What's the deal with Linux? What does it do better than Windows?
muzician21
Is there anything that Linux does demonstrably better than Windows for
audio work? Are there professional money-making big-time studios that
use it primarily or use it exclusively in lieu of Windows?
Scott Dorsey
STOP IT. RIGHT NOW.
I'S NO LONGER FUNNY.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
muzician21
> STOP IT. RIGHT NOW.
> I'S NO LONGER FUNNY.
?
My first inclination is to interpret this as not being a glowing
endorsement of Linux.
Scott Dorsey
muzician21 <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 27, 7:54=A0pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> STOP IT. =A0RIGHT NOW.
>> I'S NO LONGER FUNNY.
>?
>
>My first inclination is to interpret this as not being a glowing
>endorsement of Linux.
What you have done is equivalent to going into a bar and saying "please
hit me."
Linux is a fine system with good and bad points, but the holy wars in
this newsgroup, mostly promoted by Flatfish who crossposts into this group
under a variety of different names, are very bad. Just take it somewhere
else, please, or read the previous bouts of flaming in the Google archives.
muzician21
> What you have done is equivalent to going into a bar and saying "please
> hit me."
>
> Just take it somewhere else, please,
My goal was to cut to the chase and see if anyone can point to
specific, demonstrable points of superiority of Linux over Windows for
audio work - and as a clear demonstration of this point out what pros
are using it for money-making audio work. Not sure what more
appropriate group there would be to ask this in than this group.
Not trying to be an ass, but if the topic is truly odious to you, I
don't 'spose you consider simply simply ignoring it to be an option?
Does the mere appearance of the subject line and the knowledge it
exists rankle your sensibilities to an unbearable degree?
muzician21
> What you have done is equivalent to going into a bar and saying "please
> hit me."
>
> Just take it somewhere else, please,
mcp6453
What Scott was saying is that if you do a Google Groups search for this
newsgroup with the search term "Linux" you will have an immediate and
complete answer to your question. If the discussion starts again, it
will only be a repeat of the information that is already available to
you, right now.
muzician21
> What Scott was saying is that if you do a Google Groups search for this
> newsgroup with the search term "Linux" you will have an immediate and
> complete answer to your question. If the discussion starts again, it
> will only be a repeat of the information that is already available to
> you, right now.
In many cases the discussions are several years old. Things change.
Putting simply the word "Linux" in the search field in RAP, by the end
of the first page of results sorted by date order I'm already at a
thread titled "No more about Linux for audio" or words to that
effect....from 2005. Seems reasonable to suppose things might have
changed since then.
So far this has gotten 3 responses which don't contain a single word
addressing the actual question.
Sean Conolly
news:6eac5ed5-e606-4a71...@h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I recall our last cross-posting war on the topic was just a few months back,
certainly within the last year. Look harder.
Sean
Peter Larsen
> I keep seeing these references to Linux in relation to audio work.
This is caused by the fact that some people think the OS is the audio
application.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Peter Larsen
> In many cases the discussions are several years old. Things change.
It is still extremely idiotic to assume that an OS is an audio application,
you question implies that asumption.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
John Williamson
No.
A single word for you....
To expand, a lot of Linux supporters agree that Linux audio is still a
mess. For the tediously detailed arguments, check the currently running
thread on comp.os.linux.advocacy.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
muzician21
> muzician21 wrote:
> > In many cases the discussions are several years old. Things change.
>
> It is still extremely idiotic to assume that an OS is an audio application,
> you question implies that asumption.
Such a notion would of course require you the reader to extrapolate
from the below quote that I'm also operating under the mistaken notion
that Windows is an audio app -or- that I'm asking how does an audio
app compare to an O/S for audio work which would make even less sense.
"..Is there anything that Linux does demonstrably better than Windows
for audio work?.."
The assumption on my part was that you would grasp that what's meant
is Linux as an environment vs. Windows as an environment.
I won't characterize it as oh say, idiotic for a reader to think
otherwise since gee, that would be engaging in pointless incivility.
You have any actual information related to the original question?
muzician21
> You have any actual information related to the original question?
Oh, I forgot to add
"Kind regards"
Arny Krueger
> I keep seeing these references to Linux in relation to
> audio work.
Yes, they are planted by Linux bigots such a yourself.
> Is there anything that Linux does demonstrably better
> than Windows for audio work?
(1) Cheap to obtain.
(2) Takes lots of diddling to get to work at all, let alone work well.
(3) Generates very many war stories to tell online.
> Are there professional
> money-making big-time studios that use it primarily or
> use it exclusively in lieu of Windows?
Highly unlikely.
Now, lets get back to talking about audio, not OS advocacy.
david gourley
fbf1-4379-948...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
*PLONK*
david
Mike Rivers
> My goal was to cut to the chase and see if anyone can point to
> specific, demonstrable points of superiority of Linux over Windows for
> audio work - and as a clear demonstration of this point out what pros
> are using it for money-making audio work.
There are none, absolutely none. Period. It's like asking if there's any
reason to use a Craftsman screwdriver over a Stanley screwdriver when
putting up a towel bar in the bathroom.
There are audio professionals who use Linux, but they fall into two broad
categories. One is those who have very special requirements that cannot be
satisfied by off-the-shelf systems or software, so they take advantage
of the
open source tools available to write their own applications. The other group
of Linux users don't need to know that they're using Linux because it's
built
into their functional devices (for example a digital console or
recorder). They
never actually see the Linux underlying the device.
> Not trying to be an ass, but if the topic is truly odious to you, I
> don't 'spose you consider simply simply ignoring it to be an option?
As you will see, this thread will continue to grow into arguments for
open source
software for the sake of being open source versus the non-programmers who
would rather have professionals design, test, and sell us our software.
There
is no clear winner here. Nor is it significant that there are a small
handful of working
professionals using Linux. The bottom line is - do YOU have any reason
to waste
your time with a set of limited applications, or is making your own
tools more important
to you than using something that works for probably everything you want
to do?
There's plenty of room for experimenters, but most of us in this
newsgroup would
rather just get our work done. Linux sympathizers do lurk here, looking
for someone like
you to pounce on. Check their messages for cross-posting and remove
rec.audio.pro from
your responses. You'll find all the discussion you can handle in
newsgroups with "advocate"
in their name.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson
Mike Rivers
> "..Is there anything that Linux does demonstrably better than Windows
> for audio work?.."
>
> The assumption on my part was that you would grasp that what's meant
> is Linux as an environment vs. Windows as an environment.
No. There is one primary Linux application, Ardour, that provides
functions similar to
that of most Windows and Mac based DAW applications. However, there is
nothing
that it does better than any other application - it doesn't sound any
better, it doesn't
allow the user to work faster, it doesn't crash any less (though
sometimes, because of
the nature of Linux, is less destructive when crashing).
But on the negative side, there is less hardware and less auxiliary
software (such as
signal processing plug-ins) that are supported under Linux. This changes
very slowly
because of the nature of open source software - there's no money in it,
so there's little
incentive to develop universally applicable support. Hardware
manufacturers see only
a small handful of potential Linux users so they neither develop Linux
drivers for their
hardware nor give up documentation so that experimenters can develop
drivers on
their own. One or two pieces escape now and then but you can't buy the
latest and greatest
Firewire or USB2 hardware interface to use with your DAW under Linux
because the
operating system or middleware doesn't support it. This is the show
stopper.
If you're content to use hardware from 2005, like that you can get
software for free, and
are tickled that you don't have to give Apple or Microsoft a nickel for
your working tools,
you'll find LInux to be an advantage. If you want to make some
recordings of your band
practice on the cheap and you have a fair amount of experience with the
internal workings
of computer software, you'll be realy happy using LInux. If you want to
start a commercial
recording operation, you'd better use a program that won't cause your
potential clients to
wonder if you're really legitimate.
muzician21
> Yes, they are planted by Linux bigots such a yourself.
"Linux bigot". Interesting conclusion.
I've heard of it, I've never seen what the desktop on Linux looks
like. I just asked a question.
muzician21
> No. There is one primary Linux application, Ardour, that provides
> functions similar to
> that of most Windows and Mac based DAW applications. However, there is
> nothing
> that it does better than any other application - it doesn't sound any
> better, it doesn't
> allow the user to work faster, it doesn't crash any less
Okay, thanks for both of your informative responses.
Non scrivetemi
> "muzician21" <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c0f31977-fbf1-4379...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com
>
> > I keep seeing these references to Linux in relation to
> > audio work.
>
> Yes, they are planted by Linux bigots such a yourself.
>
> > Is there anything that Linux does demonstrably better
> > than Windows for audio work?
>
> (1) Cheap to obtain.
Windows is also cheap to obtain. You can find copies all over the net.
> (2) Takes lots of diddling to get to work at all, let alone work well.
False. Then again you do have to have a clue to get anything to work, but
somehow you have forgotten that. Just like a beginner can't buy
professional audio gear and expect it to work, a beginner can't install an
OS on any bare computer and expect it to work. If you didn't receive your
copy of Windows (crutchware) pre-installed and with the proper drivers
available, you would not be able to get it working either.
> (3) Generates very many war stories to tell online.
Not nearly as many as Windows virus stories, data corruption, blue screens
of death, etc. though.
> > Are there professional
> > money-making big-time studios that use it primarily or
> > use it exclusively in lieu of Windows?
>
> Highly unlikely.
So what?
> Now, lets get back to talking about audio, not OS advocacy.
Good for you, now that you made your opinion known.
Don't let the facts get in the way.
Scott Dorsey
You asked a severely loaded question with a lot of baggage, like going
into an Irish bar and asking whether Papism is a good idea or not.
It might be a good question, and you might sincerely want to know the
answer, but because of the history involved this is NOT the place to ask
it because you will not get any useful information and you may be injured
in the resulting crossfire.
muzician21
> It might be a good question, and you might sincerely want to know the
> answer, but because of the history involved this is NOT the place to ask
> it because you will not get any useful information
See both of Mike Rivers' answers above. As far as I'm concerned he
answered the question.
Mike Rivers
> See both of Mike Rivers' answers above. As far as I'm concerned he
> answered the question.
Yes, but there are a lot of Linux fans who would disagree with my
answer. Fortunately,
an insignificant number of them actually work in the professional audio
field as we know it
so they're just outlier data points.
david gourley
$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
I've used Linux since '93, and would still never consider it for any
professional work over my regular Windows /Mac offerings.
I also do video work in Vegas Pro, and have yet to see a Linux editor that
supports HD, let alone get close to matching what I'm using - a double
dealbreaker for me. There is no compelling reason there.
david
Richard Crowley
Peter Larsen
> On Apr 28, 1:57 am, "Peter Larsen" <digi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> muzician21 wrote:
>>> In many cases the discussions are several years old. Things change.
>> It is still extremely idiotic to assume that an OS is an audio
>> application, you question implies that asumption.
> Such a notion would of course require you the reader to extrapolate
> from the below quote that I'm also operating under the mistaken notion
> that Windows is an audio app -or- that I'm asking how does an audio
> app compare to an O/S for audio work which would make even less sense.
Yes.
> You have any actual information related to the original question?
If you want to go to the point rather than troll along, then ask about audio
applications that people find useful and what OS they require. Because that
is how the productivity choices are. It is and remains idiotic to ask about
the OS first and the application later.
For a simple guideline: select the application you like and get the OS and
hardware it requires.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Richard Webb
> PLONK! (WITH PREDJUDICE!!)
Have started doing that with most threads the op starts it
seems.
AT least via one source of this newsgroup, and with the
other usually just skip them <g>.
Regards,
Richard
Remote audio in the MEmphis, Tn. area: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Jonathan Gruber
> I keep seeing these references to Linux in relation to audio work.
>
> Is there anything that Linux does demonstrably better than Windows for
> audio work? Are there professional money-making big-time studios that
> use it primarily or use it exclusively in lieu of Windows?
