[Geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
.

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

Was there a problem before with Windows ? I didn't see it.

But I cannot see how 'away from the Windows world' wrt to things like Linux
can fail to have consistancy issues with every Tom Dick and Harry
distributor, and ever Tom Dick and Harry user knitting their own os and
application components, or at least dicking (or having to) to get them to
work....


It doesn't. There's nothing to prevent you from running an operating
system from the 1970s today. If anything, it's a lot easier than it
was in the seventies.

Bit tricky now my QDOS EPROM is corrupted....

geoff

[Geoff]

David Gravereaux wrote:

signature.asc (153 bytes) ATT00058.txt (1.13KB)

Absolutely !

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

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

However, we must keep in mind that Linux thrives on open source software
and users who are drawn to it because of the great variety of free
software.
Some of it is indeed developed like a real software project, while others is
released in breadboard stage with a "OK, now someone else can finish the
job" notice.

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

I don't know exactly what I'm talking about here, but libraries are a good
thought.

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

What I think is based on my own experience. I'm not a programmer. Given
source code, a compiler, and instructions, I'm sure I could run it, but I
wouldn't have any idea what to do if the compiled program didn't run.
Similarly
there are people who can solder well enough to construct something from one
of your DIY articles, but if it doesn't work, they don't have any idea
what could
be wrong. I suspect that those same people would have the same problems if
they were putting together software from parts even if they had the source
code, whereas I could troubleshoot something built from real components
that I measure with real tools.

I simply don't know any software builders who are also adequate
troubleshooters,
however, during my brief excursion into Linux, when I asked for help, I
didn't
get the kind of help that I give people to troubeleshoot their hardware
system
problems, nor was I able to fix my problems with the suggestions I
received. It
was more like "that CD drive probably isn't supported in that
distribution. I suggest that you
get one that is." (with no suggestion as to what to get. Linux people
just aren't
like me.

Today if you want to run RSX-11,
you don't need to find an old PDP-11/70, you can just run an emulated machine
on a cheap PC and get remarkably good performance. We have finally got to
the point where virtual machines can provide enough performance to split
the running hardware from the physical hardware.

OK, then YOU can run an emulator. I never knew or imagined that such a
think existed.

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

OK, so perhaps it's possible to write in support for a bunch of different
interfaces, but given that the manufacturers aren't doing it, and for
the most
part they aren't even cooperative enough with would-be developers to lend
them the hardware and give them the necessary software documentation, I
don't see it happening in the real world.

One of the things that I learned about Linux in my short stay was that
hardware
isn't supported with user-installable drivers like Windows is. You can't
stick the
disk you got with the hardware into the computer and make the computer
so that
it will talk to the hardware. You need to add a new bunch of code to the
program
and re-compile it. Or find a distribution that already has that hardware
support
compiled in. It's all there for the doing, but it's not something that's
easy for the
musician who wants to record, not fool with Linux, to do. It's hard
enough to get
them to go to the web site to get a newer driver and install it when the
one in
the box didn't work right.

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

That's the problem with technology products in this era. They're
designed to be
here for a short while, then then to become obsolete so the developers can
continue to make more money from their established users. So it's not worth
the cost to publish the documentation, nor is it worth the risk that their
competitors will use that documentation to a commercial advantage. I
remember
when I was working for the National Weather Service having to sign all sorts
of non-disclosure documents in order to get the schematics for the ADM-3A
CRT terminals that we had all over the facility.

So I still think Linux is only suitable for professional DAW work if you
buy a turnkey system that just happens to have Linux at its heart.

I'd say that is the case for ANY system, not just Linux-based ones. Unless
you have a coding staff on hand, the way a typical studio in the seventies
had a maintenance and design staff on hand.

Oh, I don't know about that. Look at how many people who don't even know how
to screw in a light bulb bought a PC and a box of ProTools stuff and are
recording
with barely the knowledge to plug in a microphone. It's true that
professional studios
often have their ProTools system experts, or general IT support person
on staff, but
there are a lot more one-person studios than staffed commercial studios.
And that
one person, unless his regular job is working with developmental
software, isn't
likely to have the experience to keep, or even get, a Linux-based audio
system
going and not get in the way of his music-making.

Of course there are the exceptions, but they're pretty rare.

[Mike Rivers]

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

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

They're also among the oldest and most mediocre audio hardware in the
PC world. The Delta 1010 is OK, but pretty basic by today's standards.

I see that the ALSA project has a ton of cards listed, but I'll be darned if
I can even tell from the web site whether these cards are supported (and
to what extent) or if those are just names they know. One thing that's
clear is that "ya gotta know" stuff in order to get that card to work, and
when I tried to follow what I gotta know, I was very quickly lost.

I'm a pretty good electronics engineer, and I can usually dig up enough
information to be able to fix my Windows problems (though it's never
with a compiler), but I can't get out of the bullpen with Linux. I'm simply
not sufficiently immersed in, or dedicated to the sport. And I firmly
believe that there are a lot more like me.

[Moshe Goldfarb[_3_]]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:19:40 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

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

They're also among the oldest and most mediocre audio hardware in the
PC world. The Delta 1010 is OK, but pretty basic by today's standards.

Agreed!
I use my RME for critical work, however my Delta has lasted for
years (I have the original) and with the exception of the bad caps
problem which M-Audio fixed/exchanged for me, out of warranty, the
card has been flawless.

I can easily hear the difference between the Rme and Delta though
on critical material.


I see that the ALSA project has a ton of cards listed, but I'll be darned if
I can even tell from the web site whether these cards are supported (and
to what extent) or if those are just names they know. One thing that's
clear is that "ya gotta know" stuff in order to get that card to work, and
when I tried to follow what I gotta know, I was very quickly lost.

One problem with audio and even more so video work and Linux is
that the people writing these programs are programmers first, and
by a large amount, and musicians, graphic artists (professional or
otherwise), in most cases a distant second.

Not really much difference if we say removed the tech support
people from RME and the end user had to deal with egghead
programmers for support.

The typical Linux site and program is written with that in mind.
Try a Linux program called Cinelerra for example.
Excellent and powerful program, however extremely non-intuitive and
difficult to use.

I'm a pretty good electronics engineer, and I can usually dig up enough
information to be able to fix my Windows problems (though it's never
with a compiler), but I can't get out of the bullpen with Linux. I'm simply
not sufficiently immersed in, or dedicated to the sport. And I firmly
believe that there are a lot more like me.

It's one reason why Linux lags in this area.

What I could suggest, is trying a ready to go audio specific
distribution like Ubuntu Studio or 64Studio or something like that.
These distributions are already setup with Jack, low latency kernel
(in some cases) and so forth.
Assuming your hardware is supported, they actually work rather
well.

They are not going to replace Nuendo or even something like Reaper
real soon, but they are workable depending upon what type of music
you are creating.

Moshe

[Moshe Goldfarb[_3_]]

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:06:42 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:


Reaper works very well under WINE.

