Migrating From Protools To Linux. Advice Needed.

[George[_6_]]

I'm looking at moving my current mastering facility from
Protools/Sequoia to a total Harrison based Linux system.

Any advice is appreciated.

~~hpt

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/2/2011 10:33 PM, George wrote:
> I'm looking at moving my current mastering facility from
> Protools/Sequoia to a total Harrison based Linux system.
>
> Any advice is appreciated.

Would "Run away, very fast" qualify as advice?

If you're a seasoned Linux user, meaning you speak the
language fluently, you're able to locate, modify, and
compile source code, you might have a chance. Also, you have
to be willing to use an old audio interface because (as far
as I've been able to determine) there's no "mastering
quality" audio I/O box with LInux drivers (but you could
write something and do the community a lot of good). And you
might have to do some of your mastering from a command line.

Since you're aware of Harrison, I assume you've been
following their MixBus software. I was curious about it when
it was first introduced and I was investigating the
potential for using Linux in a pro audio environment. I
thought that it might be possible but ran into a brick wall
with audio hardware.

Let us know how it goes. I gave up, but check in with the
Linux community once or twice a year to no avail. I'm just a
plug-in-and-to-to-work kind of a guy.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[alex]

Il 03/04/2011 14.00, Mike Rivers ha scritto:
> If you're a seasoned Linux user, meaning you speak the language
> fluently, you're able to locate, modify, and compile source code, you
> might have a chance. Also, you have to be willing to use an old audio
> interface because (as far as I've been able to determine) there's no
> "mastering quality" audio I/O box with LInux drivers (but you could
> write something and do the community a lot of good). And you might have
> to do some of your mastering from a command line.
agree.
the big problem under linux is the almost total absence of "ported"
proprietary driver for the pro-quality audio interfaces. RME was doing
something usable under linux some years ago. This is the main reason
because not many developers dedicate himself to daw programming under
that system. The lobby of the harware producers has the responsibility
and seems to boycott linux not developing drivers for their products.
By itself, as system, linux will be more than ok for audio related
applications even for the professional market, but...
Sadly writing an "unofficial" diver, almost in all cases will represent
a copyright infringment and an illegal act of reverse engineering.

[philicorda[_9_]]

On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:33:49 -0400, George wrote:

> I'm looking at moving my current mastering facility from
> Protools/Sequoia to a total Harrison based Linux system.
>
> Any advice is appreciated.

Are you thinking of using XDubber, or Mixbus?

They are quite different, as XDubber is more like an embedded system
running Linux, and Mixbus is a DAW application that runs on a full Linux
distribution.

I will talk about Mixbus, as I don't know XDubber.

I would suggest using the Harrison Mixbus software on Linux, and the
LinuxDSP plugins. Neither are free.

For a sound card, it depends on how many channels you need. The best
solution is probably to use a popular and long supported under Linux PCI
card with digital I/O, and external converters and clocking.

Keep it simple, go with the mainstream as much as possible. That means
talking to Harrison and using their recommendations as to a Linux
distribution and sound card. If you find you need to build or compile any
software, you are going outside the mainstream. This is not a bad thing
if you understand Linux, but if you don't it can make external support
and troubleshooting harder.

I run the Harrison version of Ardour with the M-Audio Delta1010 cards on
Ubuntu. This is about as standard as it gets on Linux, so it may be a
good place to start.


>
> ~~hpt

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/3/2011 8:30 AM, alex wrote:

> The lobby of the harware producers has the
> responsibility and seems to boycott linux not developing
> drivers for their products.

It's not lobbying or boycotting, it's simply that there
isn't enough money in it. It takes as much time to write a
Linux driver as it does to write one for Windows, and to
what end? So they can sell a couple hundred more units?
There's the ALSA project that's a community-written set of
drivers for audio hardware, but it's a very slow moving boat
to China.

About a year and a half ago I was piddling around with
Linux. I saw in the ALSA list that the Mackie 1200F was
"reported to work" and I have one, so I tried it, and it
didn't. I posted to their forum for some help, and
apparently nobody who reads that forum has one or cares.
Just yesterday I noticed that the Mackie 1640i was also
"reported to work" and I have one of those now, so I tried
it and it didn't. This is the kind of "service" that you get
from the Linux community when you're looking for something
that isn't terribly popular.