Here is a true talented professional using Linux exclusively.
http://www.soundclick_dot_com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=504753&songID=9011655
change the soundclick_dot_com to .com
Mike Rivers
> Here is a true talented professional using Linux exclusively.
Who? Where? Where's his client list? Where are his credits? It says
he's an "amateur" one man band. Not to put down amateurs or one man
bands, but that sounds like the perfect match for Linux. He can't afford
to hire other musicians so he might not be able to afford software either.
Let me know when George Massenberg gives up commercial software to use
Linux applications in his studio exclusively.
david gourley
in...news:y57pqf34cn21$.fr2302d4...@40tude.net:
Never mind that he's listed as an "amateur hobbyist," but something is
telling me that I don't want to see his groupies.
david
PStamler
> > Here is a true talented professional using Linux exclusively.
Note that the true talented professional Mr. Gruber refers to is
himself.
Troll alert.
Peace,
Paul
Sylvain Robitaille
> It might be a good question, and you might sincerely want to know the
> answer, but because of the history involved this is NOT the place to
> ask it because you will not get any useful information ...
I would tend to agree with the OP that Mike Rivers clearly answered
his questions. In fact, I would say that in two messages, Mike wrote
probably the best, most concise, and most truthful description of
the issues involved. Unfortunately he had to go and spoil it with
the comment about "wasting time", though.
Investing your own time in setting up a system to perform just as you
would like it to is not wasted; it's the tradeoff for not having to
"waste" money on similar software (and then having to do it again
when you buy a new system with a new version of the OS, which doesn't
support the old software, etc.)
When I worked in live audio, of two production companies I worked
for, both made very regular use of in-house (designed and) built
speaker cabinets for PA and stage monitors, though both also had
some commercially purchased specimens of each. At the time, this
was pretty common practice. It may still be; I'm not sure. No one
(to my knowledge) suggested that the time that had been spent by
the designers and builders at each company was "wasted". Rather,
people tended to have confidence that these PAs or monitor systems
had been carefully designed to provide the best possible performance
for the money they were paying for the rentals. Neither were perfect,
of course, and they both had their issues, but overall, once you got
to know each company's equipment, you could work with them just as
easily as you could with some of the commercially provided speaker
systems (even though the commercial systems might have been overall
"better" or at least better looking).
I use Linux (and appropriate open-source software) for my own audio
projects, and I would love to see evidence that it's used on a large
scale in professional environments, but I don't kid myself (nor do I
try to fool anyone into believing) that they can just drop in and take
over for whatever other tools are being used (on whatever commercial
OS) in a professional environment. With the right knowledge, some
open-source software tools used on Linux *could* improve some people's
workflow, or make *some* audio manipulation tasks easier than some
commercial software commonly used for those tasks (think: performing
some operation on a set of files, as one easy to imagine example).
Also with the right knowledge, in some cases open-source software on
Linux could provide all the tools required for someone's projects.
The bottom line is, though, that in a more general sense, that
"right knowledge" is what some people prefer to pay someone else
(software vendors) to have, so they can focus on just using the tools.
For some people, Linux and open-source software provide the right
environment to be productive. For most of those that have found it
isn't, there usually is some fundamental item that is the show-stopper:
the documentation doesn't cover issues they need help resolving; the
OS simply cannot support certain hardware that the would-be user sees
as critical; they have a preference for one or more applications that
simply don't run on Linux (and they're not interested in investigating
an open-source equivalent application, or they would need multiple
open-source packages to provide the same functionality); the would-be
user is not a computer specialist, and has no interest in becoming
one just to be able to use the computer for the type of work for
which they are a specialist, I'm sure I could come up with more ...
Faced with any of the above (except perhaps the documentation issue,
for myself), I think even I would call "show-stopper", and I use
and heartily advocate for Linux and open-source software for audio
production ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@encs.concordia.ca
Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Bell
That's strange, the BBC use Linus for all their HD work.
Cheers
Ian
Laurence Payne
<mys...@nobb34.com> wrote:
>Here is a true talented professional using Linux exclusively.
>
>http://www.soundclick_dot_com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=504753&songID=9011655
>
>change the soundclick_dot_com to .com
Have you played it? It's one of those "look what I can do with a
sequencer" mashups, a loop interminably repeated with other loops
layered over it.
Arny Krueger
> On Apr 28, 5:47 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, they are planted by Linux bigots such a yourself.
> "Linux bigot". Interesting conclusion.
This has happened here, dozens of times. It probably last happened in the
past month. It might happen again tomorrow.
If you were sincere, my apologies.
The *real* answer is that audio computing primarily happens at the hardware
and application program level. You start the program, link in the data, and
edit for hours at a time. The OS is off there in the background some place.
To a very large degree all competent OSs are the same for audio.
For audio production, the OS is just something that starts programs,
manages hardware resources and generally stays out of the way as much as
possible.
I've done audio using Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000,
Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7.
Not a lot has changed in the OSs that mattered. What did change is the
hardware and the DAW software. However, the DAW software I use runs well
under at least the last 4 OS's.
Mike Rivers
> The *real* answer is that audio computing primarily happens at the hardware
> and application program level. You start the program, link in the data, and
> edit for hours at a time. The OS is off there in the background some place.
>
> To a very large degree all competent OSs are the same for audio.
>
> For audio production, the OS is just something that starts programs,
> manages hardware resources and generally stays out of the way as much as
> possible.
Good point, and helps to clarify that "Linux" is not an audio
application. However, in
order to use Linux as your OS of choice for audio production, you need
to choose
software and hardware that operating system supports. While there are
dozens of Linux
"media players" and "trackers," there really is only one fully featured
multitrack recording
and production programs - Ardour. One can say that the Linux community
is far more
focused than the Windows or Mac audio communities, or one can say that
there isn't
enough motiviation for similarly featured alternatives to have been
developed as is the
case with the more consumer-oriented operating systems.
Supported hardware is similar. With only a few exceptions, you can
expect that any audio
hardware that you've purchased in the last five years (for those who are
considering migration
to the Linux world) or will purchase within the next five years will
work with Windows or MacOS.
The number of devices that are supported by Linux software is pretty
limited - a lot of old hardware,
many standard computer sound cards, but not much that a pro studio or
serious hobbyist concerned
with audio quality would choose.
While it's certainly possible to do a very good job with Ardour and a
Delta 1010 interface, professionals
don't feel very confident that there are few alternatives in a universe
where creativity is often the
most important thing they can bring to the table, and that creativity
often involves trying different things.
starwars
> that any audio hardware that you've purchased in the last five years (for
> those who are considering migration to the Linux world) or will purchase
> within the next five years will work with Windows or MacOS.
> The number of devices that are supported by Linux software is pretty
> limited - a lot of old hardware, many standard computer sound cards, but
> not much that a pro studio or serious hobbyist concerned with audio
> quality would choose.
That is stale information. Linux is pretty current with drivers today and
since most devices use Firewire or USB you don't need special drivers at
all.
Richard Webb
SR> I would tend to agree with the OP that Mike Rivers clearly answered
SR> his questions. In fact, I would say that in two messages, Mike
SR> wrote probably the best, most concise, and most truthful description
SR> of the issues involved. Unfortunately he had to go and spoil it
SR> with the comment about "wasting time", though.
Would agree with that. Depends on what you want to do. I'm not using any sort of daw, but a stand alone hard disk
recorder for multi-track work, because there is no gui
that's practical for me trying to do it. REliability of
capturing the tracks is the most important factor, and that
means the familiar analog recorder type user interface, so I can listen to the audio I'm capturing instead of a speech
syntehsizer <g.. We've linux tools to move that captured
audio to media for the client and/or produce a few cd's,
etc.
SR> For some people, Linux and open-source software provide the right
SR> environment to be productive. For most of those that have found it
SR> isn't, there usually is some fundamental item that is the
SR> show-stopper: the documentation doesn't cover issues they need help
SR> resolving; the OS simply cannot support certain hardware that the
SR> would-be user sees as critical; they have a preference for one or
SR> more applications that simply don't run on Linux (and they're not
SR> interested in investigating an open-source equivalent application,
SR> or they would need multiple open-source packages to provide the same
SR> functionality); the would-be user is not a computer specialist, and
SR> has no interest in becoming one just to be able to use the computer
SR> for the type of work for which they are a specialist, I'm sure I
SR> could come up with more ...
Good ones, and similar considerations had to be taken when I decided what tools to acquire. tHis is why I don't
understand the os zealotry we see every time this topic
comes up here. Your preferred tool might be one thing, pt
on a mac fully featured might be soembody else's.
IF somebody's just got to use a pt rig for capture while
using my remote rig, he can plug it in, make sure my
assistant is familiar with the ui and we'll <urm> roll tape
<g>. Otherwise, a few hours after the performance is done
we'll have him media he can grab from a usb drive and load
into his pt system at leisure. I"m not going to get all
heated up because he likes his mac.
My main bugaboo is mainly trying to exchange text of one
sort or another with all these different systems. AS we
fragment in the operating system world people don't
understand wtf they should be doing when they're trying to
email a whole bunch of people. Had a guy trying to send a
bunch of us a document with position assignments for a
public service event our ham club was to support a couple
weeks ago. HE did the thing in ms works. HE doesn't have
word. hE was going to have one guy blow it into a pdf,
because nobody had works native format. I told him just
paste the text in an email. The concept is foreign to the
old boy. sO then he has another guy do it up in word, but
the guy who converts it to word for him has a version of
word nobody else in the group seems to be able to read.
FInally, in frustration I email the guy and say "call me on
the damned phone!!!" I'll copy the list quick.
Regards,
Richard
Scott Dorsey
>My main bugaboo is mainly trying to exchange text of one
>sort or another with all these different systems. AS we
>fragment in the operating system world people don't
>understand wtf they should be doing when they're trying to
>email a whole bunch of people.
If anything, I think we are far less fragmented then we used to be. When I
first got on the net, there were literally hundreds of operating systems on
the net, and some of them were running only on one or two machines at a single
site.
Sure, there are a few different systems today, but there are also standards
today too, and at least you can assume the word length is a power of two.
Check out the RFC for FTP if you want to see some real horrors to deal with
weird computers.
Where the problems happen today is when people look at existing standards and
decide to ignore them. I'm not mentioning any particular names but they know
who they are.
>Had a guy trying to send a
>bunch of us a document with position assignments for a
>public service event our ham club was to support a couple
>weeks ago. HE did the thing in ms works. HE doesn't have
>word. hE was going to have one guy blow it into a pdf,
>because nobody had works native format. I told him just
>paste the text in an email. The concept is foreign to the
>old boy. sO then he has another guy do it up in word, but
>the guy who converts it to word for him has a version of
>word nobody else in the group seems to be able to read.
>FInally, in frustration I email the guy and say "call me on
>the damned phone!!!" I'll copy the list quick.
It's true that some of the system user interfaces out there are not exactly
obvious, but also there are some people who just plain shouldn't be allowed
near a computer at all.
Hank
muzician21 <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I keep seeing these references to Linux in relation to audio work.
>
>Is there anything that Linux does demonstrably better than Windows for
>audio work? Are there professional money-making big-time studios that
>use it primarily or use it exclusively in lieu of Windows?
Oh good lord! Here we go again.
If you are going to process digital files, the key criterion is
appropriage hardware to handle the conversions between analog and
digital. That has nothing to do with "operating system."
By and large, appropriate software to handle the hardware is available
for use with Windows, Mac, several Linuxes; less for SVR4 or BSD
Unixes. The place to pose those questions is on sites for those
operating systems. Your choices will have to depend largely on your
application needs and on how much time you want to spend dealing with
bugs and cranky and cantankerous software, and I'll sum up my feelings
by saying they're all about equally bad. Audio is not a major
consumer market like word processing, spread sheets, and the like.
