[Olafur Gunnlaugsson]

Þann 13/05/2010 23:23, skrifaði philicorda:
For a historical insight, it's worth reading the Microsoft paper "The
Problems You're Having May Not Be the Problems You Think You're
Having" (Results from a Latency Study of Windows NT - Michael B. Jones).

One interesting point it brings up is that an operating system is only as
real time as it's drivers allow it to be. Of course, if no one has the
source code to validate the drivers and make them fully pre-emptable,
than you just have to hope you got lucky. There are Windows tools like
the DPC latency checker that help some people with this problem.

That is latency, while RT response and latency can be viewed as related
they are not the same, an RT kernel should respond within a predefined
period regardless of drivers et al and should do so independently of
them al la Microware OS9 et al, this slightly disingenuous assertion on
Microsofts part but not unreasonable for marketing papers like this I guess

however by the release of Win2000 the windows system got much better at this


Even the vanilla Linux kernel is not too bad at latency nowadays, as
parts of the RT tree slowly get merged into it. Not as good as windows,
but usable.

Usable for what ? For recording your LP and cassette collection?
certainly, but the original post assured that Linux could take over the
tasks of Nuendo and Protools


What are these high latency issues? I can do sub millisecond latencies
with my Delta1010 card, and don't feel the need to go much lower.

You misunderstood, or perhaps this is my fault and I should have made
myself clear, the only advantage that JACK potentially has over other
audio bussing technologies is transparent multi system usage, the
latency issues are horrendus in that configuration and not something
that can be overcome since that requires specialised hardware. As an
intra system bussing tech, it has nothing novel to offer.


Ah, I see. Your opinions are 13 years out of date.

No that was not an opinion, it was an observation, that should have been
obvious, the rest of my post may have been a collection of worthless
opinions but this certainly was not.

Really, apart from midi (which is waiting on Ardour3), there is no
comparison between what I can do in Ardour, and what I could do on Falcon
Cubase, and I have used both. With midi, even Rosegarden is still more
advanced on the audio side that Cubase Falcon.

Yes, hardware wise it is since the Falcon is limited to a 20 year old
computer technology, however there is no tool or a synchonisable
collection of tools on Linux that allows me to integrate and control my
studio like that thing did (and does to a degree although these days I
use it mostly as an sequenceing slave with less timing problems)

The closest thing to a workable DAW or MIDI/Recording software on Linux
remains Energy XT and has been so for some time, and that thing is buggy
and for some reason the MIDI editing is less functional in the current
2.5 version that it was in v1.4 or its prdecessor (Muse? cant remember
its original name), making it a neat toy for my sub-notebook, not a tool
I can use on a daily basis to solve problems, hey I bought it anyway but
I mostly use it as a VST slave.

As for pro recording, there is no tool on linux that offers the latency
multi-compensation for instance that Cubase/Nuendo offers, so no
integration with my outboard at mix time

What are you guys comparing Ardour with?

Cubase 5? Pro-Tools? Nuendo? Logic?

I am not commenting on something like A3 that is not out yet

A DAW is not a piece of recording software like Ardour, it is a tool
that allows me to record, control and integrate my studio, be that
virtual or hardware, for that I need MIDI, people do not seem to realise
how important MIDI is and seem to view it as almost a physical thing,
something that was used to hook up synths with in the 80's

MIDI is a protocol, it is the only thing that will talk to, control and
automate the parameters on my external reverb, my internal VST reverb
and all the junk I have in my studio, real, virtual or imaginary. For
the DAW to be something more than a tape recorder on steroids, a good
MIDI editing option is essential

Ardour is not even anywhere close to being as useful as Adobe Audition
is just as a recording program, what sort of chance do you think it has
next to Cubase 5, even if it gains some rudimentary MIDI editing options
in the near future?

This is not a Linux problem specifically, we get this with REAPER as
well, those that use the program basically as a recorder love its
simplicity and do not realise that some of us NEED really good MIDI
editing, and REAPER simply is not up to the job, and then go mental on
various forums on the net if someone states that simple fact.