Yes it does.
Unfortunately my plugins like Ivory, Addictive Drums etc don't.

[Moshe Goldfarb[_3_]]

On 20 Dec 2009 22:36:21 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

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

So did/do I, but a case can be made for Linux if you think about it
as a piece of gear that you have the schematic for and can
customize much like you have no doubt done to commercial gear over
the years. IOW recapping, etc.
The fact that you could get a service manual made that possible.

Linux is similar in that you have the source code and can customize
to your hearts content.
This big difference I think is that while many musicians are also
engineers or technical types and can handle something like
recapping, programming, especially at the systems level, is a whole
other kettle of fish.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:19:40 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:
snip

They are not going to replace Nuendo or even something like Reaper
real soon, but they are workable depending upon what type of music
you are creating.

Moshe

http://www.bradlinder.net/2007/11/re...diting-on.html

--
Les Cargill

[Moshe Goldfarb[_3_]]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:44:08 -0500, 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. 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

We are somewhat like dinosaurs Mike!
I still remember your "FastEdit" thread (I think that was the name
of the program).

All you wanted to do was cut and paste across several tracks of
audio. IOW something a good splicing block, razor blade and
splicing tape could do.

A simple concept, yet many of the audio programs could not do it
that simply.

I thought to myself at that time, a couple of years ago I believe,
he does have a point!

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:06:42 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:


Reaper works very well under WINE.

Yes it does.
Unfortunately my plugins like Ivory, Addictive Drums etc don't.


Does that generalize to all RTAS plugins? I understand VST to
work swimmingly.

--
Les Cargill

[Geoff]

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

All you wanted to do was cut and paste across several tracks of
audio. IOW something a good splicing block, razor blade and
splicing tape could do.

A simple concept, yet many of the audio programs could not do it
that simply.

And many do - far more simply, concisely, and quickly !

geoff

[Moshe Goldfarb[_3_]]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:55:36 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:06:42 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:


Reaper works very well under WINE.

Yes it does.
Unfortunately my plugins like Ivory, Addictive Drums etc don't.


Does that generalize to all RTAS plugins? I understand VST to
work swimmingly.

I'm using VST plugins.
The problem is the copy protection, like iLok etc.

Yea, I know.....
I agree... Copy protection sucks.
However, Ivory is the "best" piano sound/playability out there IMHO
although I hear the new Steinberg Grand 3 is supposed to be
outstanding.
Then there is my UAD card.
So I'm kind of out of luck with Linux.

[Moshe Goldfarb[_3_]]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:13:05 +1300, geoff wrote:

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

All you wanted to do was cut and paste across several tracks of
audio. IOW something a good splicing block, razor blade and
splicing tape could do.

A simple concept, yet many of the audio programs could not do it
that simply.

And many do - far more simply, concisely, and quickly !

geoff

I think what Mike was trying to do, and correct me if I am wrong
Mike, my memory ain't what it used to be, was something like 6
tracks of audio, and simply move the cursor across them all, at
once, highlight them all, and say cut out some audio and at the
same time keeping them in sync.

I know there was a big discussion here a few years ago about it.

Like I said, my memory ain't what it used to be.
They tell me that's the second thing to go as one ages hahah!

[Moshe Goldfarb[_3_]]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:53:42 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:19:40 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:
snip

They are not going to replace Nuendo or even something like Reaper
real soon, but they are workable depending upon what type of music
you are creating.

Moshe

http://www.bradlinder.net/2007/11/re...diting-on.html

I know.

I prefer to pick the program and then pick the OS which to me,
especially for a dedicated DAW is really secondary.

IOW if I fell in love with Logic, I would buy a Mac.

If I wanted to run Linux (actually I do for home servers) I would
use Ardour, which is a pretty decent IMHO program.
Different though,but powerful once you learn it.

I'm a firm believer that Linux does indeed have a future in
professional audio, but it's going to take time.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

However, we must keep in mind that Linux thrives on open source software
and users who are drawn to it because of the great variety of free
software.
Some of it is indeed developed like a real software project, while others is
released in breadboard stage with a "OK, now someone else can finish the
job" notice.

Yeah, this the second most serious problem with Linux. The first most
serious problem is that everyone wants to write code but nobody wants to
write documentation.

What's weird is that Linux seems to have these issues much worse than other
free operating systems (NetBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSolaris, etc.).

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

What I think is based on my own experience. I'm not a programmer. Given
source code, a compiler, and instructions, I'm sure I could run it, but I
wouldn't have any idea what to do if the compiled program didn't run.
Similarly
there are people who can solder well enough to construct something from one
of your DIY articles, but if it doesn't work, they don't have any idea
what could
be wrong. I suspect that those same people would have the same problems if
they were putting together software from parts even if they had the source
code, whereas I could troubleshoot something built from real components
that I measure with real tools.

Could be, but they can learn, and you can learn too. My basic philosophy
is that it's important for people to learn what's inside the box, and
building something (either software or hardware) is a step toward that goal
as much as anything.

I simply don't know any software builders who are also adequate
troubleshooters,
however, during my brief excursion into Linux, when I asked for help, I
didn't
get the kind of help that I give people to troubeleshoot their hardware
system
problems, nor was I able to fix my problems with the suggestions I
received. It
was more like "that CD drive probably isn't supported in that
distribution. I suggest that you
get one that is." (with no suggestion as to what to get. Linux people
just aren't
like me.

You're clearly not asking the right folks for help. Part of the problem
in the Linux community is that there has been a huge and rapid growth, so
the vast majority of the folks using it have really no idea what they
are doing. (Not that the Windows world is much better, mind you.)

Today if you want to run RSX-11,
you don't need to find an old PDP-11/70, you can just run an emulated machine
on a cheap PC and get remarkably good performance. We have finally got to
the point where virtual machines can provide enough performance to split
the running hardware from the physical hardware.

OK, then YOU can run an emulator. I never knew or imagined that such a
think existed.

telnet mim.update.uu.se and when you get the prompt type "login guest/guest"
and you'll be in. I'm working on getting a RSTS/E machine up and running
soon, but the guys working on the RSX-11 machine have been top notch.

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

OK, so perhaps it's possible to write in support for a bunch of different
interfaces, but given that the manufacturers aren't doing it, and for
the most
part they aren't even cooperative enough with would-be developers to lend
them the hardware and give them the necessary software documentation, I
don't see it happening in the real world.

It's happening, it's just happening kind of slowly. If you want stuff
that just works out of the box, consider RME.

So I still think Linux is only suitable for professional DAW work if you
buy a turnkey system that just happens to have Linux at its heart.

I'd say that is the case for ANY system, not just Linux-based ones. Unless
you have a coding staff on hand, the way a typical studio in the seventies
had a maintenance and design staff on hand.

Oh, I don't know about that. Look at how many people who don't even know how
to screw in a light bulb bought a PC and a box of ProTools stuff and are
recording
with barely the knowledge to plug in a microphone.

