Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
Erin Mungan Erin Mungan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?


The Linux pundits say yes....

I say no....

My simplistic reasoning, lack of support for UAD, EzDrummer, Ivory,
Waves, etc....

Then there is lack of control surface support.\
Lack of sound card support.

.....and on and on.

And of course this doesn't even include the lack of ProTools, the
industry standard, into the discussion.

For the record, I would love to see Linux break into this area but it is
not there and is not even close and all signs unfortunately lead to a
dead end.


Comments, discussion... ?



  #2   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
Cork Soaker Cork Soaker is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Erin Mungan wrote:

Comments, discussion... ?


No, thanks for the offer.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Erin Mungan wrote:
For the record, I would love to see Linux break into this area but it is
not there and is not even close and all signs unfortunately lead to a
dead end.


Oh, God, not this idiot again. Please, take this somewhere else.

Comments, discussion... ?


Please, no. Not here in rec.audio.pro.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #6   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
Rick[_9_] Rick[_9_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default "Erin Mungan" a credible person?

... I say no.

--
Rick
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
Erin Mungan Erin Mungan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default "Erin Mungan" a credible person?

In article ,
lid says...

... I say no.


Can you answer the question instead of acting like a typical Linux
zealot and attacking the messenger?

I say no.

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
High Plains Thumper[_2_] High Plains Thumper[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Erin Mungan wrote:

For the record, I would love to see Linux break into this area but
it is not there and is not even close and all signs unfortunately
lead to a dead end.


Oh, God, not this idiot again. Please, take this somewhere else.

Comments, discussion... ?


Please, no. Not here in rec.audio.pro.


He'd like people to believe he mixes studio midi "karaoke tracks" for
professional singers, but his trolling spiel shows anything but that.

I'd plonk him if I were you, Scott.

End-of-line.

--
HPT
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Erin Mungan wrote:
The Linux pundits say yes....

I say no....

I agree that in general it isn't. I also know that some people use it
for audio with great enthusiasm. There are very few applications, it has
limited hardware support, and IME is a nightmare to configure.

It does , IMHO, have a place in the Studio area as a fileserver, which
is a job it does extremely well. It's also very good at office related
work, if you can live without Microsoft Office.

Just my experiences.

--
Tciao for Now!

JOhn.
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
dimercaprol dimercaprol is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Since this thread has some knowledgeable people, I hope you don't mind
if I ask if any of you guys has info about using the M-Audio Firewire
410 in any version of Linux. The last I hear, it didn't work so I am
still using Windows. I would like to switch to Linux, but I don't want
to buy a new 2496 external sound card.
Thanks,
dimer
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Has there EVER been a useful discussion cross-posted
to a Linux ng? (or any "advocacy" ng?)
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Hadron wrote:

What is religious about asking Audio professionals, and I assume you are
one, if Linux cuts the mustard as an Audio processing platform?


Only that there are two camps and they never change. One is composed
entirely of
Linux zealots (which is like a religion) and the other is composed
entirely of audio
hobbyists who sometimes grow their hobby into a profession.

Well? Does it?


It does, with professional programming support, which has nothing at all
in common
with audio processing. Harrison makes a good console and recorder based
around
Linux, but it's very different from a free distribution that you can
load on to your PC.

For the audio professional who would rather work with audio than work
with computer
programming and maintenance, Linux does not cut the mustard for audio
work. There
are some perfectly good off-the-shelf Linux server applications, and of
course the Open
Office suite for your bookkeeping and letter writing, as well as several
common and
uncommon web browsers.

An audio professional could set up a Linux system to do all the
non-audio things he needs
to do around the studio and business and save quite a bit of money over
getting another
PC. And an audio professional SHOULD keep his audio work on a separate
computer
from his e-mail, web sites, bills and promotion.




  #16   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
Jay Ts Jay Ts is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 193
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Hadron wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
Erin Mungan wrote:
says...

Please, no. Not here in rec.audio.pro.

I'll take that as a no, Scott Dorsey who sends out kits with incorrect
schematics and supplies..... see SOS for details.....