Open Office is fine. Firefox works almost the same on Linux
as it does on Windows. Specialized applications like MixBus
are probably pretty good, but I'm not going to switch to my
Behringer UCA200 interface just to avoid Windows (it's the
best I've got that works).



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>Il 03/04/2011 14.00, Mike Rivers ha scritto:
>> If you're a seasoned Linux user, meaning you speak the language
>> fluently, you're able to locate, modify, and compile source code, you
>> might have a chance. Also, you have to be willing to use an old audio

You guys are replying to flatfish again.

Anyone who is moving their "protools mastering" system to something else
is probably not to be taken seriously.
--scott

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

[alex]

Il 03/04/2011 20.17, Mike Rivers ha scritto:
> On 4/3/2011 8:30 AM, alex wrote:
>
>> The lobby of the harware producers has the
>> responsibility and seems to boycott linux not developing
>> drivers for their products.
>
> It's not lobbying or boycotting, it's simply that there isn't enough
> money in it. It takes as much time to write a Linux driver as it does to
> write one for Windows, and to what end? So they can sell a couple
> hundred more units? There's the ALSA project that's a community-written
> set of drivers for audio hardware, but it's a very slow moving boat to
> China.
>
> About a year and a half ago I was piddling around with Linux. I saw in
> the ALSA list that the Mackie 1200F was "reported to work" and I have
> one, so I tried it, and it didn't. I posted to their forum for some
> help, and apparently nobody who reads that forum has one or cares. Just
> yesterday I noticed that the Mackie 1640i was also "reported to work"
> and I have one of those now, so I tried it and it didn't. This is the
> kind of "service" that you get from the Linux community when you're
> looking for something that isn't terribly popular.
>
> Open Office is fine. Firefox works almost the same on Linux as it does
> on Windows. Specialized applications like MixBus are probably pretty
> good, but I'm not going to switch to my Behringer UCA200 interface just
> to avoid Windows (it's the best I've got that works).
>
>
>
OSX is widely used for audio. The system is basically a UNIX so porting
everything to the linux (another UNIX) will be not that hard job.
I know there's a group for developing driver for motu firewire devices,
they needed to sniff all the messages from the computer-to-device
because motu refused to release the specifications. More or less all
hardware producers are doing more or less the same. So is not a matter
of costs rather of will.
As i said very few companies released a linux drivers for linux (RME and
digigram are the european brands i know doing this for sure) and they
work really well, while being not so straightforward in the installation
process.
What you said about the community is true but is due to the fact that
the community is volunteer only. Sadly neither Jack nor ALSA are
considered strong enough because a lot of possible compilation options
and different system configuration are commonly used, in opposite to
"closed" sistems like win or osx which are more "standadised". This
introduce a huge set compatibility/configuration problems for the linux
user that usually we don't expect for the daw host.
Sadly the linux os is still too demanding in term of needed knowledge to
allow a smooth audio project developement. DAW users like to concentrate
on audio rather than on programming. This is the main reason of the huge
mac popularity...
In my opinion resolving the basic drivers problem will help the
community to develop a much greater interest in audio software and
finally lead to decent software under linux.

alex

[Bill Ruys[_2_]]

"George" > wrote in message
.. .
> I'm looking at moving my current mastering facility from
> Protools/Sequoia to a total Harrison based Linux system.
>
> Any advice is appreciated.
>
> ~~hpt
>

This is so obviously a troll. Can't believe how gullable people on this NG
have become...

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/3/2011 2:17 PM, Mike Rivers (That's me!) wrote:
> On 4/3/2011 8:30 AM, alex wrote:

> There's the ALSA project that's a community-written set of
> drivers for audio hardware, but it's a very slow moving boat
> to China.
>
> About a year and a half ago I was piddling around with
> Linux. I saw in the ALSA list that the Mackie 1200F was
> "reported to work"

Brain farted. ALSA is for "common" interfaces. The more
"pro" interfaces are supported under a similar project
called FFADO. That's what is reported to support the Mackie
1200F and 1640i.