Hank
Richard Mann
In general, Windows applications are better: easier install/support of new
devices, nicer interface, support for plugins, etc. Two things are (often)
missing from Linux applications (eg., Audacity). One is realtime listening
through effects. For example, in Audacity you have to process a clip before
you can listen. The other is support for modern audio devices. A common
problem is that many newer USB devices need special firmware before they
become "standard" audio devices as the OS knows them. Windows handles this
automatically, but Linux support is often delayed, or not available at all.
Certainly, for the average user, either creating or editing music, there is no
benefit to using Linux.
The one useful application for Linux is remote/automated recording. If you've
got a computer deployed "in the field", say at a bar or music venue... or
outside recording nature sounds, or wherever. You can set it to automatically
record, or you can log in remotely to record. In this case the audio
application is very simple. The strength of Linux is that it is a stable
operating system with a robust filesystem, networking, webserver, scripting,
etc. All necessary software comes (free) as part of any modern distribution.
Richard
Mike Rivers
> That is stale information. Linux is pretty current with drivers today and
> since most devices use Firewire or USB you don't need special drivers at
> all.
I have three Firewire devices, all from Mackie. The one least applicable to
studio use, the Onyx mixer with the Firewire card, is listed in the
FFADO list
as having "full support" while the 1200F and Satellite are listed as
"unknown."
Also, it's not clear that "full support" includes a control panel
application equivalent
to the Windows or Mac one that comes with the hardware. It's not much
for the Onyx
mixer, just sample rate and word length, which, presumably, the
application program
can send it. But for example, with the Focusrite Pro interfaces, there's
a whole monitor
mixer in there, a very important feature of the device.
This is the FFADO list as of today, hardly "most" 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
That's not a bad lot to choose from if you're a hobbyist wanting to get
started
in audio recording using Linux software (I'd take the Focusrite Pro26
myself) but
still, I think of the lot, only the Echo AudioFire and Edirol models are
in current
production but both are long in the tooth and may not be around for that
much
longer.
USB2 support is even sparser. The only multichannel interface I could
find that
was supported (still with some bugs) is the discontinued Edirol UA-1000.
So at this point, for audio applications, Linux doesn't offer me the
opportunity
to use the hardware I have, however it allows me to choose from a
limited list. That's
not what computer-based anything is all about. It's about flexibility of
configuration.
Richard Webb
<snip>
>>sort or another with all these different systems. AS we
>>fragment in the operating system world people don't
>>understand wtf they should be doing when they're trying to
>>email a whole bunch of people.
> If anything, I think we are far less fragmented then we used to be.
> When I first got on the net, there were literally hundreds of
> operating systems on the net, and some of them were running only on
> one or two machines at a single site.
Yah but those who used them understood how to send something via what was available for email then so that everybody
could read the damned thing pretty much <g>.
> Sure, there are a few different systems today, but there are also
> standards today too, and at least you can assume the word length is
> a power of two. Check out the RFC for FTP if you want to see some
> real horrors to deal with weird computers.
I've read some about that, but it's mostly the wetware side
of the equation that's the problem these days <g>.
<snip again>
>>the guy who converts it to word for him has a version of
>>word nobody else in the group seems to be able to read.
>>FInally, in frustration I email the guy and say "call me on
>>the damned phone!!!" I'll copy the list quick.
> It's true that some of the system user interfaces out there are not
> exactly obvious, but also there are some people who just plain
> shouldn't be allowed near a computer at all.
<rotflmao!!!> Yah would agree with that.
kRegards,
Richard
Remote audio in the Memphis, Tn. area: See www.gatasound.com
Sylvain Robitaille
> ... it's mostly the wetware side of the equation that's the problem
> these days <g>.
Yes, and unfortunately that tends to be the most difficult to upgrade
Arny Krueger
wrote in message
news:236a704315fe48f1...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "muzician21" <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:c0f31977-fbf1-4379...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com
>>
>>> I keep seeing these references to Linux in relation to
>>> audio work.
>>
>> Yes, they are planted by Linux bigots such a yourself.
>>
>>> Is there anything that Linux does demonstrably better
>>> than Windows for audio work?
>>
>> (1) Cheap to obtain.
> Windows is also cheap to obtain. You can find copies all
> over the net.
Word has it that the business of easy pirating of Windows OS's stopped dead
with Windows 7 if not Vista. Pirating XP is very easy and common.
>> (2) Takes lots of diddling to get to work at all, let
>> alone work well.
> False.
Then lots of people are lying.
> Then again you do have to have a clue to get
> anything to work
Thanks for contradicting yourself so quickly.
> Just like a beginner can't buy professional audio gear
> and expect it to work, a beginner can't install an OS on
> any bare computer and expect it to work.
It happens all the time with Windows.
> If you didn't
> receive your copy of Windows (crutchware) pre-installed
> and with the proper drivers available, you would not be
> able to get it working either.
Like I said, I see working copies of Windows installed by school kids and
housewives, all the time.
Furthermore, the fact that virtually every PC is delivered with Windows,
counts for a lot.
>> (3) Generates very many war stories to tell online.
> Not nearly as many as Windows virus stories, data
> corruption, blue screens of death, etc. though.
You've made the usual mistake of not weighting the number of war stories by
the installed base. This doesn't just afflict OS's, it also afflicts
software and hardware.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that say Behringer has sold
far, far more (fill in the blanks) than say, Lab Gruppen and therefore far,
far more people are going to report troubles with Behringer widgets than
Lab Gruppen's.
It is often the niche low volume stuff that causes the most trouble for
people, if you look at percentages, not absolute numbers. Low volume stuff
often doesn't get the engineering and testing that high volume products do.
If a high volume producer screws up his development process he can far more
easily put himself out of business because the numbers are so high and the
margins are so low.
>>> Are there professional
>>> money-making big-time studios that use it primarily or
>>> use it exclusively in lieu of Windows?
>> Highly unlikely.
> So what?
If the big guys can't get it to work, given the greater resources they have
to throw at problems, doesn't that raise many concerns?
It seems to me that if anybody could save money with Linux-based audio
software, it would be a large studio with many computers. Get one to work
right and clone it. That's the strategy that has driven a great many Linux
commercial sucess stories. That's just common sense!
>> Now, lets get back to talking about audio, not OS
>> advocacy.
> Good for you, now that you made your opinion known.
My opinion is that for doing audio, all OSs that work well are equal. I've
already explained why.
However, the lack of audio interface driver and application support for
Linux, seems to be pretty daunting.
Audio production software and interfaces are like 500 pound gorillas. You
pick the ones you want and give them whatever hardware platform and OS that
*they* want.
If you are looking for a *universal* low-hassle OS platform, today and next
month you'll pick XP and *not* run your audio production machine on the web.
starwars
> > False.
>
> Then lots of people are lying.
>
> > Then again you do have to have a clue to get
> > anything to work
>
> Thanks for contradicting yourself so quickly.
Nice try, but no.
The equipment you can use so well now you could not use so well when you
first bought it. Otherwise, I could use it just as well as you.
And the apps your run on your Windows also required a learning curve.
My point is you have to have a clue. To use anything effectively requires
knowledge and experience. For the typical idiot Windows user, a realignment
of knowledge is required to get the most out of an operating system, simply
because of being brainwashed into thinking Redmond for so long.
> > Just like a beginner can't buy professional audio gear
> > and expect it to work, a beginner can't install an OS on
> > any bare computer and expect it to work.
>
> It happens all the time with Windows.
No, it does not. If it did then what is all your experience worth? I'll
just buy professional audio gear and a copy of Windows and run you out of
business. You're denying a reality that can't be denied. The simple fact is
you have to learn anything and have some degree of skill to be able to use
it effectively, and that comes with time and experience. Just because you
forget what it was like when you didn't know a microphone from a telephone
doesn't mean there wasn't such a time.
> Furthermore, the fact that virtually every PC is delivered with Windows,
> counts for a lot.
It counts for experience and a baseline you just denied the importance of a
few sentences prior.
> You've made the usual mistake of not weighting the number of war stories
> by the installed base. This doesn't just afflict OS's, it also afflicts
> software and hardware.
You have no idea how much installed base there is for anything, because
nobody but MS has any idea how many licenses they sell; many other OS are
not licensed.
> It is often the niche low volume stuff that causes the most trouble for
> people, if you look at percentages, not absolute numbers. Low volume
> stuff often doesn't get the engineering and testing that high volume
> products do.
That's a good observation, but it applies to professional audio as compared
to consumer devices, and yet you still make a living.
> >> Highly unlikely.
>
> > So what?
>
> If the big guys can't get it to work, given the greater resources they
> have to throw at problems, doesn't that raise many concerns?
No, it sounds like your assumption is that they did throw greater resources
at the problem, while I assume they just sidestepped the issue and went
with the mainstream. Why would somebody go out of his way to use an
unsupported OS when he can just buy apps and support for his business from
something known to work? Taking the easy was is easy. But it doesn't mean
there isn't an easy or more effective way to do something. It just means
playing it safe.
> However, the lack of audio interface driver and application support for
> Linux, seems to be pretty daunting.
I don't think that's an accurate statement, at best it's stale
information. Linux driver support has come a long way, and other aspects of
Linux, including better choices of filesystems, and better performance,
make it a great choice for many tasks.
But you have to have the apps you need available, as always.
Sean Conolly
news:hrd0hp$89k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> starwars wrote:
>
>> That is stale information. Linux is pretty current with drivers today and
>> since most devices use Firewire or USB you don't need special drivers at
>> all.
>
>
> 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
Don't see any MOTU devices in there either, or RME, or Lynx...
> So at this point, for audio applications, Linux doesn't offer me the
> opportunity to use the hardware I have, however it allows me to choose
> from a limited list. That's not what computer-based anything
> is all about. It's about flexibility of configuration.
... and I have WAY more money invested in the audio hardware than the
computer hardware. I picked my computer as a cheap system that supports my
audio hardware. Like any other computer & OS nowadays, it pretty much does
everything else I want it do, so the most important qualifier was that it
works with my hardware.
People forget that these are all just tools to do a job. You invest in the
tools that you need to do your job, and you don't care about the underlying
infrastructure as long as it works. For me that means that it needs to
record 12 channels at once without drop outs (easy) and be able to run VST
plugins on those tracks during mixdown (not as easy, but works unless I go
overboard with the reverb plugins).
It's like the handle on a hammer - it might be wood or fiberglass but most
people don't care as long as it gets the job done.
Sean
Moshe
> In article <c0f31977-fbf1-4379...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> muzician21 <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I keep seeing these references to Linux in relation to audio work.
>>
>>Is there anything that Linux does demonstrably better than Windows for
>>audio work? Are there professional money-making big-time studios that
>>use it primarily or use it exclusively in lieu of Windows?
>
> Oh good lord! Here we go again.
>
> If you are going to process digital files, the key criterion is
> appropriage hardware to handle the conversions between analog and
> digital. That has nothing to do with "operating system."
Wrong.
The key criterion is the software that the user can use to record,
process, master, release his recordings with.
The hardware is just a nasty part of the equation.
It's the software, and primarily the UI that dictates what various
people will choose and use.
> By and large, appropriate software to handle the hardware is available
> for use with Windows, Mac, several Linuxes; less for SVR4 or BSD
> Unixes.
Yea, in the raw sense of it all.
However what kind of an idiot would be using say Sun hardware to
run a recording studio?
Protools, or Nuendo offers so much more.
Why re-invent the wheel only to discover your "improvement" is
square?
> The place to pose those questions is on sites for those
> operating systems. Your choices will have to depend largely on your
> application needs and on how much time you want to spend dealing with
> bugs and cranky and cantankerous software, and I'll sum up my feelings
> by saying they're all about equally bad. Audio is not a major
> consumer market like word processing, spread sheets, and the like.
>
> Hank
Wrong again.
Audio is a vertical market which is why these applications retail
for thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars.
They don't sell a lot of them, but the people they sell to are
dead serious about their work.
And chances are good they are using either Windows or OSX.