I'm sorry, you must be mistaken. None of the board kits I have ever
supplied in the past 30 years have ever come with any schematics or
supplies. That would rather defeat their purpose.

Again, is Linux a feasible platform?


Take your religious war elsewhere, please. Have you considered seeing
a doctor about your obsessive behaviour? --scott


What is religious about asking Audio professionals, and I assume you are
one, if Linux cuts the mustard as an Audio processing platform?

Well? Does it?


NO. It's good for playing audio files, though, and I use it for that.
All of my other music and audio apps run on Windows XP. If Linux
worked better for those applications, I would use it instead.

Now go away. Whether you know it or not, your intrusion into
rec.audio.pro without having the slightest familiarity with
the group and its regular contributors only identifies you
as a TROLL.

Jay Ts
Linux and Windows user since 1996
Unix programmer and sysadmin since 1981
Author, Using Samba (2nd. edition), O'Reilly Media
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
Hadron[_3_] Hadron[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Jay Ts writes:

Hadron wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
Erin Mungan wrote:
says...

Please, no. Not here in rec.audio.pro.

I'll take that as a no, Scott Dorsey who sends out kits with incorrect
schematics and supplies..... see SOS for details.....

I'm sorry, you must be mistaken. None of the board kits I have ever
supplied in the past 30 years have ever come with any schematics or
supplies. That would rather defeat their purpose.

Again, is Linux a feasible platform?

Take your religious war elsewhere, please. Have you considered seeing
a doctor about your obsessive behaviour? --scott


What is religious about asking Audio professionals, and I assume you are
one, if Linux cuts the mustard as an Audio processing platform?

Well? Does it?


NO. It's good for playing audio files, though, and I use it for that.
All of my other music and audio apps run on Windows XP. If Linux
worked better for those applications, I would use it instead.

Now go away. Whether you know it or not, your intrusion into
rec.audio.pro without having the slightest familiarity with
the group and its regular contributors only identifies you
as a TROLL.

Jay Ts
Linux and Windows user since 1996
Unix programmer and sysadmin since 1981
Author, Using Samba (2nd. edition), O'Reilly Media


1) Who the hell do you think you are?
2) I never cross posted : I am merely interested to hear the facts and
following up.
3) The question is perfectly legitimate.
4) Why would you use Linux for "playing audio" while using XP for the
rest of your work?
4) If you're going to make sweeping statements like Linux is no good for
Audio applications then explain why.
5) You don't own the group and are most certainly not in charge. If you
feel incapable of answering a perfectly normal question feel free to use
your killfile. I feel sure that a big shot like you knows how to use
one.

Have a nice day now.


  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Mann Richard Mann is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

I use Linux as a standalone audio recorder.

At a local live music venue I have:
- Studio projects C4 mics
- Maudio Duo USB/ADC (gain set to fixed level)
- Simple linux machine

On boot the system runs a special script. Hit "R" to record, hit "S" to stop.
Will record for 6hrs or "S", whichever is first. Records date-stamped
44.1/16bit WAV files that I can upload.

This system has been deployed for (at least) two years and is working well.

I agree that Windows is more suited to interactive DAW work. Linux has a ways
to go IMO.

Richard
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Keoki Keoki is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 135
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

So far I found two Linux versions (out of 16) on which multitrack
audio and MIDI worked out of the box: Pureyne and Indamixx
Transmission 3.0

If you care, details are at:
http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/gam...inux-midi.html
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Richard Mann wrote:
I use Linux as a standalone audio recorder.


On boot the system runs a special script. Hit "R" to record, hit "S" to stop.
Will record for 6hrs or "S", whichever is first. Records date-stamped
44.1/16bit WAV files that I can upload.


This is an example of a dedicated system that just happens to use Linux, and
just happens to record audio. I'll be the person who hits the R button
(unless that's you)
neither knows nor cares that it's Linux. But someone had to make it do
that, and
nothing else but that. That's not something that a recording hobbyist is
likely to
be able to do, unless he's also a Linux hobbyist. However, people seem
to be
able to install the copy of Cubase or whatever that came with their
sound card on
their PC or Mac and figure out how to record and mix with it.