Now back to your usual wishful thinking.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[alex]

Il 04/04/2011 3.41, flatfish+++ ha scritto:
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 22:38:48 +0200, alex wrote:
>
>
>> OSX is widely used for audio. The system is basically a UNIX so porting
>> everything to the linux (another UNIX) will be not that hard job.
>
> Assuming the programmers have access to the hardware API for the various
> devices, which is doubtful.
>

Hardware builders do have access to his own API! This was an answer to
Mike talking about company costs in linux drivers developing.


>
>> I know there's a group for developing driver for motu firewire devices,
>> they needed to sniff all the messages from the computer-to-device
>> because motu refused to release the specifications. More or less all
>> hardware producers are doing more or less the same. So is not a matter
>> of costs rather of will.
>
> Can you blame them?
> Why would Nvidia want to let ATI know the inner workings of how their
> firmware works?

No, but again this is the reason! Nothing else. By the way you choosed
the perfect example :-) Nvidia is one company releasing and updating
linux drivers which remain "closed".
Even on linux you can produce and distribiute already compiled drivers
which are not more "dangerous", in term of industrial secret, than those
for OSX and WIN.

>
>> As i said very few companies released a linux drivers for linux (RME and
>> digigram are the european brands i know doing this for sure) and they
>> work really well, while being not so straightforward in the installation
>> process.
>
> Incredibly Creative (Sound Blaster) was one of the first companies to
> have a true, company developed Linux driver. That was many years ago, it
> got leaked and was never officially released AFAIK.
>
i meant those "professional"... Sorry for Creative...
French Digigram is wonderful and stable too, but is oriented much more
to broadcast than production. I brought an old one on ebay for €70 which
is simply fantastic, as backup internal card. 2 24bit xlr in and 2 24bit
xlr out and AESEBU/SPDIF in/out. very nice drivers.


> RME is tops IMHO.
> Super high quality and stability.
>
>> What you said about the community is true but is due to the fact that
>> the community is volunteer only. Sadly neither Jack nor ALSA are
>> considered strong enough because a lot of possible compilation options
>> and different system configuration are commonly used, in opposite to
>> "closed" sistems like win or osx which are more "standadised". This
>> introduce a huge set compatibility/configuration problems for the linux
>> user that usually we don't expect for the daw host.
>
> The other problem is that when running Linux as a DAW you are pretty
> much forced to run an optimized system, low latency kernel and so forth
> which means you really need 2 Linux systems. One for everyday use and
> the other for DAW work.
>
> I realize in a professional setting a dedicated system is absolutely the
> way to go, but at least with Windows, the software has come a long way
> to the point where many users have general purpose systems they use for
> everything.
>
> Not recommended for Protools 9 BTW.
> Don't even ask, but it is EXTREMELY fussy, even more so than previous
> versions.

Think on digital cinema theatres, those equipped with ultra high
resolution DLP projectors. They use a video server, aka video player,
completely based on linux, so a dedicated audio (and hires video)
solution is already available. audio only tasks are much less
demanding... Is only a matter of market strategies

>
>> Sadly the linux os is still too demanding in term of needed knowledge to
>> allow a smooth audio project developement. DAW users like to concentrate
>> on audio rather than on programming. This is the main reason of the huge
>> mac popularity...
>
> Exactly.
> Most musicians, engineers want to make music and not fiddle with things
> related to operating systems.
> They also want to be able to ring up their friends should they have a
> problem.
>
>> In my opinion resolving the basic drivers problem will help the
>> community to develop a much greater interest in audio software and
>> finally lead to decent software under linux.
>>
>> alex
>
> It's chicken and egg.
>
> I give the Linux developers credit for keeping the dream alive and there
> are people making music with Linux and doing just fine.
>
> I used Ardour as a backup to Nuendo when recording some Xmas concerts
> last year.
> It worked just fine.
>
> The weakness is in the plugins available for Windows/OSX compared to
> Linux.
> Stuff like iZotope's RX, Abbey Road, Waves, Sonnox and so forth.
>
> If a company like Avid or Steinberg announced a Linux version I think it
> might just get the ball rolling.
>
>
>

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/4/2011 8:37 AM, alex wrote:

