Giga is dead....
> so, your chosen tools don't support Linux (see notes above). how is
> this linux' fault? does it make an unsuitable platform for you?
> probably. but so what?
These are tools I can assure you are found in 99 percent of professional
studios and only scratch the surface.
>> I leave you with one thought, Linux is free and a lot of musicians and
>> engineers know about it.
>>
>> Why are so very few using it at a professional level?
>
> Because most of them are as confused and ignorant about it as you.
> Their/your fault? Not entirely, no.
I'm not confused.
I'm speaking from a layperson's POV.
You are speaking from a programmer/developer's POV.
It's obvious.
I would suggest you spend some time talking to real musicians, engineers
etc who are making the music you hear on the radio.
Ask them what they need.
Spend some time on Gearslutz, KVR and other sites.
The Harrison Mixbus IMHO is a great start and is getting pretty decent
reviews from the masses.
This is great for you.
Keep the momentum going, improve the doc and release a Windows version and
if it catches on, you very well might have the next Presonous Studio One
which is also surprising a lot of people with it's ease of use and quality.
That's my 2 cents.
Moshe Goldfarb
It's more programming crap while ignoring the practical end of things.
These people seem to ignore the fact that currently this stuff does work
and probably will for some time to come.
So what if WDM is depreciated?
One mouse click and I am running ASIO.
No big deal to me.
High Plains Thumper
<SNIP>
Hello, Flatfish.
--
HPT
Mike Rivers
> This is not the case.
Is this Ben?
> We worried a great deal about the reliance on JACK. It turns out to
> have been a boon to many of the initial Mixbus users because rather
> than grappling with the full DAW capabilities it has (because its
> based on Ardour), they were able to route directly out of Logic (or
> whatever other CoreAudio compatible software they were using) into
> Mixbus and just use it "as a console".
That's sort of what I said, isn't it? The promo material describes it as
a mixing console, though I do recognize Ardour in there, and that's
just from the screen shots. (I don't have a Mac)
> However, this was purely a (positive) side effect of our use of JACK -
> Mixbus was not ever conceived as some kind of "addon" or "frontend"
> for other DAWs. Its just that the kind of modular environment that
> I've worked at developing for the last 10 years makes this particular
> workflow possible.
Now you're talking like a Linux booster. What's wrong with the workflow
that's been pretty well established over the past ten years for a DAW?
People know how to do that. Why hand them a construction set when
most potential users would just want to set it up like a conventional DAW
anyway?
> Users who have bothered to read the documentation, or even more so,
> watch the video on Mixbus, have understood that its actually a full-
> featured DAW (without MIDI editing/recording/playback), not just a mix
> engine. The fact that it is usable as "just" the latter is a side
> effect of Ardour's design, not a design decision.
I was actually looking for that, and I'm not surprised to find that it's
the
case. However, the PERCEPTION based on the introductory material
is that it's a mixing console that's more intuitive to use than what's
typically found in a DAW. I think that's a great idea, but it's really a
pretty small step to add a recorder to it, particularly when it's already
in the basic code.
This is just another example of the confusion about Linux audio
software that's a result of its flexibility and the lack of focus toward
a functional task-oriented end product by the purveyors.
> there is no hardware supported on OS X that does not work with JACK on
> OS X. If it doesn't work well with JACK (e.g. digidesign I/O) then it
> doesn't work well with Logic (if at all - digi's coreaudio driver for
> their h/w is just almost laughably non-standard in how it does just
> about everything.)
Maybe there's been some progress since I looked at Ardour nearly a
year ago. At the time, I found a very limited number of multichannel
interfaces that could be used. Surely you can use the large number
of interfaces that are supported by Core Audio to record in Logic and
then mix those tracks in Mixbus. My impression, and perhaps this is
misguided, is that Jack, which talks to Logic and Mixbus, can route
the audio stream coming into Logic out to Mixbus. If this is the case,
it would allow me to use any audio hardware that can talk to Logic
as a front end for the recording portion of Mixbus.
> Ardour doesn't support hardware. Ardour doesn't interact with hardware
> directly at all. ALSA is the HAL for audio devices on a platform
> (linux) that has seen many manufacturers deliberately refuse to make
> driver support possible.
Oh, no! Here we go again.