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Keoki wrote:
So far I found two Linux versions (out of 16) on which multitrack
audio and MIDI worked out of the box: Pureyne and Indamixx
Transmission 3.0


I don't know Pureyne but I know that Indamixx really wants to sell
pre-configured computers, even though they'll sell you a CD or
flash drive version for $150. I thought the handheld touch screen
computer they were showing at NAMM or maybe it was AES last year
was pretty cute, but at least at that time there was no multichannel
interface for it. I didn't really see any advantage to it over a $200
Zoom H2 recorder unless you absolutely needed to take your mixing
to the beach with you.

And I like the support "Free Software Support (first 7 days). "
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Mann Richard Mann is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Mike Rivers writes:

Richard Mann wrote:
I use Linux as a standalone audio recorder.


On boot the system runs a special script. Hit "R" to record, hit "S" to stop.
Will record for 6hrs or "S", whichever is first. Records date-stamped
44.1/16bit WAV files that I can upload.


This is an example of a dedicated system that just happens to use Linux, and
just happens to record audio. I'll be the person who hits the R button (unless
that's you)
neither knows nor cares that it's Linux. But someone had to make it do that,
and
nothing else but that. That's not something that a recording hobbyist is
likely to
be able to do, unless he's also a Linux hobbyist. However, people seem to be
able to install the copy of Cubase or whatever that came with their sound card
on
their PC or Mac and figure out how to record and mix with it.


I agree, this requires both audio and linux hacking!

I'm just putting it out there as one potential way to use a Linux system, to
build an institutional or commercial application.

So, the disadvantage of linux is the (many) application areas require
configuration. But that is an advantage too. If you want to do
*development* work on it, you can easily build a custom setup. Remember that
all the server tools (http, www, ssh, etc) are already in the base
distribution, so, unlike Windows, you don't need to buy or configure these.

Richard
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Poaster[_2_] William Poaster[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

On 20/12/2009 20:13, above the shrieking & FUDding of the trolls, Jay
Ts was heard to say:

Hadron wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
Erin Mungan wrote:
says...

Please, no. Not here in rec.audio.pro.

I'll take that as a no, Scott Dorsey who sends out kits with incorrect
schematics and supplies..... see SOS for details.....

I'm sorry, you must be mistaken. None of the board kits I have ever
supplied in the past 30 years have ever come with any schematics or
supplies. That would rather defeat their purpose.

Again, is Linux a feasible platform?

Take your religious war elsewhere, please. Have you considered seeing
a doctor about your obsessive behaviour? --scott


What is religious about asking Audio professionals, and I assume you are
one, if Linux cuts the mustard as an Audio processing platform?

Well? Does it?


NO. It's good for playing audio files, though, and I use it for that.
All of my other music and audio apps run on Windows XP. If Linux
worked better for those applications, I would use it instead.

Now go away. Whether you know it or not, your intrusion into
rec.audio.pro without having the slightest familiarity with
the group and its regular contributors only identifies you
as a TROLL.


FYI: "Hadron" is a self-confessed troll & binned in many groups.
Message-ID:

crossposting snipped

--
Error #003: You're joking, right?

  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_2_] Les Cargill[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 355
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Mike Rivers wrote:
Hadron wrote:

snip
An audio professional could set up a Linux system to do all the
non-audio things he needs to do around the studio and business
and save quite a bit of money over getting another PC. And an
audio professional SHOULD keep his audio work on a separate
computer from his e-mail, web sites, bills and promotion.



Virtualization may change that:
http://www.virtualbox.org/

Soon as I can find out more detail, I may well go
that way myself.

--
Les Cargill
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_2_] Les Cargill[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 355
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Richard Mann wrote:
I use Linux as a standalone audio recorder.

At a local live music venue I have:
- Studio projects C4 mics
- Maudio Duo USB/ADC (gain set to fixed level)
- Simple linux machine

On boot the system runs a special script. Hit "R" to record, hit "S" to stop.
Will record for 6hrs or "S", whichever is first. Records date-stamped
44.1/16bit WAV files that I can upload.

This system has been deployed for (at least) two years and is working well.