Yes, this is bad! I get phone calls from these people at four in the morning
when they suddenly realize that they didn't make proper backups. I don't
like getting calls at four in the morning. This is very bad!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Moshe goldfarb]

On 21 Dec 2009 21:49:22 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:


Yeah, this the second most serious problem with Linux. The first most
serious problem is that everyone wants to write code but nobody wants to
write documentation.

True.
Writing doc is boring to these code bangers.

What's weird is that Linux seems to have these issues much worse than other
free operating systems (NetBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSolaris, etc.).

But they also have less conumser type programs and hardware support
compared to Linux.


Could be, but they can learn, and you can learn too. My basic philosophy
is that it's important for people to learn what's inside the box, and
building something (either software or hardware) is a step toward that goal
as much as anything.

Depends.
My physician doesn't have a clue how his network functions yet he is
connected to the Mayo clinic database etc all the time.


You're clearly not asking the right folks for help. Part of the problem
in the Linux community is that there has been a huge and rapid growth, so
the vast majority of the folks using it have really no idea what they
are doing. (Not that the Windows world is much better, mind you.)

Too many geeks with programmer mentality.
I asked a simple question in an ALSA group one time and got a whole
diatribe about little endian big endian etc.
I had no idea what the guy was talking about.
All I wanted to do was play 2 sounds at once from different programs.

The magic phrase is .asoundrc BTW, at least at the time.




Yes, this is bad! I get phone calls from these people at four in the morning
when they suddenly realize that they didn't make proper backups. I don't
like getting calls at four in the morning. This is very bad!
--scott

The shoemaker's kids.......etc.....

FWIW what is even worse is people who make regular backups but never do a
disaster recovery test to see if they actually work.

This happens quite often with major fortune 500+ companies as well.

Sad, but true.

[David Gravereaux]

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
On 20 Dec 2009 22:36:21 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

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

So did/do I, but a case can be made for Linux if you think about it
as a piece of gear that you have the schematic for and can
customize much like you have no doubt done to commercial gear over
the years. IOW recapping, etc.
The fact that you could get a service manual made that possible.

Linux is similar in that you have the source code and can customize
to your hearts content.
This big difference I think is that while many musicians are also
engineers or technical types and can handle something like
recapping, programming, especially at the systems level, is a whole
other kettle of fish.

You and Mike are both ringing bells for me the way you are making an
analogy to modding gear.

Unlike hardware, source code is easily shared via email, web, ftp,
CVS/SVN, etc..

One of the greatest programming moments for me when I was actively
working on an open source free software project (aside from getting paid
while doing it) was when it really started to roll and was getting well
used in my community. I'd make changes and ask for comments.. I'd get
them a day later from the folks using it (compiling along with debugging).

Those people would then add your stuff into other things. You'd download
the new WHATEVER app and didn't realize it had your stuff in it until
you asked it to do something your project does well and WOW... How's
this doing that? Oh, no way, my stuff is in here?, holy SH*T! That was
cool!

And it starts to really fly when those people start sending you patches
to add new features. That's when it hits the magical "critical mass"
and takes on an organic life of its own.

The free software model for creating things is a complete coin flip from
the standard method of purchasing a license seat of some proprietary
closed (source and inter-exchange formats) "product".

It's a great way to work. Even more so if you are lucky enough to be
earning a living assigned to doing it.

Not that I'd expect a ever hear that a studio tech in between fixing
broken mic cables or fried cans would be hunched over a computer monitor
actively debugging the DAW source used in the studio

--



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkswpJ4ACgkQlZadkQh/RmFIrwCeO1gfoqHwBAwixzdixpf5fy/9
n5sAn3GVXvfa7Db+BGCC7kU9S+XW4jAi
=dD75
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Neil Gould]

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
Different though,but powerful once you learn it.

I'm a firm believer that Linux does indeed have a future in
professional audio, but it's going to take time.

I think this sums it up well. LInux users are "firm believers", a scary lot
in any endeavor, and they're willing to sing the same song for decades
("...it's going to take time").

Meanwhile, "professional" means that one can make a living in their area of
expertise, which rules out most applications under Linux. From what I've
seen, Open Office is about as good as it gets, and it isn't very competitive
with MS Office 2000 w/r/t user features. I've found some glaring errors in
its documentation that could not have persisted in a commercial app. I can
only conclude that the users don't care that it doesn't work as the
documentation says it does.

IMO, even the number of posts on this topic answers the OP's question
adequately.

--
Best,

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

What I could suggest, is trying a ready to go audio specific
distribution like Ubuntu Studio or 64Studio or something like that.
These distributions are already setup with Jack, low latency kernel
(in some cases) and so forth.
Assuming your hardware is supported, they actually work rather
well.

This is exactly where I started (and ended) with Linux. The "net wisdom"
was that
Ubuntu Studio was the place to get started so I could see something
working enough
to hold my interest. So I got what appeared to be the latest
distribution (it was dated
only a few days earlier than when I downloaded it) and installed it.
First thing it did
was went out and got updates that took a couple of hours to download and
install.
It all seemed automatic, but when it thought it was finally happy, one
of the first things
I tried was to play an audio CD just to see if I could get audio out of
it, and I found (sorry
if I'm not using the exact terminology - it was a year ago, for a week,
and not well ingrained
in my memory):

(a) It claimed that it couldn't find my CD drive even though I could
access it, and files on
the CD, when I went to the file browser (after I finally figured out
which oddly named
program on the desktop was the file browser).

(b) There were several possible "CD player" programs, none of which
worked, even after
letting them update themselves, and getting two others that were
recommended. Someone
told me "perhaps your CD drive isn't supported."

(c) I started Ardour (which was what I was after anyway). I couldn't
find support for any of
the external multi-channel audio hardware that I have. I eventually got
it to record and play
with the computer's internal sound card after jacking around with Jack
(and reading a very
detailed and circuitous document on the web, which I was told "had all
the answers to all
your questions."

(d) I could see absolutely no reason to want to use that program. When I
asked around for
what I could do with Ardour that I couldn't do with other DAW programs
that I had, even a
couple that were free (Reaper is perfectly happy with my Mackie 1200F,
Mackie isn't even
listed in the ALSA project), I got a really good answer from someone who
was using it to
control a 200 channel multi-speaker system. He said that there was no
other program that
would allow him to do that. OK. Other answers were related to ways that
the program could
be customized.

What I was after was to answer a variant of the question asked here -
Could someone who
wants to use his computer for multitrack recording, editing, and mixing
be happy with a Linux
system? And my conclusion was yes, but only if he cared enough about
learning a lot of new
things that had nothing to do with music, audio, or recording.

They are not going to replace Nuendo or even something like Reaper
real soon, but they are workable depending upon what type of music
you are creating.

I think that for specal cases, for example, the guy who needed to put
200 independent speakers
under program control for his audio - he didn't even say that it was
music - installation, Ardour
might make something possible that wasn't possible with other tools he
had available. But few
people who want to record music have such specialized requirements.