If you go on an operating system specific site you will be met
with idiots hooking up oscilloscopes to pre-amps looking to
eliminate ticks and pops in vinyl recordings when far superior
software already exists but maybe not for their chosen platform.
I've seen this a million times in the past.
muzician21
> In general, Windows applications are better: easier install/support of new
> devices, nicer interface, support for plugins, etc. Two things are (often)
> missing from Linux applications (eg., Audacity). One is realtime listening
> through effects. For example, in Audacity you have to process a clip before
> you can listen.
Apparently there is a version of Audacity for Linux. Going by my
experimenting with Audacity there's a lot more issues with Audacity
beyond that.
It's laid out "funny" - somewhat non-intuitive and non-standard way
individual tracks behave. As far as I can tell you can't add to an
existing track, you have to record another one.
Another big one is the barebones accomodation of VST effects, or
effects in general. From what I've see it doesn't generally allow you
to save custom presets which by itself renders it basically useless.
Even my several years out of date version of Cakewalk does. I paid $70
for it on sale. Avoiding that annoyance by itself is more than worth
$70 to me. And Cakewalk of course also does Midi and has a long list
of features that Audacity doesn't. I don't think Audacity even does
something as basic as punch-in's. The term doesn't even appear on the
online help page.
What I use Audacity for is creating .mp3's and .ogg files. Does that
pretty well and I'd have to pay extra to do it with Cakewalk. For that
function it's more utilitarian than say Cdex which is free and does a
good job, is a bit more cumbersome to use.
Anahata
>
> Apparently there is a version of Audacity for Linux. Going by my
> experimenting with Audacity there's a lot more issues with Audacity
> beyond that.
I use Audacity mostly under Linux. It's a very useful application for
editing stereo audio and very simple mixing, but by no stretch of the
imagination could you call it a professional audio application and it's
certainly not a DAW.
It is, however, free and useful for some jobs.
--
Anahata
ana...@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
Moshe
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:07:18 -0700, muzician21 wrote:
>
>>
>> Apparently there is a version of Audacity for Linux. Going by my
>> experimenting with Audacity there's a lot more issues with Audacity
>> beyond that.
>
> I use Audacity mostly under Linux. It's a very useful application for
> editing stereo audio and very simple mixing, but by no stretch of the
> imagination could you call it a professional audio application and it's
> certainly not a DAW.
>
> It is, however, free and useful for some jobs.
It's one of the better Linux applications.
So is Ardour which is a multi-track recording program and much
more.
BTW here is a page which has instructions on how to get some
Windows VST(i) working with Linux.
David Gravereaux
> Let me know when George Massenberg gives up commercial software to use
> Linux applications in his studio exclusively.
From the login screen from the Massenburg automation for the Focusrite
Forte' at Electric Lady back around '88, it seemed to be UNIX System V
based.
But what do i know?
--
Mike Rivers
> From the login screen from the Massenburg automation for the Focusrite
> Forte' at Electric Lady back around '88, it seemed to be UNIX System V
> based.
That's not quite the same as GM using a Linux-based DAW. If
it's part of the automation system for a console, that's
part of the console and (at least at the time, supposedly)
supported by Focusrite. You can say the same for anyone
using a large Harrison console today.
Sorry, that one doesn't count. ;)
Scott Dorsey
>David Gravereaux wrote:
>
>> From the login screen from the Massenburg automation for the Focusrite
>> Forte' at Electric Lady back around '88, it seemed to be UNIX System V
>> based.
>
>That's not quite the same as GM using a Linux-based DAW. If
>it's part of the automation system for a console, that's
>part of the console and (at least at the time, supposedly)
>supported by Focusrite. You can say the same for anyone
>using a large Harrison console today.
I thought the Focusrite automation unit was a Cromemco 68k machine
in disguise, with that wacky CROMIX thing.
>Sorry, that one doesn't count. ;)
I am not sure if CROMIX really counts as Unix, but it's closer than ZCPR3
was anyway.
David Gravereaux
> Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>> David Gravereaux wrote:
>>
>>> From the login screen from the Massenburg automation for the Focusrite
>>> Forte' at Electric Lady back around '88, it seemed to be UNIX System V
>>> based.
>> That's not quite the same as GM using a Linux-based DAW. If
>> it's part of the automation system for a console, that's
>> part of the console and (at least at the time, supposedly)
>> supported by Focusrite. You can say the same for anyone
>> using a large Harrison console today.
>
> I thought the Focusrite automation unit was a Cromemco 68k machine
> in disguise, with that wacky CROMIX thing.
CROMIX? So that's what GML ran on? Okay..
>> Sorry, that one doesn't count. ;)
really?
"In 1979, Cromemco released CROMIX, the first Unix-like operating system
for microcomputers. CROMIX initially ran on the System Three and would
later run on Cromemco systems using the Motorola 68K family of
microprocessors."
Eat your words, Mike. GM *was* relying on a unix app. Do you prefer
your crow broiled or pan fried?
--
Mike Rivers
> Eat your words, Mike. GM *was* relying on a unix app. Do you prefer
> your crow broiled or pan fried?
I didn't mean to imply that GM never used Unux. I wouldn't
at all be surprised if he didn't have a few Unix or Linux
servers around his shop. I said he hadn't yet adopted a
Linux DAW. One application in which Unix beats Windows is as
a network server, but this is rec.audio.pro where we discuss
AUDIO applications, not comp.unix.networking.
Scott Dorsey
>David Gravereaux wrote:
>
>> Eat your words, Mike. GM *was* relying on a unix app. Do you prefer
>> your crow broiled or pan fried?
>
>I didn't mean to imply that GM never used Unux. I wouldn't
>at all be surprised if he didn't have a few Unix or Linux
>servers around his shop. I said he hadn't yet adopted a
>Linux DAW. One application in which Unix beats Windows is as
>a network server, but this is rec.audio.pro where we discuss
>AUDIO applications, not comp.unix.networking.
Having spent many horrible evenings trying to port V7 code to CROMIX, I
can attest that CROMIX ain't Unix any more than a VW bug is an 18-wheeler.
And that goes double for Xenix.
George Orwell
> this is rec.audio.pro where we discuss AUDIO applications, not
> comp.unix.networking.
Correction: Unix beats Windows in every possible scenario.
The only question is, do you have the applications you need? You don't need
an OS, you're appliance users. You need apps.
Stick to what you know! ;-)
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Arny Krueger
"George Orwell" <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:c5393cca03182d47...@mixmaster.it...
>> One application in which Unix beats Windows is as a network server, but
>> this is rec.audio.pro where we discuss AUDIO applications, not
>> comp.unix.networking.
> Correction: Unix beats Windows in every possible scenario.
That's true until you start trying to get real work done in the real world.
Then, the well-known and well-documented issues with *nix hardware support
and application support are up front and personal.
Mike Rivers
> The only question is, do you have the applications you need? You don't need
> an OS, you're appliance users. You need apps.
When it comes to audio production, Unix applications are way
behind applications that run under other operating systems.
So, yes, it's important, unless you're setting out to
develop a new application (see the thread about microphones
and home machine shops) you'll want to choose an application
that best suits your needs, and that will dictate the
operating system that you need to support it.
There are certain applications for which pretty much
indistinguishable programs are available under all of the
popular operating systems. For most people, there's
essentially no difference between using Microsoft Office
under Windows and Open Office under Linux (or under Windows,
for that matter). Same goes for web browsers, though often
if a particular program is offered in both a Windows and
Linux version, one is usually somewhat behind in features
than the other, at least for a while. A heavy web surfer
might prefer using a Linux based system because the virus
writers haven't paid much attention to attacking those
systems yet, but otherwise it makes little difference.
On the other hand, if you're in the commercial recording
business and your business plan requires Pro Tools, then you
must have a system that supports it, and that's not Linux.
Ardour is not Pro Tools, not in name, not in functionality.
You may be able to do all you need for your own project
using Linux audio applications, but you can't compete in the
market if that's your only system.
> Stick to what you know! ;-)
You, too. Your experience and opinions are welcome here when
you can apply them to AUDIO PRODUCTION applications, not
generalities.
Non scrivetemi
You missed the point, Mike. Stick to what you know.
The issue is not what OS, it's what apps you need. I understand that you
don't know the difference, to you it's all the same. But it's really not.
Arny Krueger
> Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> You missed the point, Mike. Stick to what you know.
?????????????????
> The issue is not what OS, it's what apps you need.
You seem to have grasped the gist of what Mike said, which makes your
previous comment quite mystifying.
> I understand that you don't know the difference, to you it's all the same.
That's not what Mike said.
> But it's really not.
That's not what Mike said.
Mike Rivers
> You missed the point, Mike. Stick to what you know.
>
> The issue is not what OS, it's what apps you need. I understand that you
> don't know the difference, to you it's all the same. But it's really not.
I know that there are no applications which only run under
Linux that I would find advantageous over what I'm presently
using. Is that succinct a statement for you?
I also know that the audio applications that I prefer to use
have no versions that run under Linux. Also, much of the
audio hardware that I presently own or am considering
purchasing does not have support under Linux. The operating
system, as well as the applications (unless you consider a
driver as an "application", which in a sense it is) is an
integral part of the picture and applications cannot be
considered on their own.
There are others who may believe that such things as no cash
outlay for software, access to source code and developers,
and a computer less susceptible to virus infections override
the advantages that I perceive for packaged commercial
software. They're welcome to that opinion and I have no
objection to their use of *x applications for whatever they
want, including audio.
What I object to is the insistence by the Linux advocates
here that everything is superior to a Windows based system
for any application. By the time Avid ports Pro Tools to
Linux, Linux will probably be sufficiently transparent to me
at the user level so that I might consider adopting it for
some of its security and crash-resistance over Windows, with
the comfort of knowing that there are adequate "office,"
mail, and web applications (which nobody else cares what you
use). But not today, thank you.
Peter Gehard
> Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
>
> You missed the point, Mike. Stick to what you know.
Mike seems to be a dinosaur who never kept up with the times.
Scott Dorsey is another one.
There is nothing wrong with tape and analog but these guys really
need to update their skills to include Linux because Linux will
eventually take over.
> The issue is not what OS, it's what apps you need. I understand that you
> don't know the difference, to you it's all the same. But it's really not.
Linux running jack and Ardour can do at least 90 percent of what
Protools can do and when it comes to the LE or Maudio versions,
also known as castrated versions, Ardour leads the pack.
Linux is free.
Linux has source code.
Linux has a dedicated community offering support.
Linux supports most of the major interfaces.
Linux can run many popular vst and vsti via wine.
What can Protools do other than tie you into proprietary software
and an upgrade path where the company holds a knife to your neck
while it fucks you in the a$$.
I'm running well over 100 tracks in Ardour and with my VSTi I am
getting 4.3msec latency with zero pops and clicks.
Even Reaper can't manage that on the same Q4 system.
The Linux plugin effects are easily as good as some of the so
called professional alternatives. Who the fuck would spend $5k for
Waves?
That's crazy.
I doubt most people could even hear the difference.
Linux is poised to take over the recording industry much like it
is taking over the embedded devices industry. As Protools and Avid
fester in their own filth trying to come up with marketing schemes
to suck people into their overpriced products, Linux is happily
plodding along gaining support one user at a time.
Ian Bell
> On Thu, 6 May 2010 11:46:19 +0200 (CEST), Non scrivetemi wrote:
>
>> Mike Rivers<mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You missed the point, Mike. Stick to what you know.
> Mike seems to be a dinosaur who never kept up with the times.
> Scott Dorsey is another one.
> There is nothing wrong with tape and analog but these guys really
> need to update their skills to include Linux because Linux will
> eventually take over.
>
>> The issue is not what OS, it's what apps you need. I understand that you
>> don't know the difference, to you it's all the same. But it's really not.
>
> Linux running jack and Ardour can do at least 90 percent of what
> Protools can do and when it comes to the LE or Maudio versions,
> also known as castrated versions, Ardour leads the pack.