I agree that Windows is more suited to interactive DAW work. Linux has a ways
to go IMO.

Richard


Reaper works very well under WINE.

--
Les Cargill


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Richard Mann wrote:

So, the disadvantage of linux is the (many) application areas require
configuration. But that is an advantage too. If you want to do
*development* work on it, you can easily build a custom setup.


But most of us started out as musicians, then we had to become recording
engineers. Now we have to become Linux deveopers too? When's it
gonna stop? g

  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Geoff Geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,562
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Mike Rivers wrote:
Richard Mann wrote:

So, the disadvantage of linux is the (many) application areas require
configuration. But that is an advantage too. If you want to do
*development* work on it, you can easily build a custom setup.


But most of us started out as musicians, then we had to become
recording engineers. Now we have to become Linux deveopers too?
When's it gonna stop? g


Jeepers, and to think tere are enough problems on quantified 'controlled'
systems, imagine how it could be on a system that you need to 'knit your
own' as you go !

geoff


  #28   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
Cork Soaker Cork Soaker is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Jay Ts wrote:
Hadron wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
Erin Mungan wrote:
says...
Please, no. Not here in rec.audio.pro.
I'll take that as a no, Scott Dorsey who sends out kits with incorrect
schematics and supplies..... see SOS for details.....
I'm sorry, you must be mistaken. None of the board kits I have ever
supplied in the past 30 years have ever come with any schematics or
supplies. That would rather defeat their purpose.

Again, is Linux a feasible platform?
Take your religious war elsewhere, please. Have you considered seeing
a doctor about your obsessive behaviour? --scott

What is religious about asking Audio professionals, and I assume you are
one, if Linux cuts the mustard as an Audio processing platform?

Well? Does it?


NO. It's good for playing audio files, though, and I use it for that.
All of my other music and audio apps run on Windows XP. If Linux
worked better for those applications, I would use it instead.

Now go away. Whether you know it or not, your intrusion into
rec.audio.pro without having the slightest familiarity with
the group and its regular contributors only identifies you
as a TROLL.

Jay Ts
Linux and Windows user since 1996
Unix programmer and sysadmin since 1981
Author, Using Samba (2nd. edition), O'Reilly Media


Hadron is a well known troll, and idiot.
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:
Richard Mann wrote:

So, the disadvantage of linux is the (many) application areas require
configuration. But that is an advantage too. If you want to do
*development* work on it, you can easily build a custom setup.


But most of us started out as musicians, then we had to become recording
engineers. Now we have to become Linux deveopers too? When's it
gonna stop? g


It doesn't ever stop, Mike. We all came up in a world where studios
were filled with custom equipment. I think that's a good thing, really.

The software world should make this easier, not harder.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Mann Richard Mann is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Speaking of Linux, can anyone suggest a four input USB device?

I'm looking for a small, usb-powered device with four (simultaneous) inputs.

There are lots of two input devices, but four inputs is more rare, especially
in smaller devices.

Ideally I could use mic pres on two inputs, but that is not necessary, as I
can use an external pre if needed.

Thanks,
Richard


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Laurence Payne[_2_] Laurence Payne[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,267
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

On 20 Dec 2009 23:15:00 -0500, Richard Mann
wrote:

Speaking of Linux, can anyone suggest a four input USB device?

I'm looking for a small, usb-powered device with four (simultaneous) inputs.

There are lots of two input devices, but four inputs is more rare, especially
in smaller devices.

Ideally I could use mic pres on two inputs, but that is not necessary, as I
can use an external pre if needed.


Does it have to be usb-POWERED? As you are able to use mic preamps,
it sounds as if mains power might be available?
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Scott Dorsey wrote:

It doesn't ever stop, Mike. We all came up in a world where studios
were filled with custom equipment. I think that's a good thing, really.


True, but customizing off-the-shelf equipment or building even a fairly
complex piece such as a console usually involved packaging of standard
modules or well documented circuits. It was easier to figure out whether
a mic preamp module would work with a power supply than whether a
few hundred lines of DSP code would compile the same way in your
computer as it did in the computer of the person who wrote it.