[Mike Rivers]

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

I think what Mike was trying to do, and correct me if I am wrong
Mike, my memory ain't what it used to be, was something like 6
tracks of audio, and simply move the cursor across them all, at
once, highlight them all, and say cut out some audio and at the
same time keeping them in sync.

I seem to remember posting something like that. It might have been
in Cool Edit Pro. I was trying to do the same thing in the program
as I could do on the Mackie HDR24/96 and couldn't figure out how
to do it. Someone told me the keystroke combination (which was
nowhere to be found in the docs I had) that would let me select
the same range on multiple tracks.

Fast Edit is indeed like a splicing block, and I still find it more
intuitive
for straightforward stereo editing than any DAW that I have. Everything
else is more flexible and more powerful, but requires that I remember
what buttons to press when, where, with Fast Edit, there are only two.

[Moshe goldfarb]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:58:57 -0500, Neil Gould wrote:

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
Different though,but powerful once you learn it.

I'm a firm believer that Linux does indeed have a future in
professional audio, but it's going to take time.

I think this sums it up well. LInux users are "firm believers", a scary lot
in any endeavor, and they're willing to sing the same song for decades
("...it's going to take time").

Meanwhile, "professional" means that one can make a living in their area of
expertise, which rules out most applications under Linux. From what I've
seen, Open Office is about as good as it gets, and it isn't very competitive
with MS Office 2000 w/r/t user features. I've found some glaring errors in
its documentation that could not have persisted in a commercial app. I can
only conclude that the users don't care that it doesn't work as the
documentation says it does.

IMO, even the number of posts on this topic answers the OP's question
adequately.

Hehheh!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Linux zealot in any shape form or fashion and
fully agree that Linux has a long, long way to go before it can even think
of being seen in a professional studio. One excpetion is the Linux based
stuff that Harrison is doing.

The biggest problem with Linux is that you get the programs for free,
however the time required to make some of them work properly is all on your
own dime.

For some people they have all the time in the world.
I don't so I plunk down my cash and make music.

So in effect I do agree with you!

[Moshe goldfarb]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 07:31:12 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

What I could suggest, is trying a ready to go audio specific
distribution like Ubuntu Studio or 64Studio or something like that.
These distributions are already setup with Jack, low latency kernel
(in some cases) and so forth.
Assuming your hardware is supported, they actually work rather
well.

This is exactly where I started (and ended) with Linux. The "net wisdom"
was that
Ubuntu Studio was the place to get started so I could see something
working enough
to hold my interest. So I got what appeared to be the latest
distribution (it was dated
only a few days earlier than when I downloaded it) and installed it.
First thing it did
was went out and got updates that took a couple of hours to download and
install.
It all seemed automatic, but when it thought it was finally happy, one
of the first things
I tried was to play an audio CD just to see if I could get audio out of
it, and I found (sorry
if I'm not using the exact terminology - it was a year ago, for a week,
and not well ingrained
in my memory):

(a) It claimed that it couldn't find my CD drive even though I could
access it, and files on
the CD, when I went to the file browser (after I finally figured out
which oddly named
program on the desktop was the file browser).

(b) There were several possible "CD player" programs, none of which
worked, even after
letting them update themselves, and getting two others that were
recommended. Someone
told me "perhaps your CD drive isn't supported."

(c) I started Ardour (which was what I was after anyway). I couldn't
find support for any of
the external multi-channel audio hardware that I have. I eventually got
it to record and play
with the computer's internal sound card after jacking around with Jack
(and reading a very
detailed and circuitous document on the web, which I was told "had all
the answers to all
your questions."

(d) I could see absolutely no reason to want to use that program. When I
asked around for
what I could do with Ardour that I couldn't do with other DAW programs
that I had, even a
couple that were free (Reaper is perfectly happy with my Mackie 1200F,
Mackie isn't even
listed in the ALSA project), I got a really good answer from someone who
was using it to
control a 200 channel multi-speaker system. He said that there was no
other program that
would allow him to do that. OK. Other answers were related to ways that
the program could
be customized.

What I was after was to answer a variant of the question asked here -
Could someone who
wants to use his computer for multitrack recording, editing, and mixing
be happy with a Linux
system? And my conclusion was yes, but only if he cared enough about
learning a lot of new
things that had nothing to do with music, audio, or recording.

They are not going to replace Nuendo or even something like Reaper
real soon, but they are workable depending upon what type of music
you are creating.

I think that for specal cases, for example, the guy who needed to put
200 independent speakers
under program control for his audio - he didn't even say that it was
music - installation, Ardour
might make something possible that wasn't possible with other tools he
had available. But few
people who want to record music have such specialized requirements.


Your experience Mike seems to be typical of people who have more advanced
audio interfaces.
Many times when a person starts evangelizing about how great an audio
platofrm Linux is, when pressed you find they are using a basic low end
Sound Blaster type card which of course is fully supported.

Try to get control surfaces to work, firewire interfaces etc and it's a
different ballgame.

As for the interface (CD problem), that's going to be the case when
learning any new OS.

I was totally stumped the first time I tried to use a Mac (MacOS not OSX).

Linux is pretty popular in Europe for electronic type music and like you
say the 200 speaker application, while a weird one, is valid.

I guess I'm like a lot of people who want to see Linux make it into
pro-audio, who appreciate the hard work done by the developers (I despise
zealots though) and of course want "free" or low cost programs.

Will I see it in my lifetime?
I have my doubts, I'm 49yo BTW.

BTW Ardour is used in one of the Harrison consoles and I believe they just
released some kind of Mixbus thingie (software) that runs Ardour as well.

http://www.harrisonconsoles.com/joom...tpage&Itemid=1

[Mike Rivers]

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

The biggest problem with Linux is that you get the programs for free,
however the time required to make some of them work properly is all on your
own dime.

For some people they have all the time in the world.
I don't so I plunk down my cash and make music.

Do the people who have a lot of experience with Linux get things
working any faster than those of us who have to bungle through it
every time? Or do they just enjoy it more? Or it doesn't bother them
because once they got it working, they'd have to play music, and
then fix all their mistakes?

[Mike Rivers]

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

Your experience Mike seems to be typical of people who have more advanced
audio interfaces.
Many times when a person starts evangelizing about how great an audio
platofrm Linux is, when pressed you find they are using a basic low end
Sound Blaster type card which of course is fully supported.

Didn't someone ask about "Professional" DAW work a while back? Of
course there's nothing wrong with an RME interface in a pro application,
but if it becomes effectively a "closed" system because only a limited
amount of hardware is supported, that doesn't give the professionals
much of a chance to excercise some of their professional preferences
and prejudices.

As for the interface (CD problem), that's going to be the case when
learning any new OS.

Well, I suppose, but the CD drive worked under Windows, and I've bought
random CD drives over the years, put them in Windows computers, and
they worked. I didn't even have to install the driver that came in the
package.

I was totally stumped the first time I tried to use a Mac (MacOS not OSX).

