"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1117314028k@trad...

In article
writes:

It's not that bad. If you're building a dedicated workstation, and want
to
have as much of your system's resources as possible dedicated to audio,
the
only platform that you can truly do that with is Linux. You can boot
straight to the GUI of your audio software, and don't need to run all
the
crap that Windows and Mac crowbar into the OS.

Commendable, but how many people who ask on an audio newsgroup if
Linux is a reasonable platform are really savvy enough to build a
dedicated audio workstation? I'm not saying it can't be done, just not
advisable for anyone who still needs advice. Here, we're better
equipped to advise someone who already has a solid Linux based audio
workstation running what would be good peripheral hardware.


I don't disagree. If the question is something akin to 'Is Linux ready for a
professional audio production environment?' I'd generally say 'No'. It's the
potential that intrigues me, and pretty soon, I think there will be select
applications that a Linux box is suitable for, at least comparable if not
better than the 'competition'. The only application that I can recommend
Linux for now is advanced sound synthesis, and there isn't much of a demand
for that.

Frankly, I feel that newbies are better off starting out with a little
standalone, and spending time getting fundamentals. But everybody wants to
use thier PC.

A lot of people like to mess
around with updates daily or weekly because it's a learning process for
them
and they have software that isn't finished.

Isn't Ardour still in that phase?

It's been 'almost out of beta' for a very long time.

I suppose, though, that at any time
now, a user could declare it "finished" and just use it. That's kind
of the sense I get from reading their web page recently. But not many
people have the discipline to not update their system whenever
something new comes along. It's one thing (Microsoft notwithstanding,
sometimes) when the update comes from a major manufacturer with
thorough testing behind it, but with an open development environment,
it's hard to tell when an update is stable, or even worth while,
without each user spending some time with it.


Too true. Across the board, I advise people to build a system and leave it
alone, except for antivirus updates etc., unless there is a real problem, or
they are going to do a complete overhaul and start from scratch. I think
this applies to Windows boxes too.

Not to mention, any computing device which has a limited function set is by
nature 'better' at what it does, and any maintenance or repair that needs to
happen is easier.


If
one wanted to build a machine that could, say, replace a multitrack
device,
you only need to do it once - if, and only if, your chosen software
works.

Well, TASCAM did it, Mackie did it, Fostex did it, Alesis did it.
Where are those machines today? It's a great concept. I thing that my
Mackie HDR is a big step up from my 2" analog recorder both in sound
and reliability, plus there are some things that I can do easily with
the Mackie that are difficult or impossible with the Ampex.
Fortunately I don't need to do those those tricks often with the
projects that I have, but they're available if I need them.


I think a lot of people new to recording want a PC DAW because it's a hot
rod. It's more about the PC than it is about audio, and they often know how
to build a PC and want to use their skills. They've also been told it's
cheaper. I'm not sure that it's very much cheaper.

On the other hand, I built my second PC DAW as a 24 channel multitrack that
also had a MIDI sequencer, but because of it's software capabilites, and a
cheap motherboard upgrade, I often mix in the DAW too (I've never tested
it's track count, but I typically use between 30 and 40). So even if it's
not cheaper in outlay, there is an increased capability. The tradeoff is in
the poor interface.

Still, the market seems to be strongly bent toward general purpose
computers configured as full blown audio workstations. Cost and
availability seem to be the major forces. There's still room for
pioneers and experimenters, but it takes a fair amount of time to keep
up with the technology, and that takes time away from the presumed
goal of audio production.


Which is why I like the little 300 dollar eight tracks. Anyone new to
recording can get one of those, a couple of mics and get started the day he
takes it out of the box. Sooner or later this myth of 'I can build a PC and
make a production quality record tomorrow' will have to fizzle out, just
like the thing about putting your business on the net and becoming rich
overnight. The more people experience the reality, the more the word will
spread.

jb