I think the same people who are baffled by the concept of signal flow
in an analog studio would be equally baffled by customizing a software
package (or even operating a turnkey one). But for those who want
to learn how to figure out how things work, it's much easier to do when
you have components that mostly work the same way every time.

The software world should make this easier, not harder.


Right. And it will never go out of date, too. g
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
chrisv chrisv is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Cork Soaker wrote:

Hadron is a well known troll, and idiot.


As is his mentally-ill, nym-shifting pal Flatfish ("Erin Mungan").

--
"OK, so wheres the proof that hes a troll of any kind and does lots of
nymshifting?" - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark, defending
flatfish
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

dimercaprol wrote:
Since this thread has some knowledgeable people, I hope you don't mind
if I ask if any of you guys has info about using the M-Audio Firewire
410 in any version of Linux. The last I hear, it didn't work so I am
still using Windows. I would like to switch to Linux, but I don't want
to buy a new 2496 external sound card.


The problem is that the 410 has a nonstandard interface, and M-Audio won't
provide details of the interface.

This means that you are dependant either on M-Audio deciding to produce
their own linux driver, or on someone successfully reverse-engineering
the device well enough to put together a linux driver.

You know, twenty years ago when you bought a computer product, the
interface information you needed to write a driver was often in the
user's manual. But these days vendors have found that they can keep
stuff proprietary without people complaining... until they want to do
something that the vendor hasn't decided to support. Welcome to the
world of cheap commodity hardware.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

It doesn't ever stop, Mike. We all came up in a world where studios
were filled with custom equipment. I think that's a good thing, really.


True, but customizing off-the-shelf equipment or building even a fairly
complex piece such as a console usually involved packaging of standard
modules or well documented circuits.


This is true.

It was easier to figure out whether
a mic preamp module would work with a power supply than whether a
few hundred lines of DSP code would compile the same way in your
computer as it did in the computer of the person who wrote it.


I don't think it is. I think it's the same thing... you're taking a
predesigned module of code and dropping it into your own system.

I think the same people who are baffled by the concept of signal flow
in an analog studio would be equally baffled by customizing a software
package (or even operating a turnkey one).


Yes, but hopefully we're not talking about those people.

But for those who want
to learn how to figure out how things work, it's much easier to do when
you have components that mostly work the same way every time.


Once you get away from the Windows world, computers become deterministic.
This is a good thing. Reportedly Windows 7 actually fixes a lot of the
consistency issues with Windows too, though I cannot verify this.

The software world should make this easier, not harder.


Right. And it will never go out of date, too. g


It doesn't. There's nothing to prevent you from running an operating system
from the 1970s today. If anything, it's a lot easier than it was in the
seventies.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

In article ,
chrisv wrote:
Cork Soaker wrote:

Hadron is a well known troll, and idiot.


As is his mentally-ill, nym-shifting pal Flatfish ("Erin Mungan").


Are these two people? I thought they were the same.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #37   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
Cork Soaker Cork Soaker is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

chrisv wrote:
Cork Soaker wrote:

Hadron is a well known troll, and idiot.


As is his mentally-ill, nym-shifting pal Flatfish ("Erin Mungan").


And they both rape children.
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Scott Dorsey wrote:

It was easier to figure out whether
a mic preamp module would work with a power supply than whether a
few hundred lines of DSP code would compile the same way in your
computer as it did in the computer of the person who wrote it.


I don't think it is. I think it's the same thing... you're taking a
predesigned module of code and dropping it into your own system.


There's usually an extra layer of potential imcompatibility, though. If you
know that a circuit requires +/-15vdc at 150 mA, it might hum more when
powered by a less well filtered power supply than a well filtered one but
at least it'll work and it won't screw anything else up. But with code, you
need to compile it, and if your distribution's compiler doesn't work
identically
to that of the code author's, it may not run the same in your system as it
does in his.