Me, too. It was on a very early DAW. We were running short on disk space
so I thought I'd remove some junk files. I figured out how to drag them to
the trash, but I still didn't have any more disk space. A week later,
someone
told me that you had to empty the trash to actually get rid of files. I was
used to DOS where "delete" meant DELETE.

BTW Ardour is used in one of the Harrison consoles and I believe they just
released some kind of Mixbus thingie (software) that runs Ardour as well.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Harrison is a good example of an audio equipment
manufacturer (not a "professional" user) who has chosen to use Linux as
the platform for some of their products. They support their software and
if you BUY it from them, they'll help you to get it running. The console is
a turnkey system - you get the computer with the operating system
configured and the software installed. You don't go off and get updates
where you can find them, Harrison tells you when you need an update and
tells you where to get it and how to install it. But if you're going to buy
a system like that, you might as well get ProTools and be directly
compatible with other "professional" studios.

[Moshe goldfarb]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:39:54 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

The biggest problem with Linux is that you get the programs for free,
however the time required to make some of them work properly is all on your
own dime.

For some people they have all the time in the world.
I don't so I plunk down my cash and make music.

Do the people who have a lot of experience with Linux get things
working any faster than those of us who have to bungle through it
every time? Or do they just enjoy it more? Or it doesn't bother them
because once they got it working, they'd have to play music, and
then fix all their mistakes?

Interesting point Mike.
I think it's a little bit of both but it depends upon what kind of Linux
user we are talking about.

In the case of installing, configuring etc Linux I do believe that some
people get satisfaction out of doing these things.
I've seen threads where this type of person actually calls operating
systems like Windows or OSX "boring" because there is nothing to tinker
with.

I suppose that's valid if your bag happens to be operating systems.

And then again, there is the person who buys a Linux netbook with Linux
pre-installed and it just works for them much like the Windows version
does.

So my answer is, depending upon the person it can be both.

My preference is to not have to screw with an operating system or programs.
I've been working with computers since the early 70's and have lived
through all the "tinkering".

In my view, the computer is now an appliance and the operating system is
the power cord.
It's the applications that matter and I just want them to work with a
minimum of fuss.

But that's just me.

[Moshe goldfarb]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:50:36 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

Your experience Mike seems to be typical of people who have more advanced
audio interfaces.
Many times when a person starts evangelizing about how great an audio
platofrm Linux is, when pressed you find they are using a basic low end
Sound Blaster type card which of course is fully supported.

Didn't someone ask about "Professional" DAW work a while back? Of
course there's nothing wrong with an RME interface in a pro application,
but if it becomes effectively a "closed" system because only a limited
amount of hardware is supported, that doesn't give the professionals
much of a chance to excercise some of their professional preferences
and prejudices.

Exactly!
And the Linux pundits will argue over the term "professional".
They have a point, but I think in the context of this group, we are talking
about working studios, with working musicians. Maybe commercial would be a
better term. This of course can involve home users with project studios as
well of course.

When I hear the term professional used in the context of Linux vs Windows
vs OSX for DAW work, I immediately ask what interfaces are supported.

If only lower end products, or the older products of higher end
manufacturers are supported, then I start to wonder.
Of course the same thing can be said of Protools which is a closed system,
however it's different in that it is a total solution all rolled into one.


As for the interface (CD problem), that's going to be the case when
learning any new OS.

Well, I suppose, but the CD drive worked under Windows, and I've bought
random CD drives over the years, put them in Windows computers, and
they worked. I didn't even have to install the driver that came in the
package.

Yep.
Those days of cdrom.sys are long gone.

Linux is a little different in that devices need to be mounted in order to
be accessed.
Most modern distributions automount, but there are still bugs and noobs do
wonder why they can't eject their disk with the button when the drive is
mounted.
With a properly configured auto-mounter and a little education, it becomes
easy.


I was totally stumped the first time I tried to use a Mac (MacOS not OSX).

Me, too. It was on a very early DAW. We were running short on disk space
so I thought I'd remove some junk files. I figured out how to drag them to
the trash, but I still didn't have any more disk space. A week later,
someone
told me that you had to empty the trash to actually get rid of files. I was
used to DOS where "delete" meant DELETE.

Yep!!

I couldn't grasp the concept of one window (title bars, scroll bars etc)
being used for each application so I would close, or thought I was closing,
applications, only to find out they were really still open.
I was totally confused until I got used to it.



BTW Ardour is used in one of the Harrison consoles and I believe they just
released some kind of Mixbus thingie (software) that runs Ardour as well.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Harrison is a good example of an audio equipment
manufacturer (not a "professional" user) who has chosen to use Linux as
the platform for some of their products. They support their software and
if you BUY it from them, they'll help you to get it running. The console is
a turnkey system - you get the computer with the operating system
configured and the software installed. You don't go off and get updates
where you can find them, Harrison tells you when you need an update and
tells you where to get it and how to install it. But if you're going to buy
a system like that, you might as well get ProTools and be directly
compatible with other "professional" studios.

That's how I feel.
I give them credit for trying something different and new, but for me I'll
stick with Nuendo because it does what I need.

One side effect is that at least with the Mixbus software, Linux is being
used by people that may never have been interested to try it before so
maybe it will help the chicken and egg syndrome that Linux lives under.

[Richard Mann]

Mike Rivers writes:

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

The biggest problem with Linux is that you get the programs for free,
however the time required to make some of them work properly is all on your
own dime.
For some people they have all the time in the world.
I don't so I plunk down my cash and make music.

Do the people who have a lot of experience with Linux get things
working any faster than those of us who have to bungle through it
every time? Or do they just enjoy it more? Or it doesn't bother them
because once they got it working, they'd have to play music, and
then fix all their mistakes?

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Mike.

Some people just want tools to do music. Others want to hack. Whether
hacking involves analog electronics, computer hardware, or computer software,
it is all the same. Time spent hacking is time not spent doing music, or
whatever your "real" task is.

So, for music people, you're probably better off with Windows. Where Linux
shines is for institutional settings, where you have staff to maintain your
gear. Those staff will find Linux easier to maintain than Windows due to the
open nature of it. Also, you'll find a lot of scientific computation done
under Linux, because these people usually like a high degree of control (and
they like to know what the source code is really doing...). Finally, you'll
find linux in hacker communities where people are building wacky custom
hardware/prototypes, such as wearable computers, user interfaces, etc.

By the way, another great application of Linux is to backup and maintain
Windows systems. I use a special CDROM called "trinity rescue kit" to make a
raw image of my Windows filesystem so I can have a reliable restore point.
Ironically the only reliable backup and restore system I've found is
Linux-based.

Richard

[Mike Rivers]

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

Do the people who have a lot of experience with Linux get things
working any faster than those of us who have to bungle through it
every time? Or do they just enjoy it more?

Interesting point Mike.
I think it's a little bit of both but it depends upon what kind of Linux
user we are talking about.

I thought there was only one kind of Linux user. g

I've seen threads where this type of person actually calls operating
systems like Windows or OSX "boring" because there is nothing to tinker
with.

