Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
Erin Mungan wrote:
Comments, discussion... ? No, thanks for the offer. |
#3
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
|
#4
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#5
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
|
#6
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Erin Mungan" a credible person?
... I say no.
-- Rick |
#7
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Erin Mungan" a credible person?
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
Erin Mungan wrote:
In article , lid says... Erin Mungan wrote: Comments, discussion... ? No, thanks for the offer. Coming from a Linux zealot like yourself, that's no surprise. Why the fear? No fear, you're just boring. Your zealot brothers in Linux keep telling the professional audio community how Linux is ready to replace the applications we already use. This clearly causes a great deal of excitement for you, during these, your lowest days. You keep telling us how Linux is free and we are wasting our money on applications like ProTools and Nuendo etc. No I don't. So why the fear when you are asked to produce instead of bull****? I have no interest in producing anything for you, except another turd you can call your brother. |
#11
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
Erin Mungan wrote:
In article , 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 -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Linux is More than Ready For Professional Audio. Here is Proof! | Pro Audio | |||
Linux audio applications ARE PROFESSIONAL! | Pro Audio | |||
Linux and PROFESSIONAL AUDIO?? "I have no professional training" | Pro Audio | |||
Linux Used In a Professional Setting. Here is an Example!!!!!!!!!!! | Pro Audio |