> I suggest you read it again before passing your judgement. The parts
> that "look like linux documentation" probably refer to aggregate
> devices
Nope, that's the part that I understood. I wish Windows had a similar
capability. CEntrance tried to come up with a universal driver that could
aggregate multiple hardware devices into a single hardware device but
they couldn't deal with all the testing necessary to make it into a reliable
commercial product. At least Apple seems to have something that works.
> a lamentable state of affairs on Intel OS X caused by Apple's
> curious refusal to provide duplex (simultaneous playback & capture)
> capabilities for the builtin audio device on these systems
Is that what "aggregate" is all about? My impression, and the way I've
seen it applied, is when you have a collection of external audio devices
and want to use them together to get more channels.
Scott Dorsey
>Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>> however the time required to make some of them work properly is all
>> on your own dime.
>>
>I think the problem is managing people's expectations. Those who think
>they'll get the same "appliance" level of functionality by going the Linux
>route are likely to be disappointed.
The problem is that when people take the attitude that a computer is an
appliance that they don't have to look inside and they can just accept
as a black box, they are on the road toward disaster. And it might not be
a disaster today, it might be a disaster many years down the road, but it
will happen.
If you want an appliance, buy an appliance. There are plenty of standalone
recording devices out there, from a 2" Ampex through a RADAR and on down to
a bunch of little portastudios from Roland and Korg. They do what they're
expected to do for the most part.
Scott Dorsey
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:20:18 -0800 (PST), dawhead wrote:
>
>> one person's "too much interaction" is another person's "not enough
>> control". maybe we should pay more attention to the fact that there
>> are probably more people in the first situation than the second, or
>> maybe we're interested in a niche market of audio professionals who
>> actually want control.
>
>They want control of their music and the applications that record their
>music.
>
>They most certainly do not want to be playing with operating systems like
>Linux forces the user to do.
They should try an Ampex, then. It works great for me, and it's billable.
For the most part it doesn't break, and when it does break the documentation
is exceptionally complete.
>Why are so very few using it at a professional level?
I'm using NetBSD in the studio. It runs all the billing systems. And when
it all comes down to it, accounts payable is the most important studio system
there is.
dawhead
> You are cherry picking.
> Try a Euphonix.
They were very enthusiastic about getting support for their protocol
into Ardour. Then they just dropped the ball. It may get picked up
again with the advent of mixbus.
> Try an Alesis.
An Alesis *what* ?
> Try the Cakewalk/Roland V7xx systems.
If it generates generic MIDI CC messages or Mackie/Logic Control, it
works with Ardour. If not - then sure, someone has to implement
support for it.
> >> I fire up Nuendo 4, Reaper, Sonar 8.5 and it all works.
>
> > I fire up Ardour and it all works.
>
> My 10 year old Soundblaster Live! works with Linux as well.
> Your point?
The same as the OP's point - citing a list of things that "just work
for me" is really just anecdotal and beside the point. I could cite a
long list of equipment that will work with Ardour and other lInux
apps. Its not the equipment you use? Oh dear ... what does that mean?
> > Wrong way around. The developers of those plugins don't support Linux.
> > Can you run Ardour on Windows? Same deal. Linux' job isn't to support
> > pre-existing software, just like OS X's job isn't to support Windows
> > software. Clear thinking about where responsibilities lie here would
> > help.
>
> Doesn't matter to the end user.
The problem is that enduser is mis-informed about how this stuff
works, and so they form expectations. "Linux won't run my plugins".
That much is true. "Linux should run my plugins". That should perhaps
be true. "The responsibility to fix this rests with Linux and the
communist hippie software hackers types who use it since no audio guys
do". False.
> I've yet to work in a studio that is running Linux other than as a back up
> system/server or in a Receptor module which I believe (correct me if I am
> wrong) runs Linux as it's base system.
So once again, we have your anecdotes versus someone else's versus
mine. Yes, *MASSIVELY* more studios run non-Linux DAWs. But so what?
MASSIVELY more studios run ProTools over Logic ... does this mean that
Logic is crap? That it can't do anything? That nobody in their right
mind would use it? That it does everything that ProTools does? That it
has no capabilities that ProTools is lacking? No, no, no, no and no.
Now substitute a specific app like Ardour in ... the answers are the
same.
> So then why aren't people flocking to Linux?
> The OP makes a valid point.