Similarly, I've heard people praise Linux because there's so much that you
can tinker with. You're not locked in to an operating system that operates
the way the programmers designed it.

And then again, there is the person who buys a Linux netbook with Linux
pre-installed and it just works for them much like the Windows version
does.

That person is only a Linux user by chance - he bought a computer to do
specific jobs and that one was cheaper than the one that looked just like
it that ran Windows.

In my view, the computer is now an appliance and the operating system is
the power cord.
It's the applications that matter and I just want them to work with a
minimum of fuss.

I agree. And if professional DAW audio applications that just work is what
you're after, Linux doesn't yet have what you want.

[Mike Rivers]

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

One side effect is that at least with the Mixbus software, Linux is being
used by people that may never have been interested to try it before so
maybe it will help the chicken and egg syndrome that Linux lives under.

The commercial release of Harrison's Mixbus program as a stand-alone
application
is for Mac OSX 10.4.11 and above. It appears to be intended to work
along side
of Logic, with Logic being the recording program, and JACK (which you also
need to install) being the interface between Logic and Mixbus. It's
almost like
you're running the Harrison-customized version of Ardour and taking
advantage
of Logic to allow you to use it with any audio I/O hardware that Logic
suports
(which is darn near everything) rather than just what the Ardour or ALSA
projects have got around to supporting.

I think it's a pretty cool idea, actually. However, the Mixbus Quick
Start Guide
http://www.harrisonconsoles.com/mixb...QuickStart.pdf
looks suspiciously like Linux documentation. It's not for the squeamish,
which most Mac users are (which is why they use a Mac).

[Moshe goldfarb]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:32:54 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

One side effect is that at least with the Mixbus software, Linux is being
used by people that may never have been interested to try it before so
maybe it will help the chicken and egg syndrome that Linux lives under.

The commercial release of Harrison's Mixbus program as a stand-alone
application
is for Mac OSX 10.4.11 and above. It appears to be intended to work
along side
of Logic, with Logic being the recording program, and JACK (which you also
need to install) being the interface between Logic and Mixbus. It's
almost like
you're running the Harrison-customized version of Ardour and taking
advantage
of Logic to allow you to use it with any audio I/O hardware that Logic
suports
(which is darn near everything) rather than just what the Ardour or ALSA
projects have got around to supporting.

I think it's a pretty cool idea, actually. However, the Mixbus Quick
Start Guide
http://www.harrisonconsoles.com/mixb...QuickStart.pdf
looks suspiciously like Linux documentation. It's not for the squeamish,
which most Mac users are (which is why they use a Mac).

Yea I took a look at the documentation before I realized the software was
Mac only. I run Windows.

Seems like an interesting concept.

Mac with OSX has managed to hide some of Linux's "rough around the edges"
programs.
CUPS for example works rather well on a Mac.

Under Linux, it depends on the distribution.
Some do it well, others do not.

Also the numerous configuration tools for Linux CUPS confuses people.

[Richard Mann]

Mike Rivers writes:

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

One side effect is that at least with the Mixbus software, Linux is being
used by people that may never have been interested to try it before so
maybe it will help the chicken and egg syndrome that Linux lives under.

The commercial release of Harrison's Mixbus program as a stand-alone
application
is for Mac OSX 10.4.11 and above. It appears to be intended to work along side
of Logic, with Logic being the recording program, and JACK (which you also
need to install) being the interface between Logic and Mixbus. It's almost like
you're running the Harrison-customized version of Ardour and taking advantage
of Logic to allow you to use it with any audio I/O hardware that Logic suports
(which is darn near everything) rather than just what the Ardour or ALSA
projects have got around to supporting.

I think it's a pretty cool idea, actually. However, the Mixbus Quick Start
Guide
http://www.harrisonconsoles.com/mixb...QuickStart.pdf
looks suspiciously like Linux documentation. It's not for the squeamish,
which most Mac users are (which is why they use a Mac).

This looks interesting. What is it really? Is it just a customized version
of the Linux/Unix Ardour system?

I've tried to use Arbour a few times, but gave up because: 1) it seems like a
"protools" like interface, which I could never quite figure out. I prefer
something that looks more like the "cubase" interface. 2) it was hard to
figure out without documenation/configuration. My main problem is I could
never figure out what "jack" was doing, or how to get my interface (Presonus
Firepod) to work. Maybe that is what Harrison is providing. The
documentation doesn't look that good, though.

Richard

[Anahata]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:09:44 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

Mac with OSX has managed to hide some of Linux's "rough around the
edges" programs.

All the Linux distributions are getting better at that, though ease-of-
use-to-the-uninitiated has historically taken second place to under-the-
hood technical capability.

CUPS for example works rather well on a Mac.

I should hope so, as CUPS was developed by Apple for OSX.

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

[Mike Rivers]

Richard Mann wrote:

Harrison Mixbus

This looks interesting. What is it really? Is it just a customized version
of the Linux/Unix Ardour system?

I believe so. Harrison has been working with Ardour for quite a few
years now.

I've tried to use Arbour a few times, but gave up . . . My main problem is I could
never figure out what "jack" was doing, or how to get my interface (Presonus
Firepod) to work. Maybe that is what Harrison is providing.

Ardour users will tell you that JACK is automatic ... unless .... You
won't, at least
not any time soon, be able to connect your PreSounus Firepod to Ardour
because
it's not supported by any of the distributions. What Mixbus does is lets
the Mac
(which supports the PreSounus hardware) route the data stream (via JACK)
into
Mixbus.

The system engineer in me likes this idea - you make one interface (the
Mac OS)
that can talk to a wide variety of hardware, then you put a box (the
program JACK)
between it and another program (Mixbus, or Ardour) that doesn't care
where the
data originated, as long as it looks like data it understands, coming in
through a
path it can use.

The practical engineer in me says that I should have to know that JACK
is there.
I should just be able to go to the setup menu or window of the DAW
program, see
a list of audio devices that it knows about (which should include
anything I can
throw at it, perhaps requiring only installing a driver) and pick the
one I want to use.

That user interface is what's missing, and what keeps non-Linux people
away from
using what might be a good program.

[Moshe goldfarb]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:55:16 -0600, anahata wrote:

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:09:44 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

CUPS for example works rather well on a Mac.

I should hope so, as CUPS was developed by Apple for OSX.

Actually not true.

CUPS has been around for years. Common UNIX Printing System.
Key word UNIX.

It was modified and much improved by Apple for OSX.

[Moshe goldfarb]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:22:10 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:

Richard Mann wrote:

Harrison Mixbus

This looks interesting. What is it really? Is it just a customized version
of the Linux/Unix Ardour system?

I believe so. Harrison has been working with Ardour for quite a few
years now.

I've tried to use Arbour a few times, but gave up . . . My main problem is I could
never figure out what "jack" was doing, or how to get my interface (Presonus
Firepod) to work. Maybe that is what Harrison is providing.