> Think on digital cinema theatres, those equipped with ultra
> high resolution DLP projectors. They use a video server, aka
> video player, completely based on linux, so a dedicated
> audio (and hires video) solution is already available. audio
> only tasks are much less demanding... Is only a matter of
> market strategies

Right - provide a turnkey system and support it as such. If
you spent the money on your personal production system as a
theater owner spends on his projection system, you'd have a
bulletproof system that just works, too. Unfortunately you
don't find many Linux/Musician/Hobbyist users with much
money. They like Linux because it's free, because it's not
corporate-owned, and because it has such a good reputation
with things like servers that have to work all the time.

>> If a company like Avid or Steinberg announced a Linux
>> version I think it
>> might just get the ball rolling.

Yeah, but who'd pay $2500 for a Linux program? And why
would Steinberg release a Linux version of Nuendo for free?

Reaper is only $40, and it's supported by one organization,
not a committee of volunteer freelancers all with their own
programming tools and styles. It runs under Windows XT on,
and Mac Power PC and Intel systems, does everything within
reason that Ardour can do, supports VST plug-ins, and even
has a routing matrix similar to JACK.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[alex]

Il 04/04/2011 19.30, Mike Rivers ha scritto:
> On 4/4/2011 8:37 AM, alex wrote:
>
>> Think on digital cinema theatres, those equipped with ultra
>> high resolution DLP projectors. They use a video server, aka
>> video player, completely based on linux, so a dedicated
>> audio (and hires video) solution is already available. audio
>> only tasks are much less demanding... Is only a matter of
>> market strategies
>
> Right - provide a turnkey system and support it as such. If you spent
> the money on your personal production system as a theater owner spends
> on his projection system, you'd have a bulletproof system that just
> works, too. Unfortunately you don't find many Linux/Musician/Hobbyist
> users with much money. They like Linux because it's free, because it's
> not corporate-owned, and because it has such a good reputation with
> things like servers that have to work all the time.
>
>>> If a company like Avid or Steinberg announced a Linux
>>> version I think it
>>> might just get the ball rolling.
>
> Yeah, but who'd pay $2500 for a Linux program? And why would Steinberg
> release a Linux version of Nuendo for free?
>
> Reaper is only $40, and it's supported by one organization, not a
> committee of volunteer freelancers all with their own programming tools
> and styles. It runs under Windows XT on, and Mac Power PC and Intel
> systems, does everything within reason that Ardour can do, supports VST
> plug-ins, and even has a routing matrix similar to JACK.
>
>
agree mike, just attempting to figure out where all this problems are
coming from. Technically speaking the linux OS is stable enough to
handle the DAW task. The cinema example was just a way to make this
evident. Starting from the point the audio professionals don't want to
deal with so much System related stuff rather than audio, the linux
world will need:
- a distribution designed expressly for audio that allow users to skip
the painful job of configuring, tuning, compiling, learnig allowing to
concentrate on audio only;
- wide and strong driver support;

IF, i repeat "IF" this two basic thing will be available in the future,
i think the software and harware producers will put some effort on this
OS and we will start to see the most popular software ported to that OS.

Actually hardware producers should provide SUPPORT to costumers and, on
the linux os today, this will be almost impossible due the huge amount
of different configuration possibilities. This is the main reason they
don't support that system. Not because is difficult to produce the
driver but because is difficult to follow costumers in millions of
potentially completely self organized system with a huge amount of
possible variables to be solved in order to make things working normally.

For servers and some other professional and home tasks, the big PROS in
linux environment is exactly this: Linux is a completely customizable OS
that can benefit from a huge group of independent developers and is open
and free (i don't mean just money). Sadly AUDIO, along with some other
professional environments, will need the OPPOSITE to be useful, so
closed and monolityc systems will be preferred with a lot of
plug-and-play-like features where the hardware and software support guy
can tell you "click this", "install this", "do this" without the need to
spend a day figuring out what's your current system configuration.

Personally i will pay the same money for a program running on linux or
on other platforms, providing the system will be strong enough to
provide the basic functionality i need.