> Linux is free.
> Linux has source code.
> Linux has a dedicated community offering support.
> Linux supports most of the major interfaces.
> Linux can run many popular vst and vsti via wine.
This post perpetuates a number of myths about Linux.
1. Linux is free as in freedom but not as in beer. And of course Linux
is just the OS. Anyone is free to charge for applications running under
Linux and many do.
2. Linux, the OS, has source code available, but in general there is no
requirement for application providers to do the same except as provided
by the GPL. (nvidea for example)
3. Linux has a dedicated support community and that's just what it is, a
community. Unfortunately many Linux applications are very poorly
documented and much community suipport is given over to answering basic
operational questions rather than sorting out bugs.
And just to set the record straight, I am an avid Linux user and I do
not like zealots of any kind.
Cheers
Ian
Sylvain Robitaille
> 1. Linux is free as in freedom but not as in beer. ...
I beg to differ. There are plenty of (very well known, widely used)
Linux distributions that are "free", both as in "free speech" and
"free beer" ... The same is true of open-source applications that
run on Linux.
> 2. Linux, the OS, has source code available, but in general there is
> no requirement for application providers to do the same except as
> provided by the GPL. ...
True, but there are plenty of applications, some of which are quite high
quality products that do provide full source code. Case in point,
relevant to this newsgroup, is Ardour.
> 3. ... many Linux applications are very poorly documented and much
> community suipport is given over to answering basic operational
> questions rather than sorting out bugs.
Narrow the scope of your comment to the more "important" audio (or
related) applications, and the picture is again not as bad as you paint.
In fact, I would argue that in some instances, what caused some
applications to become "important" at all for the task (rather than some
other application that performs similar tasks), is indeed the quality of
end-user support from both developpers and user community.
Arny Krueger
"Peter Gehard" <pghar...@mymail.com> wrote in message
news:zhwebw2besa9$.10rnvy748c0x7$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Linux running jack and Ardour can do at least 90 percent of what
> Protools can do and when it comes to the LE or Maudio versions,
> also known as castrated versions, Ardour leads the pack.
IOW Ardour does 90% of what castrated mainsteam software does. Somehow, I'm
not all that excited.
> Linux is free.
> Linux has source code.
> Linux has a dedicated community offering support.
The OS is less than 10% of the cost of a typical DAW. The minor cost savings
due to the free OS can easily be lost any number of ways:
(1) Retraining to install and use the new OS.
(2) Retraining to use a different DAW application
(3) Work lost due to not running the same software as competitors and
cooperating audio production facilities.
> Linux supports most of the major interfaces.
The audio interface market is highly fragmented.
IOW, Linux supports only a tiny fraction of the audio interfaces that are
available and commonly used. Furthermrore it is not clear that the support
is actually 1:1 as compared to the mainstream or otherwise desired
offerings.
> What can Protools do other than tie you into proprietary software
> and an upgrade path where the company holds a knife to your neck
> while it fucks you in the a$$.
The myth here is that Protools is used by the majority of DAW users. DAW
software is yet another highly fragmented marketplace.
Mike Rivers
> Mike seems to be a dinosaur who never kept up with the times.
> Scott Dorsey is another one.
I use DAWs occasionall. Scott uses Unix and knows how to use
a Mac from the command line.
> There is nothing wrong with tape and analog but these guys really
> need to update their skills to include Linux because Linux will
> eventually take over.
By the time Linux "takes over" there should be no need to
have Linux skills because it will be transparent. It's all
about the APPLICATIONS, not the operating system. If I can
use Nuendo for Windows, I should be able to use Nuendo for
Linux. Nuendo for Linux? When pigs fly.
> Linux running jack and Ardour can do at least 90 percent of what
> Protools can do and when it comes to the LE or Maudio versions,
> also known as castrated versions, Ardour leads the pack.
What good is 90% if you need the other 10%? And why Jack?
Why aren't all of Jack's functions, or at least as much as
you need to run a DAW, integrated either with the DAW
application or the opeating system? I don't need to learn an
application to select inputs and outputs for my Windows DAW,
I just pick them off a list in a menu in the DAW.
> Linux is free.
So is the flu. But I have to pay for a hamburger.
> Linux has source code.
So? How does that help me? I want to run applications, not
write (or modify) software. I want someone who knows what I
need to do to write the software for me. If it's not exactly
the way I want it, I'll learn to work with it or get a
different application.
> Linux has a dedicated community offering support.
Yeah, they can support it IF you know Linux and can
understand what they're talking about. I guess this is why
we'll have to update our Linux skills.
> Linux supports most of the major interfaces.
Horseshit!
> Linux can run many popular vst and vsti via wine.
You need two programs to do the work of one? Sounds like a
workaround to me.
> What can Protools do other than tie you into proprietary software
> and an upgrade path where the company holds a knife to your neck
> while it fucks you in the a$$.
Get you customers with real budgets.
> I'm running well over 100 tracks in Ardour and with my VSTi I am
> getting 4.3msec latency with zero pops and clicks.
Yeah, and my dick is 14 inches long.
> The Linux plugin effects are easily as good as some of the so
> called professional alternatives. Who the fuck would spend $5k for
> Waves?
It's clear that you don't really work in the audio world.
It's not always about what's good, it's what the paying
customers ask for. You gotta have it. You can use whatever
you want at whatever cost (or lack of it) when working on
your own projects, but you're on an island there. What you
do in your bedroom is of no concern to me.
> I doubt most people could even hear the difference.
They could if they asked you for a particular effect and it
wasn't available among the Adrour-supported VSTs.
> Linux is poised to take over the recording industry much like it
> is taking over the embedded devices industry.
I don't think so. Users neither know nor care what supports
their embedded devices. Show me an iPad user who needs to
know Linux. In fact, show me a Pro Tools user who needs to
know Windows.
> Linux is happily
> plodding along gaining support one user at a time.
Exactly.
Moshe
> On Thu, 6 May 2010 11:46:19 +0200 (CEST), Non scrivetemi wrote:
>
>> Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You missed the point, Mike. Stick to what you know.
> Mike seems to be a dinosaur who never kept up with the times.
> Scott Dorsey is another one.
I totally disagree. Both Mike and Scott have extensive experience
in the field of audio, electronics, music and so forth. I have
learned a great deal reading their posts over many years and am
grateful. I don't always agree with them, but you can't discredit
their hands on approach. Besides, is everything *really* better
with the newer technology?
If you think so, I suggest taking a trip over the
www.gearslutz.com and reading some of the tape or vintage OTB
approach threads.
> There is nothing wrong with tape and analog but these guys really
> need to update their skills to include Linux because Linux will
> eventually take over.
I've been hearing this for 15+ years.
It hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen.
Linux is a toy for geeks or people who have minimul desktop needs
like email, browsing etc.
Yes cases can be made that make Linux look good but let's be
honest, and operating system that has languished for 15+ years, is
free and still couldn't capitalize on Microsoft's blunders like
Windows ME and Windows Vista isn't likely to start taking the
world by storm now.
Besides it's all about applications.
For professional audio and video Mac and Windows has all the good
ones.
You will have to pay though, something Linux users detest.
See Loki (a game company) for examples. They went out of business
trying to offer high quality Linux games because the Linux
community mostly refused to pay for them.
>
>> The issue is not what OS, it's what apps you need. I understand that you
>> don't know the difference, to you it's all the same. But it's really not.
>
> Linux running jack and Ardour can do at least 90 percent of what
> Protools can do and when it comes to the LE or Maudio versions,
> also known as castrated versions, Ardour leads the pack.
> Linux is free.
Ardour is a glorified multi-track streaming application.
Even the free stuff included with interfaces is better IMHO.
Why?
At least you can run plugins that are quality products.
That gives it an advantage from the start.
> Linux has source code.
That and 50 cents used to get you a slice of piazza in NYC.
Big deal.
You could give me the design specs for a 747 but that wouldn't
help me on my next trip to France.
> Linux has a dedicated community offering support.
Mostly geeks who have no clue about audio, DAW work, or how the
industry and musicians in particular think.
> Linux supports most of the major interfaces.
That's a lie.....
Where is support for my Alesis Master Control?
Ubuntu 10.04 ignores it.
How about the room correction software for the JBL monitor
controller?
How about the Euphonix controllers?
http://www.euphonix.com/artist/products/mc_mix/
How about the Allen and Heath Zed series?
Do these popular devices work?
I'm asking, and this is just a sampling.
> Linux can run many popular vst and vsti via wine.
Wine is a crutch.
An abortion.
I have yet to see wine run a windows application as well as stock
windows does despite the clamoring and lies from the LIEnux
community.
> What can Protools do other than tie you into proprietary software
> and an upgrade path where the company holds a knife to your neck
> while it fucks you in the a$$.
Since when are you forced to upgrade?
> I'm running well over 100 tracks in Ardour and with my VSTi I am
> getting 4.3msec latency with zero pops and clicks.
Good for you.
PGMusic Powertracks can do that and much more for $39.95.
> Even Reaper can't manage that on the same Q4 system.
Doubtful.
Reaper is better than Ardour IMHO just for the fact it supports
VST and VSTi fully.
> The Linux plugin effects are easily as good as some of the so
> called professional alternatives. Who the fuck would spend $5k for
> Waves?
> That's crazy.
> I doubt most people could even hear the difference.
Personally, I agree with you there.
The price of plugins IMHO is out of control.
> Linux is poised to take over the recording industry much like it
> is taking over the embedded devices industry. As Protools and Avid
> fester in their own filth trying to come up with marketing schemes
> to suck people into their overpriced products, Linux is happily
> plodding along gaining support one user at a time.
Not in my lifetime.
I've been hearing this same crap from the LIEnux community for 15+
years and it hasn't happened.
Every Jan 1st we hear how this is going to be the year of Linux.
It never happens and until you guys can focus your efforts, stop
releasing garbage like Ubuntu 10.04 and get some leadership, Linux
will remain a niche operating system with mostly substandard
applications. And remember this, the good applications, at leas
most of them, are also cross platform. Stuff like firefox,
Openoffice, Apache etc.
Just my 2 cents.
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>And why Jack?
>Why aren't all of Jack's functions, or at least as much as
>you need to run a DAW, integrated either with the DAW
>application or the opeating system? I don't need to learn an
>application to select inputs and outputs for my Windows DAW,
>I just pick them off a list in a menu in the DAW.
That's a bit unfair. Routing needs to be taken care of. You either
"learn" a page in your DAW, then another page in another audio
application, then struggle with Rewire if you want to get them working
together... or you learn one page that handles routing for the whole
system. Jack is implemented in a thoroughly nerdy way, but it's a
good idea.
How many patchbays would you like in an analogue studio?
Moshe
ReWire works rather well.
Jack?
Good luck getting that nightmare to work.
IMHO the best routing matrix is using Reaper.
It's very old school, like a typical patchbay, but it works.
The problem with Linux, Jack etc is that it looks a hell of a lot
better on paper than it does in real life use.
Mike Rivers
> How many patchbays would you like in an analogue studio?
As many as are needed. I like them because I can see what's
connected without interpreting gobbledegook on a computer
screen.
0jun...@bellsouth.net
MIke Rivers writes:
>Laurence Payne wrote:
>> How many patchbays would you like in an analogue studio?
>As many as are needed. I like them because I can see what's
>connected without interpreting gobbledegook on a computer
>screen.
cable instead of trying to guess wtf with zeroes and ones
that go through a little chip the size of my thumbnail that
I wouldn't be able to interpret even if I knew wtf was
inside.
I have some spare patch panel in the truck right now against
future expansion, and am in fact looking for more when the
price is good <g>.
Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the Memphis, Tn. area: see www.gatasound.com
Peter Larsen
> Linux running jack and Ardour can do at least 90 percent of what
> Protools can do and when it comes to the LE or Maudio versions,
> also known as castrated versions, Ardour leads the pack.