Ardour users will tell you that JACK is automatic ... unless .... You
won't, at least
not any time soon, be able to connect your PreSounus Firepod to Ardour
because
it's not supported by any of the distributions. What Mixbus does is lets
the Mac
(which supports the PreSounus hardware) route the data stream (via JACK)
into
Mixbus.

The system engineer in me likes this idea - you make one interface (the
Mac OS)
that can talk to a wide variety of hardware, then you put a box (the
program JACK)
between it and another program (Mixbus, or Ardour) that doesn't care
where the
data originated, as long as it looks like data it understands, coming in
through a
path it can use.

The practical engineer in me says that I should have to know that JACK
is there.
I should just be able to go to the setup menu or window of the DAW
program, see
a list of audio devices that it knows about (which should include
anything I can
throw at it, perhaps requiring only installing a driver) and pick the
one I want to use.

That user interface is what's missing, and what keeps non-Linux people
away from
using what might be a good program.

Actually GUI front ends do exist for JACK, JackCtrl for example which
allow you to do what you are looking to do, I think.

However, you raise the point which is my personal reason why audio
under Linux is a mess.
Too many sound systems, and too much needed interaction by the user.

With Windows this stuff is almost totally transparent.
Choose ASIO or WDM and that's it.
You can move a latency slider to adjust your round trip latency for
say recording vs mixing.
Simple.

With Linux it's a mess.
Also, OSS, Arts, eSound, and now Pulse Audio the current prom queen of
the Linux world, comes along to confuse things even more.

The Linux community calls it choice.
I call it mass confusion.

Yes Jack, which is kind of like Rewire coupled with Steinberg's
Control Room, allows you to do a lot of things but it assumes you know
what you are doing, or are willing to scour the net to figure out how.

Maybe this sounds like a cop out but all I want to do is make music.

[hank alrich]

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:22:10 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:

Richard Mann wrote:

Harrison Mixbus

This looks interesting. What is it really? Is it just a customized
version of the Linux/Unix Ardour system?

I believe so. Harrison has been working with Ardour for quite a few
years now.

I've tried to use Arbour a few times, but gave up . . . My main
problem is I could never figure out what "jack" was doing, or how to
get my interface (Presonus Firepod) to work. Maybe that is what
Harrison is providing.

Ardour users will tell you that JACK is automatic ... unless .... You
won't, at least
not any time soon, be able to connect your PreSounus Firepod to Ardour
because
it's not supported by any of the distributions. What Mixbus does is lets
the Mac
(which supports the PreSounus hardware) route the data stream (via JACK)
into
Mixbus.

The system engineer in me likes this idea - you make one interface (the
Mac OS)
that can talk to a wide variety of hardware, then you put a box (the
program JACK)
between it and another program (Mixbus, or Ardour) that doesn't care
where the
data originated, as long as it looks like data it understands, coming in
through a
path it can use.

The practical engineer in me says that I should have to know that JACK
is there.
I should just be able to go to the setup menu or window of the DAW
program, see
a list of audio devices that it knows about (which should include
anything I can
throw at it, perhaps requiring only installing a driver) and pick the
one I want to use.

That user interface is what's missing, and what keeps non-Linux people
away from
using what might be a good program.

Actually GUI front ends do exist for JACK, JackCtrl for example which
allow you to do what you are looking to do, I think.

However, you raise the point which is my personal reason why audio
under Linux is a mess.
Too many sound systems, and too much needed interaction by the user.

With Windows this stuff is almost totally transparent.
Choose ASIO or WDM and that's it.
You can move a latency slider to adjust your round trip latency for
say recording vs mixing.
Simple.

With Linux it's a mess.
Also, OSS, Arts, eSound, and now Pulse Audio the current prom queen of
the Linux world, comes along to confuse things even more.

The Linux community calls it choice.
I call it mass confusion.

Yes Jack, which is kind of like Rewire coupled with Steinberg's
Control Room, allows you to do a lot of things but it assumes you know
what you are doing, or are willing to scour the net to figure out how.

Maybe this sounds like a cop out but all I want to do is make music.

That's not a cop out; that's just being practical about getting stuff
done with a computer instead of doing stuff to the computer.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://www.armadillomusicproductions...rryMeHome.html
http://hankalrich.com/

[dawhead[_2_]]

On Dec 22, 10:32*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

The commercial release of Harrison's Mixbus program as a stand-alone
application
is for Mac OSX 10.4.11 and above. It appears to be intended to work
along side
of Logic, with Logic being the recording program, and JACK (which you also
need to install) being the interface between Logic and Mixbus.

This is not the case.

We worried a great deal about the reliance on JACK. It turns out to
have been a boon to many of the initial Mixbus users because rather
than grappling with the full DAW capabilities it has (because its
based on Ardour), they were able to route directly out of Logic (or
whatever other CoreAudio compatible software they were using) into
Mixbus and just use it "as a console".

However, this was purely a (positive) side effect of our use of JACK -
Mixbus was not ever conceived as some kind of "addon" or "frontend"
for other DAWs. Its just that the kind of modular environment that
I've worked at developing for the last 10 years makes this particular
workflow possible.

Users who have bothered to read the documentation, or even more so,
watch the video on Mixbus, have understood that its actually a full-
featured DAW (without MIDI editing/recording/playback), not just a mix
engine. The fact that it is usable as "just" the latter is a side
effect of Ardour's design, not a design decision.

It's
almost like
you're running the Harrison-customized version of Ardour and taking
advantage
of Logic to allow you to use it with any audio I/O hardware that Logic
suports

there is no hardware supported on OS X that does not work with JACK on
OS X. If it doesn't work well with JACK (e.g. digidesign I/O) then it
doesn't work well with Logic (if at all - digi's coreaudio driver for
their h/w is just almost laughably non-standard in how it does just
about everything.)

(which is darn near everything) rather than just what the Ardour or ALSA
projects have got around to supporting.

Ardour doesn't support hardware. Ardour doesn't interact with hardware
directly at all. ALSA is the HAL for audio devices on a platform
(linux) that has seen many manufacturers deliberately refuse to make
driver support possible. Thankfully, for those who have not (RME, M-
Audio, anything based on the ice1712/1724 chipsets (which is a lot)
Presonus, TC, and several others) their collaboration has ensured
stable, solid and full-featured driver support.

I think it's a pretty cool idea, actually. However, the Mixbus Quick
Start Guidehttp://www.harrisonconsoles.com/mixbus/Mixbus_Install_QuickStart.pdf
looks suspiciously like Linux documentation.

I suggest you read it again before passing your judgement. The parts
that "look like linux documentation" probably refer to aggregate
devices, a lamentable state of affairs on Intel OS X caused by Apple's
curious refusal to provide duplex (simultaneous playback & capture)
capabilities for the builtin audio device on these systems - not
relevant for anyone with a 3rd party audio interface (and if you don't
what are you doing on rec.audio.pro?) or on a PPC system. Thankfully,
with newer versions of JACK, this issue has gone away too.