I AGREE, RIGHT NOW THIS IS NOT HAPPEN! and the companies doesn't even
release the basic tool for the "revolution" to start. But i repeat
things can change.

[alex]

Il 04/04/2011 16.54, flatfish+++ ha scritto:
> I notice you didn't reply to my points about plugins, control surfaces
> etc.
> That's where Linux falters, and badly.
>
A plugin is a software, i spent some effort in the attempt to understand
why audio software are not massively developed and ported under linux
and why linux is currently not a reliable platform for audio. Once
found, the same answers will be good from the plugins point of view too.
I repeat, in my opinion, tha main fault is in the lack of standardized
ditribution that allow audio to be better used (and developed). A strong
limitation, preventing this to happen, is the lack of drivers. Control
surfaces also need drivers.


> Truthfully, I see zero reason to move a professional level studio to
> Linux other than ideological reasons. It's a huge step backwards for the
> end user.

I said something different??
Right now i agree 100%, but things can change.

[philicorda[_9_]]

On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 07:01:59 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote:

> On 4/3/2011 2:17 PM, Mike Rivers (That's me!) wrote:
>> On 4/3/2011 8:30 AM, alex wrote:
>
>> There's the ALSA project that's a community-written set of drivers for
>> audio hardware, but it's a very slow moving boat to China.
>>
>> About a year and a half ago I was piddling around with Linux. I saw in
>> the ALSA list that the Mackie 1200F was "reported to work"
>
> Brain farted. ALSA is for "common" interfaces. The more "pro" interfaces
> are supported under a similar project called FFADO. That's what is
> reported to support the Mackie 1200F and 1640i.

FFADO is a development project just for Firewire devices. ALSA does not
support Firewire yet. When it's mature, FFADO will be incorporated into
ALSA. Hopefully some time before Firewire is obsolete. :)

FFADO is written as a collection of ALSA compatible drivers, which is
probably why they were discussing it on the ALSA list. It does not yet
come as standard with your average Linux distro though.

>
> Now back to your usual wishful thinking.

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/4/2011 2:20 PM, alex wrote:
> agree mike, just attempting to figure out where all this
> problems are coming from. Technically speaking the linux OS
> is stable enough to handle the DAW task. The cinema example
> was just a way to make this evident. Starting from the point
> the audio professionals don't want to deal with so much
> System related stuff rather than audio, the linux world will
> need:
> - a distribution designed expressly for audio that allow
> users to skip the painful job of configuring, tuning,
> compiling, learnig allowing to concentrate on audio only;
> - wide and strong driver support;

Well, right there you've pretty much outlined the problems
with getting people working with music applications to use
Linux. The Linux community thinks it's all there already,
and allyagottadoiz . . . But there's not just one Linux
(like there's just one Windows, which there isn't, quite)
and you never know from one day to the next (literally) what
you're installing unless you know enough to build it from
scratch.

I have a distribution designed expressly for audio (well,
and video, too) called Ubuntu Studio. I think over the past
couple of years, I've installed Versions 8, 9, and 10. But
along the line I've found in the as-installed versions:

- The Firewire host card support was there, (raw1394) but I
had to either figure out myself how to get it to load when
the computer boots up so it'll see my Firewire card or open
the JACK control panel, go to the right tab, and click the
"enable raw1394" box. On Windows, if there's a Firewire card
installed, Windows finds it and loads the proper driver.
It's only if you DON'T want it to work that you have to do
something.

- As part of the "how to make your audio work right" FAQ,
it says to use a real time kernel. At least one of the
distributions I installed had that as the default at bootup.
My current installation gives me a choice of two kernels
(what's the difference? I dunno) neither of which is -rt.
The real time kernel is present on the disk somewhere, but
I've yet to find clear instructions as to how to enable it,
particularly how to put it on the menu that I see when
booting. OK, I found the menu, but I haven't fooled around
with it. It's not a priority since

- I don't have any hardware that I'd use for pro audio work
that's supported yet. All of my hardware has a Windows
driver that (knock on wood) has always worked, and it's all
(supposedly) supported under the Apple Core Audio (no
special driver needed).