You keep putting the cart before the horse and your level of information is
well described by you waging a war against the windows platform by attacking
an mac based application.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Sylvain Robitaille
> ReWire works rather well.
> Jack? Good luck getting that nightmare to work.
I'm puzzled. It works for me. I have no way to offer comparison to
ReWire, though, as I have no experience with it. Really, I don't recall
ever having trouble getting Jack to do what I needed. I'm curious to
know what caused you so much difficulty with it ...
Sylvain Robitaille
> As many as are needed. I like them because I can see what's
> connected without interpreting gobbledegook on a computer
> screen.
Gobbledegook on the screen? It resembles a patchbay (well, a vertical
patchbay, sort of, once you have some connections made), with inputs
and outputs labeled ... My only real "hangup" with Jack is when
setting up a patch, I find I don't really think in the same terms as
the interface: select an input, select an output, click "connect";
select the next input, select the next output, click "connect", etc.
When I work with a physical patchbay, I start with a cable in hand, and
connect each end, sometimes in one motion (one cable end in each hand).
I find I need to think more about what I'm trying to accomplish with
the "virtual patchbay".
Some applications (Ardour comes to mind) do have a means to
auto-connect inputs and outputs, with some degree of intelligence,
but even with those it isn't unusual to have to go re-route some
signals, especially if/when you're doing something atypical.
With regard to the concern about having to learn to use a separate
application to route signals into and out of the DAW application,
though, that is not the case with Ardour: it has it's own capability
to edit input sources and output destinations, that interfaces with
Jack behind the scenes. You can use Jack directly, or you can use
Ardour's "edit input" and "edit output" dialog boxes. You just need
Jack to be running, though I've seen situations where it's started
automatically as a side-effect of starting an application that uses it.
I really think you should give the application a try before writing it
off as too difficult to use, because the reasons you cite to support
your conclusions aren't always correct, making it clear you haven't
actually used it.
Back to Jack, though, it occurs to me you may not be using the
Qjackctl interface to interact with Jack, so perhaps you *are*
seeing gobbledegook. Hrmmm ... perhaps Moshe's not used Qjackctl
either, explaining his "nighmares" with Jack .... Guys, when you
start thinking of doing *anything* directly with Jack, Qjackctl is
the way to do it that will permit you to remain sane (and still get
stuff done without too much fussing about). Maybe that helps?
Sylvain Robitaille
> Ardour is a glorified multi-track streaming application.
Well, yes, though the same description can be applied as closely to any
DAW, quite frankly. Some have more features, some have fewer; not all
the "more features" are necessarily useful, or add to the application's
status as a DAW; and not all DAWs with fewer features are necessarily
easier to use or better performers. (they're not necessarily worse,
either, of course).
>> Linux has a dedicated community offering support.
>
> Mostly geeks who have no clue about audio, DAW work, or how the
> industry and musicians in particular think.
Streamline your support requests to the Linux-audio community, and I
think you'll find a much better signal-to-noise ratio.
> Where is support for my Alesis Master Control?
> Ubuntu 10.04 ignores it.
Ubuntu is only one example of a Linux distribution. I'm not saying
another exists that supports your Alesis interface (I don't know whether
any do; If I knew I'd gladly tell you), but I think it's important that
readers understand that just because XYZ-1.11 doesn't support something
(out of the box) doesn't necessarily mean that it can't, or that Linux
can't. However, as with many devices for which only proprietary drivers
exist, and only for proprietary operating systems, if the Linux kernel
doesn't have a driver for the device, there's no way XYZ-1.11 (or Ubuntu
10.anything) will be able to support it. That is one of the realities
that it turns out is an obstacle for people who might otherwise at least
try Linux for at least some of their audio projects.
> How about the room correction software for the JBL monitor controller?
... and that is another.
> How about the Euphonix controllers?
> http://www.euphonix.com/artist/products/mc_mix/
> How about the Allen and Heath Zed series?
> Do these popular devices work?
Both are devices that I would certainly be happy to report if I
knew they work with Linux. The fact is, though I have very high
opinion of both companies' products, I myself have shied away from
buying devices in both these product lines, specifically due to the
uncertainty of whether they would interface cleanly and fully with
my Linux workstations.
We have the same (or at least similar) concerns, but we're looking at
the playing field from different angles and therefore have different
approaches to avoiding the pitfalls of those concerns.
> I have yet to see wine run a windows application as well as stock
> windows does ...
I'll agree with this (despite very little experience with either Wine or
Windows). If the application that runs only on Windows is so critical
to the operation, it only makes sense that it's best to just run it on
Windows. The next best is usually to find someone else's application
that performs the same function but doesn't require Windows. Individual
mileage will vary.
>> What can Protools do other than tie you into proprietary software
>> and an upgrade path ...
>
> Since when are you forced to upgrade?
You've never heard from a software vendor's support staff, "oh we
haven't supported that version in ___ years; you'll need to upgrade to
version ___ if you want support"? If you don't need vendor support,
of course, the question is moot anyway ... What about situations
where the old version is unable to work with newer hardware (or a
newer OS version, and your new computer came with a new OS that doesn't
provide a backward compatible interface between hardware and
applications)?
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>> How many patchbays would you like in an analogue studio?
>
>As many as are needed. I like them because I can see what's
>connected without interpreting gobbledegook on a computer
>screen.
You miss my point. Would you like
Mike Rivers
> Gobbledegook on the screen? It [Jack] resembles a patchbay (well, a vertical
> patchbay, sort of, once you have some connections made), with inputs
> and outputs labeled ... My only real "hangup" with Jack is when
> setting up a patch, I find I don't really think in the same terms as
> the interface: select an input, select an output, click "connect";
> select the next input, select the next output, click "connect", etc.
Maybe in my short time with an attempt to make friends with
a Linux audio system, I missed the button, but I never found
an equivalent to normals on a hardware patchbay. I believe I
made a setup "stick" (though I can't really be sure since I
was playing with a lot of things in a relatively short time,
trying to find something that worked for me) but if I wanted
to change anything, I had to undo connections and re-do some
of them.
Admittedly, some people will have the same argument about a
hardware patchbay, but with some thought and a reasonably
stable set of equipment, much of the time, no cables are
needed.
> Some applications (Ardour comes to mind) do have a means to
> auto-connect inputs and outputs, with some degree of intelligence,
> but even with those it isn't unusual to have to go re-route some
> signals, especially if/when you're doing something atypical.
I never really got that far since the only interfaces that I
had that were supported under Linux were 2-channel
interfaces, and not very many of them.
> With regard to the concern about having to learn to use a separate
> application to route signals into and out of the DAW application,
> though, that is not the case with Ardour: it has it's own capability
> to edit input sources and output destinations, that interfaces with
> Jack behind the scenes.
This is the way it should be. I don't really care if THE
APPLICATION uses Jack, as long as it doesn't make me use it,
or check it to see that it's done the correct thing. I'm
sure that essentially the same thing happens with Windows
applications - the program communicates with the hardware's
driver and that's where the inputs and outputs are connected
to the program's functions. But all of that happens behind
the scenes. The only time I need to look at the driver's
control panel is if I want to use its internal mixer to set
up an auxiliary, for instance, a headphone monitor, mix if
that capability is provided.
As a related dig, for certain hardware interfaces that offer
a built-in DSP mixer and are supported by one of the Linux
projects (the Focusrite Pro 26 i/o comes to mind) the inputs
and outputs are available to an application, but the control
panel (necessary in order to use the hardware's DSP mixer)
is not (at least not when I was visiting) yet supported. So
while your application may have access to a bunch of inputs
and outputs, you can't take advantage of one of the things
that the hardware does very well.
> You can use Jack directly, or you can use
> Ardour's "edit input" and "edit output" dialog boxes.
I'm just not comfortable using the term "edit" when I want
to "connect" something. I don't "edit" my patchbay. This is
one of those things that programmers find natural but audio
engineers don't.
> I really think you should give the application a try before writing it
> off as too difficult to use, because the reasons you cite to support
> your conclusions aren't always correct, making it clear you haven't
> actually used it.
I wanted to give Ardour a try, but I couldn't use it with
anything other than stereo I/O hardware. But from what I
saw, even if I had a multi-channel interface working with
it, I didn't see any reason to replace what I already had,
nor did I see anything that - TO ME - appeared to be any
easier to understand and get working on than what many other
programs that were developed to suit a wide range of users,
not just the Ardour community. If my thinking led me to use
terms like "edit" to make connections, I might have found it
more attractive.
> Back to Jack, though, it occurs to me you may not be using the
> Qjackctl interface to interact with Jack, so perhaps you *are*
> seeing gobbledegook.
Yes, I found the Jack control panel. That allowed me to
label things, but it still seemed to be a more tedious
process to make connections than with a patchbay. One thing
that made it difficult for me was that I just found the
layout too small and hard to find my way around. This isn't
unique to Jack though - I like big physical things when
dealing with physical things, not a small on-screen
representation of physical things. I've never really crossed
over that hump. It's probably a function of my vision as
much as anything else. I'm not as bad off as Richard - I can
see a screen, but I find myself scrunching over to look at
it too closely to see what I did wrong.
For me, it's not about nightmares, it's just too much bother
for not enough benefit for me. For someone who isn't happy
with a $40 Windows program, or who just doesn't want to
support Microsoft (or Apple) or must share a computer
between mastering audio and visiting porn web sites, or has
special requirements and the programming skill to create or
modify programs to work "my way" I'm all for there being a
platform for them. But I prefer to take the easy way out
even if it means spending a little more money, and working
within someone else's constraints as long as they don't
bother me too much (and when they do I'll look for another
program) and have something that I can start up and use.
It's a personal thing, but I think I'm safe in saying that
there are more "persons" like me in the audio community than
persons to whom more things than getting down to work are
important. I'm not anti-Linux. I just don't have the
optimism that some have that it's going to take over the
world. Not even Apple or Microsoft has done that.
Moshe
> Moshe wrote:
>
>> ReWire works rather well.
>> Jack? Good luck getting that nightmare to work.
>
> I'm puzzled. It works for me. I have no way to offer comparison to
> ReWire, though, as I have no experience with it. Really, I don't recall
> ever having trouble getting Jack to do what I needed. I'm curious to
> know what caused you so much difficulty with it ...
Well naturally I just erased the screen shots I took, but with
Fedora 12 on my test system with a Delta card I couldn't jack to
run.
I installed from the repositories and with all dependencies as
well as qjackctl etc.
It was some kind of permission error but even trying to run as
root didn't solve it.
I've had it all running in the past under Suse so I know it works
but it's still confusing compared to the Windows tools.
It might be more powerful in that you can control remote devices,
computers etc but when the support for devices isn't there with
Linux what's the use?
To me it's just a crude application that gets in the way.
I have Ubuntu 10.04 LTS on that machine now.
Don't ask because it's a mess.
For someone who wants to take the time to set up say an entire
studio, using supported devices, labeling everything within Linux
and setting up various configurations that can be loaded, Jack may
be just the ticket.
I think Sound On Sound did an article on a studio like that.
For me, I prefer Windows software because it doesn't get in the
way.
Moshe
> Moshe wrote:
>>> Linux has a dedicated community offering support.
>>
>> Mostly geeks who have no clue about audio, DAW work, or how the
>> industry and musicians in particular think.
>
> Streamline your support requests to the Linux-audio community, and I
> think you'll find a much better signal-to-noise ratio.
Maybe things have changed, but I tried that once on the ALSA
mailing list asking a question regarding playing 2 sounds at once.
I got some long winded response about interrupt timers and other
programming nonsense.
All I wanted to know was what I had to put into the .asoundrc file
to get my Delta 1010 to work.
I've had this experience other times as well.
Here is a website that lists firewire audio devices and what kind
of support to expect:
http://www.ffado.org/?q=devicesupport/list
It's not encouraging.