Also, with hardware, there's usually a set of minimum requirements and
it's pretty easy to see if you're meeting those and not exceeding them in
a harmful way. But that's not true with software. If something requires
15v +/- 10% you know you can't power it from a 10v or 24v power supply.
But you don't see "compile with Debian 5.0.1 +/- 10%" because that
doesn't make any sense, particularly if you have Fedora. or SuSe. You
can probably compile it with other compilers, but it takes more than casual
knowledge to know where to look at what to fix if it doesn't work. It
probably requires modifying the source code. Kind of like modifying a
circut designed to run on 15v to run on 24v. While most of the studio
rats of the 70s could build something from a schematic few of them
were able to make design changes to accommodate integrating into
a different kind of application.

I think the same people who are baffled by the concept of signal flow
in an analog studio would be equally baffled by customizing a software
package (or even operating a turnkey one).


Yes, but hopefully we're not talking about those people.


Unfortunaltey, there are too many of those people.

The software world should make this easier, not harder.

Right. And it will never go out of date, too. g


It doesn't. There's nothing to prevent you from running an operating system
from the 1970s today.


You may need to find hardware from the 70s to run it on, though. The driver
that came with that operating system in 1979 to talk to an ST506 disk drive
isn't going to talk to an SATA drive in a new system. And there's probably
some stuff in an 8086 processor that isn't common to an i5. So I guess you
do what's common among the Linux writers and write new drivers for your
hardware.

Getting back to the scope of the original query, there's prescious little
Linux support for multi-channel audio interfaces even though they've been
with us for over ten years. And when you do find one that's supported, it's
usually an old model that you'd have to buy third-hand unless (most likely
like the one who wrote the support code for it) you have one in your attic
that you abandoned years ago.

So I still think Linux is only suitable for professional DAW work if you
buy a turnkey system that just happens to have Linux at its heart. And
when you're buying a turnkey system, you don't care what operating
system it uses, only that you'll be able to get support from your vendor
as long as you want to use it. (which is optimitistic for just about
anything).
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

Mike Rivers wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

It was easier to figure out whether
a mic preamp module would work with a power supply than whether a
few hundred lines of DSP code would compile the same way in your
computer as it did in the computer of the person who wrote it.


I don't think it is. I think it's the same thing... you're taking a
predesigned module of code and dropping it into your own system.


There's usually an extra layer of potential imcompatibility, though. If you
know that a circuit requires +/-15vdc at 150 mA, it might hum more when
powered by a less well filtered power supply than a well filtered one but
at least it'll work and it won't screw anything else up. But with code, you
need to compile it, and if your distribution's compiler doesn't work
identically to that of the code author's, it may not run the same in your
system as it does in his.


That's why it's important to write good code instead of sloppy lousy code
that is dependant on implementation issues. It's sort like doing things
like shielding inductors so that you can put your module next to a power
supply module, etc. And like proper design methods, it takes extra time
and extra money to do properly.

Also, with hardware, there's usually a set of minimum requirements and
it's pretty easy to see if you're meeting those and not exceeding them in
a harmful way. But that's not true with software. If something requires
15v +/- 10% you know you can't power it from a 10v or 24v power supply.


Yup, but you don't know how sensitive it is to ripple or whether it will
blow some caps up if you drop the 15V rail without dropping the -15V rail.
Early on in the audio world, sgtuff like that was an issue. Today it's
not so much one one, because people are more careful.

But you don't see "compile with Debian 5.0.1 +/- 10%" because that
doesn't make any sense, particularly if you have Fedora. or SuSe. You
can probably compile it with other compilers, but it takes more than casual
knowledge to know where to look at what to fix if it doesn't work. It
probably requires modifying the source code. Kind of like modifying a
circut designed to run on 15v to run on 24v.


All, all three of those distributions use the same gcc compiler. Perhaps
you are thinking about library compatibility issues? Those can exist, but
proper coding practices reduce those problems.

And yes, you need to have some basic notion of what is going on inside the
box before you can implement something. Just like in the analogue world.

While most of the studio
rats of the 70s could build something from a schematic few of them
were able to make design changes to accommodate integrating into
a different kind of application.


I think you're overstating how difficult this stuff is, Mike.

I think the same people who are baffled by the concept of signal flow
in an analog studio would be equally baffled by customizing a software
package (or even operating a turnkey one).