[dawhead[_2_]]

On Dec 23, 12:13*pm, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
However, you raise the point which is my personal reason why audio
under Linux is a mess.
Too many sound systems, and too much needed interaction by the user.

one person's "too much interaction" is another person's "not enough
control". maybe we should pay more attention to the fact that there
are probably more people in the first situation than the second, or
maybe we're interested in a niche market of audio professionals who
actually want control.

With Windows this stuff is almost totally transparent.
Choose ASIO or WDM and that's it.

Really. A fascinating assesment of the windows situation. You know
that WDM is deprecated in Windows7, yes? That ASIO was never provided
by Microsoft and always relied on 3rd party drivers which didn't
always track the latest version of Windows precisely? That before WDM,
there was no reasonable "out of the box" low latency solution on that
platform? That most windows consumer desktop applications used MME,
not ASIO, for playback and capture, which could often conflict with
ASIO use of the audio interface? The situation is certainly cleaner
than Linux, but it hardly gets close to the cleanliness (for the user)
of CoreAudio.

With Linux it's a mess.
Also, OSS, Arts, eSound, and now Pulse Audio the current prom queen of
the Linux world, comes along to confuse things even more.

What's a mess is that so many people, including you, have read so much
stuff that has led them to completely misunderstand the role of these
things in the Linux "audio stack".
For a report on my perspective, this is useful: http://lwn.net/Articles/355542/

Yes Jack, which is kind of like Rewire coupled with Steinberg's
Control Room, allows you to do a lot of things but it assumes you know
what you are doing, or are willing to scour the net to figure out how.

If I could control the entire Linux "audio experience" of every JACK
user, you would never have this perspective. But Linux is not a
company. If you want a smooth experience with Linux audio, do you
randomly pick some distro, some machine, some audio interface and put
them together and expect that it will all just work? It appears that
many existing or potential Linux users do indeed expect this to be
possible. Sorry, its not. Its unfortunate that so many people believe
that it is, or even more irritatingly, believe that it should be. Its
not possible on Windows (you just have a higher success rate with
random selections of (windows-version,hardware,audio-interface) - many
audio forums for Windows DAWs are full of testimonies to problems that
people have with particularly bad combinations of choices. If you
want that kind of experience, you need to get your system from a
company that controls everything end-to-end, which means either Apple
or a company that specializes in building machines for media work that
run Linux. Unfortunately, I can't recommend any of them at this
particular point in time.

Maybe this sounds like a cop out but all I want to do is make music.

Then why are you using computers? What is it that leads you to expect
that a general purpose operating system (windows/OSX/linux) on a
general purpose CPU on a general purpose motherboard is a sensible way
to build a tool that will let you "just make music" ?

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

dawhead wrote:
On Dec 23, 12:13 pm, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
However, you raise the point which is my personal reason why audio
under Linux is a mess.
Too many sound systems, and too much needed interaction by the user.

one person's "too much interaction" is another person's "not enough
control". maybe we should pay more attention to the fact that there
are probably more people in the first situation than the second, or
maybe we're interested in a niche market of audio professionals who
actually want control.

With Windows this stuff is almost totally transparent.
Choose ASIO or WDM and that's it.

Really. A fascinating assesment of the windows situation. You know
that WDM is deprecated in Windows7, yes? That ASIO was never provided
by Microsoft and always relied on 3rd party drivers which didn't
always track the latest version of Windows precisely? That before WDM,
there was no reasonable "out of the box" low latency solution on that
platform? That most windows consumer desktop applications used MME,
not ASIO, for playback and capture, which could often conflict with
ASIO use of the audio interface? The situation is certainly cleaner
than Linux, but it hardly gets close to the cleanliness (for the user)
of CoreAudio.

With Linux it's a mess.
Also, OSS, Arts, eSound, and now Pulse Audio the current prom queen of
the Linux world, comes along to confuse things even more.

What's a mess is that so many people, including you, have read so much
stuff that has led them to completely misunderstand the role of these
things in the Linux "audio stack".
For a report on my perspective, this is useful: http://lwn.net/Articles/355542/

Yes Jack, which is kind of like Rewire coupled with Steinberg's
Control Room, allows you to do a lot of things but it assumes you know
what you are doing, or are willing to scour the net to figure out how.

If I could control the entire Linux "audio experience" of every JACK
user, you would never have this perspective. But Linux is not a
company. If you want a smooth experience with Linux audio, do you
randomly pick some distro, some machine, some audio interface and put
them together and expect that it will all just work? It appears that
many existing or potential Linux users do indeed expect this to be
possible. Sorry, its not. Its unfortunate that so many people believe
that it is, or even more irritatingly, believe that it should be. Its
not possible on Windows (you just have a higher success rate with
random selections of (windows-version,hardware,audio-interface) - many
audio forums for Windows DAWs are full of testimonies to problems that
people have with particularly bad combinations of choices. If you
want that kind of experience, you need to get your system from a
company that controls everything end-to-end, which means either Apple
or a company that specializes in building machines for media work that
run Linux. Unfortunately, I can't recommend any of them at this
particular point in time.

Maybe this sounds like a cop out but all I want to do is make music.

Then why are you using computers? What is it that leads you to expect
that a general purpose operating system (windows/OSX/linux) on a
general purpose CPU on a general purpose motherboard is a sensible way
to build a tool that will let you "just make music" ?


Spot on. Get yourself an AKAI DPS24 mate.

Cheers

Ian

[Neil Gould]

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:58:57 -0500, Neil Gould wrote:

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
Different though,but powerful once you learn it.

I'm a firm believer that Linux does indeed have a future in
professional audio, but it's going to take time.

I think this sums it up well. LInux users are "firm believers", a
scary lot in any endeavor, and they're willing to sing the same song
for decades ("...it's going to take time").

Meanwhile, "professional" means that one can make a living in their
area of expertise, which rules out most applications under Linux.
From what I've seen, Open Office is about as good as it gets, and it
isn't very competitive with MS Office 2000 w/r/t user features. I've
found some glaring errors in its documentation that could not have
persisted in a commercial app. I can only conclude that the users
don't care that it doesn't work as the documentation says it does.

IMO, even the number of posts on this topic answers the OP's question
adequately.

Hehheh!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Linux zealot in any shape form or
fashion and fully agree that Linux has a long, long way to go before
it can even think of being seen in a professional studio. One
excpetion is the Linux based stuff that Harrison is doing.

One can embed most any OS and come up with a piece of professional studio
gear. Some operating systems will be more cumbersome than others, and from
that perspective, Linux is a good choice. But, the benefits of a leaner OS
are minimal considering the requirements of audio and the power of today's
hardware.

The biggest problem with Linux is that you get the programs for free,
however the time required to make some of them work properly is all
on your own dime.

I think the problem is managing people's expectations. Those who think
they'll get the same "appliance" level of functionality by going the Linux
route are likely to be disappointed.

--
Best,

Neil



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---