> You've never heard from a software vendor's support staff, "oh we
> haven't supported that version in ___ years; you'll need to upgrade to
> version ___ if you want support"? If you don't need vendor support,
> of course, the question is moot anyway ... What about situations
> where the old version is unable to work with newer hardware (or a
> newer OS version, and your new computer came with a new OS that doesn't
> provide a backward compatible interface between hardware and
> applications)?
Sure, but I'm not forced to upgrade and I can easily get support
from the community.
The ProTools DUC community is excellent and the people there are
musicians and engineers instead of programmers although I'm sure
some are there as well.
Sylvain Robitaille
> ... I never found an equivalent to normals on a hardware patchbay. ...
That's a good point. If there is an equivalent, I haven't found it
either. I'm not sure that's specific to Jack and Ardour, though. You
*can* configure "session templates" in Ardour, that would give you
default connections to the I/O hardware (and to various mixer
input/bus/output strips), though, so that might be a reasonably close
approximation.
> ... if I wanted to change anything, I had to undo connections and
> re-do some of them.
Yes, that would be true also with session templates. Are there
commercial DAW packages that provide normalled connections?
> ... certain hardware interfaces that offer a built-in DSP mixer and
> are supported by one of the Linux projects (the Focusrite Pro 26 i/o
> comes to mind) the inputs and outputs are available to an application,
> but the control panel (necessary in order to use the hardware's DSP
> mixer) is not (at least not when I was visiting) yet supported. ...
Yes, we've covered the fact that some devices that are "supported" only
have partial functionality under Linux. It's certainly a factor. On
the other hand, some other devices *are* fully supported. I question
the value in repeatedly going over this same ground ...
>> ... you can use Ardour's "edit input" and "edit output" dialog boxes.
>
> I'm just not comfortable using the term "edit" when I want to
> "connect" something.
It's quite a stretch, don't you think, when you have to resort to not
giving an application a chance because you're not comfortable with how
some functions have been labelled?
> I don't "edit" my patchbay. This is one of those things that
> programmers find natural but audio engineers don't.
I doubt it. Programmers don't naturally work with patchbays, and
the field of audio engineering traditionally involved a significant
amount of editting (cut/splice). In fact, audio engineers *do* edit
patchbays even, when they modify the normal routing of one or more
of the patchbay points. I've done this myself a few times, in fact,
and in the case of my patchbays, it involves modifying circuit-board
traces, thus "editting" the patchbay ... I know some patchbays simply
have slide switches providing various configurations. I don't know how
the really high-end patchbays handle it.
The dialog boxes I mention above do not require any form of text entry,
so if that's what scares you, it's not that type of "edit".
> ... from what I saw, even if I had a multi-channel interface working
> with it, I didn't see any reason to replace what I already had, nor
> did I see anything that - TO ME - appeared to be any easier to
> understand and get working on than what many other programs that were
> developed to suit a wide range of users, ...
That's fair enough, but then you need to stop making stuff up about it.
If you're going to write about Ardour, you should make a point to be
informed about it first.
> ... If my thinking led me to use terms like "edit" to make
> connections, I might have found it more attractive.
Again, you're stretching things quite far here. When I want to change a
parameter on some hardware signal processing equipment, I push a button
labelled "edit", scroll through some menu to find the item I want to
change, then I push a different button to retain the new setting. Your
hard disk recording probably has a button labelled "edit" to access some
functions.
> Yes, I found the Jack control panel. That allowed me to
> label things, ...
??? I wonder if we're talking about the same thing ...
> .... I'm not anti-Linux. I just don't have the optimism that some have
> that it's going to take over the world. Not even Apple or Microsoft
> has done that.
I hope to at least present a point of view that is not only pro-Linux
(and pro-open-source-software), but also is not over-optimistic
about what is realistically possible in the real world, with Linux
(and open-source software). :-)
Sylvain Robitaille
> Well naturally I just erased the screen shots I took, ...
Naturally. ;-)
> but with Fedora 12 on my test system with a Delta card I couldn't jack
> to run.
A problem with the process' capability to go into realtime mode perhaps?
I'm only guessing, of course.
> It might be more powerful in that you can control remote devices,
> computers etc but when the support for devices isn't there with
> Linux what's the use?
No argument there. On the other hand, if the devices you do use are
supported, there's an option.
> For someone who wants to take the time to set up say an entire
> studio, using supported devices, labeling everything within Linux
> and setting up various configurations that can be loaded, Jack may
> be just the ticket.
In that scenario, Jack is pretty much a requirement, unless that someone
is going to use only the simplest applications.
> I think Sound On Sound did an article on a studio like that.
Yes. I remember wondering how much of what the subject did was just
because he could, rather than because it specifically enabled a certain
workflow, or added some functionality he couldn't have had another way.
It was interesting, certainly, but it also seemed like more than a
little overkill.
> For me, I prefer Windows software because it doesn't get in the way.
Funny, I say the same thing about Linux and its associated software. I
don't doubt others say the same about MacOS, and software that runs only
on that system ... :-)
Moshe
> Moshe wrote:
>
>> Well naturally I just erased the screen shots I took, ...
>
> Naturally. ;-)
>
>> but with Fedora 12 on my test system with a Delta card I couldn't jack
>> to run.
>
> A problem with the process' capability to go into realtime mode perhaps?
> I'm only guessing, of course.
The message did say something about realtime mode which is why I
tried it as root but it didn't work.
It was a couple of weeks ago so I don't remember to clearly.
>> It might be more powerful in that you can control remote devices,
>> computers etc but when the support for devices isn't there with
>> Linux what's the use?
>
> No argument there. On the other hand, if the devices you do use are
> supported, there's an option.
Well fortunately there is always an option but for me Linux isn't
it. At least not yet.
>> For me, I prefer Windows software because it doesn't get in the way.
>
> Funny, I say the same thing about Linux and its associated software. I
> don't doubt others say the same about MacOS, and software that runs only
> on that system ... :-)
True, but I still get a kick out of people trying to make Linux
work and even more so trying to make a Windows application run
under Linux.
There are a group of people over on the Reaper forums who have
Reaper somewhat working under Linux. They talk more about
libraries, bits and bytes and so forth than they do about making
music.
It's classic and very typical where discussions of Linux and audio
or video turn from creating to programming, and it doesn't take
long in the thread for it to happen.
I ask myself, why on earth would someone waste time doing that?
Reaper runs very well under Windows and Mac.
It's like re-inventing the wheel only this time it turns out
square.
Maybe it's a proof of concept thing, but it sure seems like a heck
of a lot of time wasted that could be put to better use.
Ian Bell
> Ian Bell wrote:
>
>> 1. Linux is free as in freedom but not as in beer. ...
>
> I beg to differ. There are plenty of (very well known, widely used)
> Linux distributions that are "free", both as in "free speech" and
> "free beer" ...
This is not true. Explain to me how I get a Linux distro without paying
a single penny.
The same is true of open-source applications that
> run on Linux.
>
>> 2. Linux, the OS, has source code available, but in general there is
>> no requirement for application providers to do the same except as
>> provided by the GPL. ...
>
> True, but there are plenty of applications, some of which are quite high
> quality products that do provide full source code. Case in point,
> relevant to this newsgroup, is Ardour.
>
>> 3. ... many Linux applications are very poorly documented and much
>> community suipport is given over to answering basic operational
>> questions rather than sorting out bugs.
>
> Narrow the scope of your comment to the more "important" audio (or
> related) applications, and the picture is again not as bad as you paint.
> In fact, I would argue that in some instances, what caused some
> applications to become "important" at all for the task (rather than some
> other application that performs similar tasks), is indeed the quality of
> end-user support from both developpers and user community.
>
You miss the point. Your blanket unqualified statements about 'free' and
the availability of source code are not true.
If you wished to narrow the scope then you should have done so at the
outset.
Cheers
Ian
Moshe
> On 06/05/10 22:05, Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
>> Ian Bell wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Linux is free as in freedom but not as in beer. ...
>>
>> I beg to differ. There are plenty of (very well known, widely used)
>> Linux distributions that are "free", both as in "free speech" and
>> "free beer" ...
>
> This is not true. Explain to me how I get a Linux distro without paying
> a single penny.
Canonical will send you a CD of Ubuntu for free.
They ask for a donation, but you are not required to donate.
Sylvain Robitaille
> Explain to me how I get a Linux distro without paying a single penny.
download from any of a large number of distribution sites.
Or are you going to tell me that paying your ISP for the connection in
order to get that download counts against the apparent "cost" to obtain
the Linux distribution.
> You miss the point. Your blanket unqualified statements about 'free'
> and the availability of source code are not true.
Please provide a reference to my blanket statements. I don't believe
I've made any that weren't qualified in some way.
> If you wished to narrow the scope then you should have done so at the
> outset.
?
Sylvain Robitaille
> The message did say something about realtime mode which is why I
> tried it as root but it didn't work.
I think there are changes in recent kernels that are going to throw
things for a loop. Certainly I've backed out of kernel upgrades
recently because I couldn't get the new kernels to support capabilities,
and I haven't yet been inclined to figure out what was supposed to have
replaced that (let alone why).
> ... I still get a kick out of people trying to make Linux work and
> even more so trying to make a Windows application run under Linux.
I honestly don't understand the appeal of doing that. Unless, as you
suggested later in the same post, the point is just to prove that it can
be done.
> There are a group of people over on the Reaper forums who have
> Reaper somewhat working under Linux.
If Reaper mattered to me, I would prefer to have it fully working.
On the other hand, people working on this are likely paving the way to
get to a point where it might be possible to have a fully functional
Reaper (or whatever other application) on Linux (without any middleware
making the app think it's running on a different system, I mean).
> I ask myself, why on earth would someone waste time doing that?
Those people likely honestly believe the time isn't wasted. If they
feel they're accomplishing something, then I suppose it isn't. Think of
it as a software equivalent to circuit bending. It certainly isn't for
everyone, but some people really get a kick out of using something so
far out of spec that it becomes an interesting new thing on the spot ...
Mike Rivers
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>> ... I never found an equivalent to normals on a hardware patchbay. ...
>> re-do some of them.
>
> Yes, that would be true also with session templates. Are there
> commercial DAW packages that provide normalled connections?
As far as I know, no. This is one of those "computer"
problems are are difficult enough to implement (and I guess
nobody thinks it's important enough - this software (and not
just Linux applications) is mostly designed by people who
either never worked in the analog world, or want to forget
as much about it as they can. ;)
> Yes, we've covered the fact that some devices that are "supported" only
> have partial functionality under Linux. It's certainly a factor. On
> the other hand, some other devices *are* fully supported. I question
> the value in repeatedly going over this same ground ...
I just can't remember who I've discussed this with
previously, but it's a point about which someone
contemplating making a switch should be aware.
> It's quite a stretch, don't you think, when you have to resort to not
> giving an application a chance because you're not comfortable with how
> some functions have been labelled?
Absolutely not. There are standard conventions and names for
functions. There's no reason to invent new names (or adopt
names that have other common meanings) for them unless the
designer doesn't know the original name, or more
importantly, the original function. And if he doesn't know
that, what else doesn't he know. Adhering to conventions is
really an important part of a human interface. Anyone who
bucks the trend without providing something new (that
deserves a new name) doesn't deserve much of a chance. I
hate that Tracktion calls what anyone else would call a DAW
project an "edit."
> Programmers don't naturally work with patchbays
Then they should ask someone who does.
> the field of audio engineering traditionally involved a significant
> amount of editting (cut/splice).
Right - that's what we used to do with tape, and what we do
with waveforms on screen is a logical extension. But we
don't change our studio wiring with a razor blade and tape
(unless we're really pissed!).
> In fact, audio engineers *do* edit
> patchbays even, when they modify the normal routing of one or more
> of the patchbay points.