Yes, but hopefully we're not talking about those people.


Unfortunaltey, there are too many of those people.


Right, and they had big trouble putting modules together and making them work,
and they're having the same trouble with software. That's a user problem,
not a problem with the technology. I don't know what technological change
will bring us in another 25 years but I guarantee those people or their
children will be having the same problems.

The software world should make this easier, not harder.
Right. And it will never go out of date, too. g


It doesn't. There's nothing to prevent you from running an operating system
from the 1970s today.


You may need to find hardware from the 70s to run it on, though. The driver
that came with that operating system in 1979 to talk to an ST506 disk drive
isn't going to talk to an SATA drive in a new system. And there's probably
some stuff in an 8086 processor that isn't common to an i5. So I guess you
do what's common among the Linux writers and write new drivers for your
hardware.


No, that's what makes it that much easier. Today if you want to run RSX-11,
you don't need to find an old PDP-11/70, you can just run an emulated machine
on a cheap PC and get remarkably good performance. We have finally got to
the point where virtual machines can provide enough performance to split
the running hardware from the physical hardware.

Getting back to the scope of the original query, there's prescious little
Linux support for multi-channel audio interfaces even though they've been
with us for over ten years. And when you do find one that's supported, it's
usually an old model that you'd have to buy third-hand unless (most likely
like the one who wrote the support code for it) you have one in your attic
that you abandoned years ago.


It depends on the interfaces. A bunch of them used standard programming
interfaces and those are all very well supported because the hardware is
well-documented so it doesn't take that much to make a driver. The
BeBoP kit supports a pretty wide variety of them.

If it's not supported by FreeBoB, though, you're going to have trouble.
And that's the fault of the interface vendors for not providing technical
information about their products, if you ask me. I feel the same way about
companies who won't provide a schematic of their preamps.

So I still think Linux is only suitable for professional DAW work if you
buy a turnkey system that just happens to have Linux at its heart. And
when you're buying a turnkey system, you don't care what operating
system it uses, only that you'll be able to get support from your vendor
as long as you want to use it. (which is optimitistic for just about
anything).


I'd say that is the case for ANY system, not just Linux-based ones. Unless
you have a coding staff on hand, the way a typical studio in the seventies
had a maintenance and design staff on hand. And we're in a world where some
big studios do.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #40   Report Post  
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
Moshe Goldfarb[_3_] Moshe Goldfarb[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?

On 21 Dec 2009 10:37:04 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

dimercaprol wrote:
Since this thread has some knowledgeable people, I hope you don't mind
if I ask if any of you guys has info about using the M-Audio Firewire
410 in any version of Linux. The last I hear, it didn't work so I am
still using Windows. I would like to switch to Linux, but I don't want
to buy a new 2496 external sound card.


The problem is that the 410 has a nonstandard interface, and M-Audio won't
provide details of the interface.

This means that you are dependant either on M-Audio deciding to produce
their own linux driver, or on someone successfully reverse-engineering
the device well enough to put together a linux driver.


M-Audio seems to be in trouble even wrt to Windows 7 x64 (and even
Vista) drivers for some of their products. I would most definitely
read the user forum over there before purchasing an M-Audio
product.

They seem to be ignoring their customers.

FWIW I have a Delta 1010 that works fine with Windows 7 x64 and
they were a little slow, but did get drivers out to the field.

As for not releasing the specs, that's true but the Linux community
has managed quite well with the Delta series and in fact these are
amongst the best support prosumer level cards for Linux.

Gotta give credit to the ALSA developers for that.



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Linux is More than Ready For Professional Audio. Here is Proof! [email protected] Pro Audio 19 July 1st 06 07:53 AM
Linux audio applications ARE PROFESSIONAL! Wolfgang Pro Audio 14 June 4th 05 04:48 PM
Linux and PROFESSIONAL AUDIO?? "I have no professional training" Hans Kimm Pro Audio 5 June 4th 05 03:40 AM
Linux Used In a Professional Setting. Here is an Example!!!!!!!!!!! Michael B. Levy Pro Audio 22 January 17th 05 01:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"