I can go on the web from my Linux system and watch videos or
play audio files through the built-in sound card just fine.
But can I take the computer into the studio, plug in the
Mackie 1200F Firewire interface with the pretty darn good
Onyx preamps and record something? Nope. If this was my
only computer I'd be feeling the same pain and frustration
that folks have with hardware that doesn't run under Win7 or
Snow Def Leopard yet.

> IF, i repeat "IF" this two basic thing will be available in
> the future, i think the software and harware producers will
> put some effort on this OS and we will start to see the most
> popular software ported to that OS.

Maybe eventually, but probably not in my lifetime. Remember
when all the good audio software was for the Atari and about
all you could do with PC-DOS was make a funny talking
parrot? It took a long time before there was a decent audio
application for the PC. I guess one of the first was the
Turtle Beach 56k system, and that was software that only ran
on its own hardware - kind of like Pro Tools before last
Fall. And for a long time, there wasn't much Windows/Mac
cross-platform software. Early versions of Pro Tools for
Windows were pretty klunky. The problem here is, and I think
it was you or flatfish--said it early on - chicken first or
egg first. They're all chicken to put any development into
Linux-compatible hardware or software.

> Actually hardware producers should provide SUPPORT to
> costumers and, on the linux os today, this will be almost
> impossible due the huge amount of different configuration
> possibilities. This is the main reason they don't support
> that system. Not because is difficult to produce the driver
> but because is difficult to follow costumers in millions of
> potentially completely self organized system with a huge
> amount of possible variables to be solved in order to make
> things working normally.

This is why, at least up until recently, audio stuff worked
better on the average with a Mac than a PC. There are fewer
variations of Macintosh systems.

As far as third party support for hardware, since, at least
in the field we're talking about, it has such a short
product life, it doesn't make a lot of sense to develop
support documentation that can be distributed outside the
company without giving away some proprietary information.
Sure, there are SDKs and APIs available to developers that
go through a licensing process, but Linux "developers" don't
work that way. There are a few Linux programs that actually
are run like real software companies in that they control
releases and presumably test them, and they have principal
developers, but Mackie and PreSonus and Focusrite and RME
isn't going to hand over a piece of hardware and a pile of
documentation to anyone who says "I want to write a Linux
driver." It's a business decision. If they decide that it's
time to offer their product to Linux users, it will be on
their terms.

> For servers and some other professional and home tasks, the
> big PROS in linux environment is exactly this: Linux is a
> completely customizable OS that can benefit from a huge
> group of independent developers and is open and free (i
> don't mean just money).

Right. And most of the Linux-based big iron servers have an
experienced IT staff attached, full time. It doesn't matter
that every one is a little (or a lot) different, because
there's always a baby-sitter to wipe it up when it vomits.

> Personally i will pay the same money for a program running
> on linux or on other platforms, providing the system will be
> strong enough to provide the basic functionality i need.

Funny, but I don't say that about Macintosh, because I have
PCs and I don't have Macs. Sure, I can't run Logic or Peak
or Boom Recorder, or even MixBus, and can't use a Metric
Halo interface, but I have other software and hardware that
I can use on my PC to get the work that I do done. If I
didn't have a computer and someone offered me a turnkey
system that did what I wanted, I wouldn't care what
operating system was in there as long as I didn't have to
mess with it (and, of course the price was right).

Remember a few years back when Wal-Mart was selling a $100
computer that ran Linux? It came with a web browser, an
e-mail application, and a couple of other household
applications. But it died when people found that they
couldn't install iTunes on it.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/4/2011 2:26 PM, flatfish+++ wrote:

>> Yeah, but who'd pay $2500 for a Linux program? And why
>> would Steinberg release a Linux version of Nuendo for free?

> They could charge the same price as the Windows/OSX version.
> *IF* and this is a huge *IF* support for external VST were somehow a
> reality, maybe via a wrapper program or similar, a Linux solution might
> just catch on.

Well, there's WINE. During last year's experiments, I had
Sound Forge running under Ubuntu using Wine, and Reaper,
too. But I ran into a couple of other programs that wouldn't
run. And there's something like WINE that sort of supports
some VSTs, but it was far too complicated for me to even
attempt to get all the pieces of and install it. And, for
that matter, WINE isn't all that well known among the
Linux/audio community, at least not in the places I've been
looking. I read about it in Recording Magazine, in a very
cautious "Maybe it's time for Linux" article last year. I
wrote a nasty letter to the editor (who's a friend, so I
didn't mind letting it all hang out) about what was wrong
with that picture. He passed it on to the author (who's also
a friend of his) who has been too busy, presumably futzing
with his Linux system, to reply.