Yes, but nobody uses the term "edit" for it. It's called a
patchbay because you PATCH between connections with PATCH
CABLES. How simple can you get? The point is that the
programmers don't see it this way, they just see it as
routing data and you might "edit" the path of a program to
make that happen.
> ... I know some patchbays simply
> have slide switches providing various configurations. I don't know how
> the really high-end patchbays handle it.
The configurations that those switches change are for full
normal, half normal, parallel, and independent connections
between a jack pair. Now there is a device called a "routing
switcher" which is sometimes called an "electronic patchbay"
that makes connections in a similar way to how a matrix like
Jack or the I/O connection screen on Reaper works. You make
a connection by pressing a pair of buttons. But they don't
use the term "edit" either.
> The dialog boxes I mention above do not require any form of text entry,
> so if that's what scares you, it's not that type of "edit".
No, I know that. Though it's nice to be able to label the
sources and destinations something more meaningful than DEV:0
> That's fair enough, but then you need to stop making stuff up about it.
> If you're going to write about Ardour, you should make a point to be
> informed about it first.
I'm as informed as I need to be. I don't feel a need to
argue specific points about this or that feature. The whole
thing just doesn't interest me because it wasn't
sufficiently self-documented.
> When I want to change a
> parameter on some hardware signal processing equipment, I push a button
> labelled "edit", scroll through some menu to find the item I want to
> change, then I push a different button to retain the new setting.
That's sure a lot more difficult than turning a knob marked
"level."
> Your
> hard disk recording probably has a button labelled "edit" to access some
> functions.
I can't think of one, other than for waveform editing
functions.
> I hope to at least present a point of view that is not only pro-Linux
> (and pro-open-source-software), but also is not over-optimistic
> about what is realistically possible in the real world, with Linux
> (and open-source software). :-)
Well, I don't think you're the one who said that Linux was
going to take over the world, and then we found out that he
was really talking about embedded applications. Heck, there
are probably more people at the moment who have a recording
application on their iPhone than have Windows DAWs. If this
is "taking over the world" then stop it. I want to get off
while they're still building hardware.
Ian Bell
No, they charge five GBP for it.
Cheers
Ian
>
Ian Bell
> Ian Bell wrote:
>
>> Explain to me how I get a Linux distro without paying a single penny.
>
> download from any of a large number of distribution sites.
>
> Or are you going to tell me that paying your ISP for the connection in
> order to get that download counts against the apparent "cost" to obtain
> the Linux distribution.
>
>> You miss the point. Your blanket unqualified statements about 'free'
>> and the availability of source code are not true.
>
> Please provide a reference to my blanket statements. I don't believe
> I've made any that weren't qualified in some way.
>
YAWN, your own post.
Cheers
Ian
>> If you wished to narrow the scope then you should have done so at the
>> outset.
>
> ?
>
??
Sylvain Robitaille
>> It's quite a stretch, don't you think, when you have to resort to not
>> giving an application a chance because you're not comfortable with how
>> some functions have been labelled?
>
> Absolutely not. There are standard conventions and names for
> functions.
What do other DAWs call it? It seems to me that it isn't called
anything at all in Protools: you simply click in the right spot on
the mixer strip, and select from a list of input (or output) sources
(or destinations). In Ardour you click in a very similar spot,
and a dialog box comes up, permitting you to adjust the routing,
add/remove inputs (or outputs) on the strip (for stereo and additional
multi-channel strips), and of course adjust the routing to/from any
new inputs, etc. (correction: I just checked this: you click in a
similar spot as in protools, and can immediately select input/output
routing for the strip, OR select "edit" to bring up a dialog box which
lets you add/remove inputs/outputs to the strip and select their
routing).
>> In fact, audio engineers *do* edit patchbays even, when they modify
>> the normal routing of one or more of the patchbay points.
>
> Yes, but nobody uses the term "edit" for it. It's called a
> patchbay because you PATCH between connections with PATCH
> CABLES. ...
hang on, that's not what I was referring to ...
>> ... I know some patchbays simply have slide switches providing
>> various configurations. I don't know how the really high-end
>> patchbays handle it.
>
> The configurations that those switches change are for full
> normal, half normal, parallel, and independent connections
> between a jack pair.
Yes, I understand that. What I was referring to above, with "edit
patchbays", is when you modify this configuration on a patchbay
that doesn't provide the simple slider switches. Specifically,
on the patchbays I own, I need to cut some circuit-board traces to
"de-normal" paths, or bridge some traces to "parallel" jack pairs,
when that's appropriate.
> I'm as informed as I need to be. I don't feel a need to
> argue specific points about this or that feature. ...
... but you identified, as a pitfall of using Ardour, the need to
"learn" Jack, in order to setup signal routing. In truth, Ardour can do
that for you, and you simply use Ardour's own interace to setup signal
routing. In addition, you *can* use Jack (well Qjackctl, specifically)
to view all the signal routing at once, and perhaps make modifications
that way, if a view of "the big picture" is more helpful.
> The whole thing just doesn't interest me because it wasn't
> sufficiently self-documented.
That's as much as you should write about it then. At the very least,
when you write anything more, you should verify that what you're writing
is true ...
>> When I want to change a parameter on some hardware signal processing
>> equipment, I push a button labelled "edit", scroll through some menu
>> to find the item I want to change, then I push a different button to
>> retain the new setting.
>
> That's sure a lot more difficult than turning a knob marked "level."
Yes. You never worked with an SPX90? or a PCM70? I could go on with
examples here, but I'd be in a better position to do so if I were at
home where I could check the button labels on my outboard gear ...
> Well, I don't think you're the one who said that Linux was
> going to take over the world, and then we found out that he
> was really talking about embedded applications. ...
No, I don't care about the whole "take over the world" stuff. I just
would like to not see people basing arguments about it on incorrect
information. That shouldn't be necessary, and it doesn't help any
discussion, either pro or con.
Sylvain Robitaille
> YAWN, your own post.
Which, I can only conclude, then, that you didn't properly read ...
Ian Bell
> Ian Bell wrote:
>
>> YAWN, your own post.
>
> Which, I can only conclude, then, that you didn't properly read ...
>
YAWN
Ian Bell
>
>> YAWN, your own post.
>
> Which, I can only conclude, then, that you didn't properly read ...
>
Backtrack as fast as you like, I don't care.
Cheers
ian
geoff
hear the difference.
>
> Linux is poised to take over the recording industry much like it
> is taking over the embedded devices industry.
Yeah, maybe the embedded recording industry.
>As Protools and Avid
> fester in their own filth trying to come up with marketing schemes
> to suck people into their overpriced products, Linux is happily
> plodding along gaining support one user at a time.
You may not be aware but there are far more non-ProTools Windows DAWs out
hthere that PT ones.
Enjoy your religon. As with most, they have little do do with reality.
geoff
Mike Rivers
>> ... I still get a kick out of people trying to make Linux work and
>> even more so trying to make a Windows application run under Linux.
>
> I honestly don't understand the appeal of doing that. Unless, as you
> suggested later in the same post, the point is just to prove that it can
> be done.
Well, some Windows applications are really good, better than
their functionally similar Linux applications. If someone
got Pro Tools working under Linux, there would probably be
more Linux supporters among the audio community. When
someone asks "Do you have Pro Tools?" they don't ask if you
have the Windows or Mac version, so they wouldn't care if
you had the Linux version either, as long as it worked the
same way, supported the same plug-ins, and offered the same
features and interoperability. You might find some people
switching to Linux who were attracted by the things that
most Linux heads point out - that it's free, the source code
is available, and the virus writers haven't paid much
attention to it (yet).
I don't think we're going to see Avid spending their time
getting a Linux version of Pro Tools out, but stranger thing
have happened.
Mike Rivers
> What do other DAWs call it [the input/output routing]? It seems to me that it isn't called
> anything at all in Protools: you simply click in the right spot on
> the mixer strip, and select from a list of input (or output) sources
> (or destinations). In Ardour you click in a very similar spot,
> and a dialog box comes up, permitting you to adjust the routing,
> add/remove inputs (or outputs) on the strip
Well, they really don't call it anything, which isn't
surprising since patching is really a function of a patchbay
and not a recorder (which, in this instance, the DAW is).
It's usually referred to as I/O routing in the manual,
though the labeling is often confusing. Some are pretty
plain, but, for example, the Steinberg programs call it VST
Setup, which of course is confusing if you think that a VST
is a plug-in. Ardour and Jack aren't the only guilty parties
here.
On the other hand, some software-based hardware makes a
little more sense, probably because it was developed by
people who understand the hardware. For example, the Alesis
ADAT has what they call a "virtual patchbay" that lets you
select between inputs going directly to tracks, inputs 1-2
going to all of the track pairs (1-2, 3-4, 5-6, and 7-8) for
when you're feeding the recorder from a stereo source but
want to be able to do overdubs without swapping connections.
There's a similar arrangement to accommodate the 4-bus
mixers of the era, that assigns inputs 1-4 to tracks 1-4 and
5-8.
> What I was referring to above, with "edit
> patchbays", is when you modify this configuration on a patchbay
> that doesn't provide the simple slider switches.
Oh, you do that with a soldering iron or the equivalent.
Some have circuit board jumpers, some have punchdown
terminals where you can install wire jumpers. The slide
switches are to make it easy for the bedroom studio crowd
who probably doesn't understand normals but has an easy way
to learn by experimenting. The pros prefer to make decisions
and rely on solid connections rather than cheap slide switches.
> ... but you identified, as a pitfall of using Ardour, the need to
> "learn" Jack, in order to setup signal routing. In truth, Ardour can do
> that for you, and you simply use Ardour's own interace to setup signal
> routing.
That's what they tell me. But when I ask a question about
routing setup, the answer usually involves "You don't
understand Jack. You need to understand Jack."
> That's as much as you should write about it then. At the very least,
> when you write anything more, you should verify that what you're writing
> is true ...
I originally tried Ardour in hopes to write an article about
the suitability of the primo audio application. I chose not
to write the article. However, what I write in a Usenet
newsgroup is off the cuff and not a product of delving back
into my research of a couple of years ago. My information
may not be current, but I'll bet it's still applicable.
Because that's the way Linux applications are. When someone
comes up with a competitor for Ardour, I'll take a look at
it then.
> Yes. You never worked with an SPX90? or a PCM70?
Yes. It's tedious, but I could figure out what I was doing
and get to where I wanted to be in a pretty straightforward
manner. I wasn't baffled by the terminology and the process
of getting from here to there didn't seem illogical nor did
it require me to squint. Given the complexity, I think the
SPX90 had an elegant user interface. In fact, I borrowed one
from a music store to show a contractor who was developing a
product for the FAA (where I was working at the time) an
example of a much better user interface than the one they
had developed.
Moshe
> Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
>
>>> ... I still get a kick out of people trying to make Linux work and
>>> even more so trying to make a Windows application run under Linux.
>>
>> I honestly don't understand the appeal of doing that. Unless, as you
>> suggested later in the same post, the point is just to prove that it can
>> be done.
>
> Well, some Windows applications are really good, better than
> their functionally similar Linux applications.
Of course, the same can be said of some Linux applications.
Run them under their native OS instead of trying fit a square peg
in a round hole.
> If someone
> got Pro Tools working under Linux, there would probably be
> more Linux supporters among the audio community.
True.
> When
> someone asks "Do you have Pro Tools?" they don't ask if you
> have the Windows or Mac version, so they wouldn't care if
> you had the Linux version either, as long as it worked the
> same way, supported the same plug-ins, and offered the same
> features and interoperability. You might find some people
> switching to Linux who were attracted by the things that
> most Linux heads point out - that it's free, the source code
> is available, and the virus writers haven't paid much
> attention to it (yet).
I can guarantee you that there would be Linux supporters
complaining that the source code is not available.
> I don't think we're going to see Avid spending their time
> getting a Linux version of Pro Tools out, but stranger thing
> have happened.
It wouldn't surprise me to see them use Linux embedded, maybe in a
control surface etc though.