As I noted at the end of my last post: most of them have faulty
knowledge, shallow knowlege or both about Linux. Moreover, audio
engineering professionals do not FLOCK to anything. They did't flock
to Pyramix, they didn't flock to Paris, they didn't flock to the
Mackie HDR, they didn't flock to Nuendo - they have technological
inertia to a greater extent than almost any niche user community of
computer software, mostly thanks to the abject failure of the audio
tech industry to ever develop adequate open standards for data
interchange and the laughable proliferation of plugin APIs.
(list of support audio interfaces)
> That's a small subset of what is out there and again what level of support
> is given and how well is it documented?
> Do all of the features work?
My list was for illustrative purposes, it was not exhaustive.
Sometimes, you r.a.p folk complain that you can only use soundblasters
on linux - not true. Are there devices that don't work? Sure. Should
you know this before trying to use one on a linux system? Probably. Is
it all adequately documented? Not really.
> I read it in Google after the fact so some stuff might have been missing,
> but I would classify Mike as your poster child for Linux acceptance.
>
> He is very, very typical of the genre.
I do not wish to discuss Mike's thread again. I made a lot of
commentary on it in that thread, and I think I stand by everything I
said there.
> He makes a point.
> Why so many versions of Linux?
> Why doesn't one work with the other?
> Why 5 different package manageers?
> Why do some systems use Xorg.conf and others do not?
> Why real time kernels?
Why do you care? You care because you are expecting a certain kind of
product. Right now, nobody offers the kind of product that you think
you want. There, said it.
Does this mean that Linux is useless as a platform for a DAW? no.
> It's a mess.
> And it's hindering Linux.
>
> You see only your little world, and that's ok but Joe user sees it a
> different way.
I'm afraid its the other way around. *You* see only the world of pro-
audio, and when someone says you can do some cool stuff with Linux,
you imagine that Linux is there to cater "off the shelf" to "your
little world". The problem is that Linux isn't about just "this little
world", its about a lot of things. The fact that its such a massively
superior technology for audio technology has a lot to do with why its
so good for mobile devices and data servers - it can be made to do all
these tasks well because it can be *customized*. Can you buy the
customized version you want for pro-audio off the shelf? Right now,
you cannot. Does this mean it can't do the job? Does this mean that
those of us who do, in fact, use it for such things are delusional?
no. Does this help people who might want to "just use it" ? not
really.
> >> Example: Pulseaudio.
>
> > PulseAudio is a consumer/desktop audio architecture targetting
> > consumer media workflows and applications. It is also very focused on
> > low power/mobile devices, a market where Linux is growing increasingly
> > dominant, and the requirements for the audio infrastructure are
> > entirely different.
>
> But it's still there.
> When Joe user installs his Ubuntu, he sees Pulseaudio and I can almost
> assure you that he will have troubles.
Right, and Ubuntu is not an appropriate distribution for people who
want to do pro-audio, partly (but far from entirely) for this very
reason.
> I can't believe they even test that garbage and pleas don't get me going on
> Ubuntu because it sucks IMHO.
> Debian great.
> Redhat great.
> Fedora, not bad.
> SuSue pretty good.
> Ubuntu,,,sucks...
Not of the above are appropriate base platforms for pro-audio work.
> > If you are attempting to do pro-audio or music creation using
> > PulseAudio, then you've already done way down the wrong track. Is it a
> > problem that this is not more obvious from the outset? Sure. Is it
> > partly related to what I said earlier about Linux not being a unitary
> > thing in the way that Windows or OS X is? Absolutely.
>
> And how is Joe user supposed to know this?
> He installs "Linux" whatever Linux it may be, tries to run Ardour and is
> baffled.
Are you complaining about the technology, or the documentation?
> >> Yea, I know Ardour etc doesn't deal with it because it's ALSA based.
>
> > Ardour doesn't use anything except JACK. Which is why it works on OS X
> > (and has, historically been built and run on Windows).
>
> So it will work without ALSa installed?
Sure.
> Will you get the same latency specs?
Depends on the hardware. All other things being equal, sure.
> Performance?
Ditto.
> > ALSA is primarily a set of device drivers and a thin abstraction over
> > them. That doesn't make it (necessarily) the appropriate API for
> > developers to use when writing applications.
>
> From and end user perspective, ALSA works.
> Pulseaudio does not, in many cases.
> The net is full of problems with sound that disabling Pulseaudio fixes.
Did I suggest PulseAudio as an alternative API to ALSA?