> Reaper is as close to using a real console and tape machine as you can
> get.
> The routing is just like a hardware based studio.
>
> So is JACK BTW, it's just more difficult to get running due to having to
> screw with the sound card, xruns etc and all under unfamiliar names like
> /dev/hdw:0 or similar.

Yeah, that's one of the things that got me, too. I don't
know how to relate the hardware to the Linux names. When I
was trying to get the Mackie 1640i to work this time around,
I tried every combination of device name and driver (well,
firewire and freebob were the only sensible choices) and
JACK never recognized it. Reading a little further, it seems
that it's unclear whether, when people say "reported to
work" they're talking about the Onyx i series or the earlier
Firewire option card. I have one of those, too, but I didn't
feel like carrying it into the room with the Linux computer
to see if that would work.

> Then there is the mixer apps for hardware that might be supported.
> Look at MOTU 828 MK3 Hybrid.
> It comes with an excellent routing app to allow zero latency cue mixes,
> add onboard DSP effects and so forth.
>
> So even if it functioned as an interface (I don't know if it does or
> doesn't) what are the chances all the useful "stuff" would be supported
> under Linux and with the same quality software interface?

I'm sure that would be the same with the Mackie 1200F, and I
recall that there's a Focusrite or maybe a PreSonus box with
a similar DSP mixer and control panel that's supported for
audio I/O but without the part that makes it more than just
an audio I/O box. They do all right with oddball stuff
(there are dozens of interfaces on the supported list that
I've never heard of, probably mostly "sound cards") and
older stuff. The M-Audio Delta 1010 has been around for ten
years or more and that seems to be fully supported under
Linux, but "fully supported" doesn't cover a wide range of
functions.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[alex]

Il 05/04/2011 0.15, philicorda ha scritto:
> FFADO is a development project just for Firewire devices. ALSA does not
> support Firewire yet. When it's mature, FFADO will be incorporated into
> ALSA. Hopefully some time before Firewire is obsolete.:)
>
has firewire plans to become obsolete? Retirement plans? Florida?
Too bad! Still the best standardized phisical protocol for audio devices.

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/4/2011 10:58 PM, alex wrote:

> has firewire plans to become obsolete? Retirement plans?
> Florida?

I had started to think that myself. This year at CES, I saw
only one of the zillons of cable exhibitors that had
Firewire cables. But I asked a company that makes several
Firewire devices if they were concerned that (based on the
evidence of built-in Firewire ports disappearing from
computers) they were concerned about its demise, and they
said, no, that they expected it to be around for some time
yet - which I suppose could be interpreted as "computer
time," maybe 3 to as much as 5 years real time

> Too bad! Still the best standardized phisical protocol for
> audio devices.

Oh, I dunno. It's not all that standardized, which is why
many Firewire audio devices don't work with many computer
interfaces. There isn't an industry consensus on a
sufficiently detailed standard so that everything works, so
everyone has to second-guess when writing their driver. If
Microsoft provided something like Apple Core Audio that
included Firewire (best they've done is for audio through
USB 1.1) maybe it would be better developed for audio hardware.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[joe h]

One day after April Fools, right?

Unix shows its best use when you need thousands of computers. Google
I believe now has more than a million servers, certainly more than
100,000.

At that point, you do add up the cost of the operating system, plus
some other file management factors for a distributed network. Plus
the Unix core has very good up-time reliability.

Mac is built on a Unix core.

[joe h]

Unix shows its best use when you need thousands of computers. Google
I believe now has more than a million servers, certainly more than
100,000.

At that point, you do add up the cost of the operating system, plus
some other file management factors for a distributed network. Plus
the Unix core has very good up-time reliability.

Mac is built on a Unix core.

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/5/2011 3:55 PM, flatfish+++ wrote:

> There was a thread about a year ago on one of the Vinyl Freaks forums
> concerning some egghead Unix user (Sun I think?) who was trying to
> restore some older LP's, 78's and so forth and archive them to DVD.
>
> This guy was a real loose screw and was writing software to analyze
> hardware data collection on the noise spectrum of the cartridge, hooking
> an oscilloscope up to the audio card to analyze pops and clicks and so
> forth.
> He was so far into the forest he couldn't see the trees!

Yeah, but it was all free. <g>

A friend of mine who doesn't have any real-people computers
set up a Unix system for digitizing his records. He tried a
few interfaces and ended up with an M-Audio Delta 1010.
apparently what he's recording is raw output, which he says
gives him all 10 channels of which only two have the audio
data. He wrote a program to strip out the unused channels.
Now that's hard core!

I'm sure he's capable of sorting out the <dev>s and
recording in Audacity, it probably never occurred to him to
do that. He's a programmer and software troubleshooter by
trade so he just thinks like that. Of course I wouldn't
recommend that someone who wanted to use Linux to digitize
his record collection get advice from this guy, but it works
for him.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[High Plains Thumper[_2_]]

Bill Ruys wrote:
> "George" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> I'm looking at moving my current mastering facility from
>> Protools/Sequoia to a total Harrison based Linux system.
>>
>> Any advice is appreciated.
>>
>> ~~hpt
>
> This is so obviously a troll. Can't believe how gullable people on this
> NG have become...

Bill, you are correct. I did not originate that post. FWIG, it is a troll
by Flatfish AKA Gary Stewart. Following expresses his agenda:

flatfish+++: "http://twitter.com/RealHPT Words are not even needed. Just
read this freaks comments." Subject "George Hostler = HPT= Linux Lunatic",
9 Apr 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/2a5adc3681aefea6

flatfish+++: "You know you want it. Even though you are losers, you still
desire the best. Of course, like most losers, you settle for 4th best. In
this case Linux and it's **** audio applications." Subject "Bottom Feeders
Marti and HPT... Why Protools is used by pros...", 14 Apr 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/ffb0d84097443507

Most recent:

flatfish+++: "Yea, George Hostler. And *you* are the one doing the
spinning. You're a Linux loser who hasn't got a life. You use ****
keyboards. **** software. Karaoke machines rescued from the trash. And you
have no talent. It's Saturday night, shouldn't you be at the local
watering hole singing "I'm Every Woman", Wendy........." Subject "Re: Why
do people bother with multiple names/addresses?", 16 Apr 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c86a9204d9c967f5

I posted in a newsgroup that I repaired a venerable Panasonic Karaoke dual
cassette machine of the 1980's for a friend, restoring it to usefulness.
Also, I posted of using my Roland GW7 Workstation with custom backing
tracks for leading worship at a local church with a mostly Native
American congregation, which Mr. Stewart refers to as a "**** keyboard". I
suppose worst of all, I have been posting the official
comp.os.linux.advocacy FAQ and Primer at faqs.org on a weekly basis at the
same newsgroup for the past 4 years.

I don't know what motivates this vile, racist, stalking persona to post
such utter libelous trash on the Internet, all to promote Microsoft
software and denigrate competitors and those who speak well of the
competing software.

Perhaps this document, which was revealed in 2007 at the US Department of
Justice's Comes (Iowa) vs. Microsoft trial holds a key clue:


In the Mopping Up phase, Evangelism's goal is to put the final nail into
the competing technology's coffin, and bury it in the burning depths of
the earth. Ideally, use of the competing technology becomes associated
with mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter
Bunny, and OS/2."

Just keep rubbing it in, via the press, analysts, newsgroups, whatever.
make the complete failure of the competition's technology part of the
mythology of the computer industry.

We want to place selection pressure on the companies and individuals
that show a genetic weakness for competitor's technologies, to make the
industry increasingly resistant to such unhealthy strains, over time.


PDF page 55
Microsoft Evangelism
Comes vs. Microsoft court case

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf

--
HPT

[Scott Dorsey]

Rick > wrote:
>
>If you don't, your employer will be contacted and informed of you
>activities on company time.

Please take this garbage elsewhere.
--scott

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