> >> My personal feeling is ALSA should be tightly integrated with the kernel
>
> > It is.
>
> Yes, but why RT kernels and normal kernels.
> More confusion.
Only for people who have read the wrong documentation or not
understood what they read. Can we stop the flood of misinformed user
posts on forums about this sort of thing? Its rather hard. Even on
this thread alone, I've read some fundamentally wrong claims about the
way Linux audio works, and I'm sure have walked away believing them.
> The problem is the end user can't figure out how to make it work.
The problem is that a particular class of end user can't figure out
how to make it work. Thats a different (though important) issue.
Scott Dorsey
>DAWs are just one example of speciality applications (CAD is another)
>where there'll only ever be a small population of users but the software
>itself is very complex. Consequently anybody investing development time
>on such software commercially is only going to go for the most widely
>used platform, or their already tiny market will become even smaller.
>
>Actually if Pro Tools, Nuendo or whatever were ported to Linux, I'm sure
>it would run like a champ, but there just isn't the commercial incentive
>to do it.
What's worse is that the systems that are really designed to do this kind
of job are systems that are niche products even in the Unix world. What
you really want is a realtime operating system where, when you make a call
to the OS, you can tell the OS how long you're willing to wait before
something is completed. A true realtime operating system (and RTLinux
comes reasonably close) allows you to do proper realtime stuff in a reliable
fashion, and in such a way that when you run out of resources you are
immediately told there is a problem instead of later discovering insidious
clicks in your file.
The only time anyone is ever going to develop a DAW system based on a realtime
base is going to be in an environment where they can design the system as
a whole. Oh, did I mention RADAR?
dawhead
> I would suggest you spend some time talking to real musicians, engineers
> etc who are making the music you hear on the radio.
> Ask them what they need.
> Spend some time on Gearslutz, KVR and other sites.
As noted above, I put it to you that you have little idea how I spend
time communicating with (actual or potential) users. If you visit
gearslutz and read the mixbus thread(s), check the poster nicks.
compare. ditto on KVR. you might ponder what i'm even doing on this
thread.
> The Harrison Mixbus IMHO is a great start and is getting pretty decent
> reviews from the masses.
> This is great for you.
> Keep the momentum going, improve the doc and release a Windows version and
there are no plans for a windows version.
> if it catches on, you very well might have the next Presonous Studio One
> which is also surprising a lot of people with it's ease of use and quality.
as is mixbus, without the windows masses. a problem for us? perhaps.
we'll see.
Moshe Goldfarb
> Neil Gould <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>>Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>> however the time required to make some of them work properly is all
>>> on your own dime.
>>>
>>I think the problem is managing people's expectations. Those who think
>>they'll get the same "appliance" level of functionality by going the Linux
>>route are likely to be disappointed.
>
> The problem is that when people take the attitude that a computer is an
> appliance that they don't have to look inside and they can just accept
> as a black box, they are on the road toward disaster. And it might not be
> a disaster today, it might be a disaster many years down the road, but it
> will happen.
Ten years ago I might have agreed, hell even now *my philosophy* is the
same as yours Scott.
Times have changed.
For better or worse.
It's called a throw away society.
How many engineers really know what is going on behind their PTHD system?
Very few.
They are interested in tracking.
How man artists know what is going on with autotune?
They sing off key and it gets "fixed" that's all they care about.
This can be extrapolated to just about anything, for better or worse.
Who cares how an iPod works?
We plug it in and it syncs...who really cares?
Most people do not.
> If you want an appliance, buy an appliance. There are plenty of standalone
> recording devices out there, from a 2" Ampex through a RADAR and on down to
> a bunch of little portastudios from Roland and Korg. They do what they're
> expected to do for the most part.
> --scott
The PC *IS* an appliance.
It has reached that level, like it or not.
The days of nuts and bolts are long gone.
Example: I can build you a stellar computer for your DAW.
Guess what?
You can buy one already made for less.
Sure you are getting lower quality components, say China sys board vs Asus,
but in reality it will work as well as your custom job and in a couple of
years, or less, both will be obsolete so who cares?
Understand, I am a person who has built systems since 1981 whien the
original IBM PC was released.
Sure, my build is of higher quality, but in reality what does that really
mean?
Most hardware will last it's useful life.
The computer has become an appliance, like it or not.
People run applications not chips and bits and their off brand system will
in most cases run them just as good as your custom built high end brand for
the life of the hardware.