Take for instance my setup, I cannot fit a proper mixer in here for
space, budget and other reasons but nor am I willing to mix with the
native or protools DSP mixers, they just sound crap with multitrack
mixing, so I use some old Creamware cards as a mixer placed in a
secondary computer, the AD DSP summing for some reason sounds much
better than the Moto one. Now the only way I have to control that
without any latency issues is MIDI and to be able to automate my mixes I
need seriously good midi editing, there simply is no way out of that.

People have to realise that in pro or semi-pro audio as in any
specialised field there is investment in hardware that cannot be
discarder for financial, emotional or practical reasons, any new player
in the field either has to work with that existing investment or to
change the field completely.

If Linux wants to dig a niche in the audio field they will need to
either integrate into an existing setup which is unlikely due to the
aforementioned RT issues, lack of drivers for specialised hardware and a
complete lack of an ecosystem. That only leaves changing the field with
something compleatly integrated, does not have to be be an out and out
pro program, look at something like Steinberg Sequel that can operate on
its own without any external soft or hardware, not for everyone but
enough for a large chunk of users.

How likely is that to happen? Last time I asked about a synthesis
program on Linux about a year ago or so I was directed towards Csound,
now I do not want to sound too negative, but I was using Csound 15 years
ago on an old and clappy 286 and its predecessor 25 years ago on an
early mac, I was hoping for some progress in the meantime .......
the sad truth is that my faith in innovation from the Linux field is tad
on the limited side.

[Olafur Gunnlaugsson]

Þann 14/05/2010 09:48, skrifaði Ian Bell:
On 13/05/10 23:37, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Peter wrote:


What really makes me chuckle with all this talk of latency, real time
and Windows vs Linux operating systems is that everyone seems to have
missed the point that using a PC to record music is like using a hammer
to fix a screw - it is a tool designed for a completely different job.
That's why I will be sticking to my standalone DAW with is own built in
RTOS, complete control surface and no latency issues whatsoever.

Cheers

Ian

Yes and no, the problem is the size of the market, writing an OS from
the ground up is cost prohibitive and the 2 most used OS's in pro-audio
have traditionally been QNX and TRON may require more work done on them
for the purpose than can be recouped easily.

In this instance a computer built from consumer products is a more
reasonable solution

[Olafur Gunnlaugsson]

Þann 13/05/2010 21:06, skrifaði owl:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Olafur wrote:
boot, when the first multitrack recorder for linux shipped in 1997 I
read a lot of articles like this, that was 13 years ago and nothing has
happened in the meantime ...

The main thing that hasn't happened in the meantime is music that
doesn't suck.


Plenty of good new music out there, I happened unto this last year

http://orgyofnoise.com


The funny thing is that it is for some reason more difficult to find new
music with the internet, myspace and search engines and all that, than
it was with badly photocopied fanzines and compilation tapes

[Olafur Gunnlaugsson]

Þann 17/05/2010 09:19, skrifaði geoff:
Moshe wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:52:07 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote:

Moshe wrote:

If Linux could somehow manage to perfect the front end and replace
Adobe, ProTools, Nuendo, etc IOW the tools the designers are
using, there would be no stopping Linux.

You're mixing OS and applications up.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

I know that.
I include the applications with Linux, IOW Linux kernel, the OS,
running Linux applications.

That would be pretty much just "Ardour" then ?

geoff



There are other Linux applications like Energy XT, however the designers
of that program have actually been so rude as actually ask for money in
exchange for their software which apparently makes them some sort of
Luddites in the Linux world, or something worse....

[Moshe]

On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:14:22 +0100, Olafur Gunnlaugsson wrote:

Þann 17/05/2010 09:19, skrifaði geoff:
Moshe wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:52:07 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote:

Moshe wrote:

If Linux could somehow manage to perfect the front end and replace
Adobe, ProTools, Nuendo, etc IOW the tools the designers are
using, there would be no stopping Linux.

You're mixing OS and applications up.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

I know that.
I include the applications with Linux, IOW Linux kernel, the OS,
running Linux applications.

That would be pretty much just "Ardour" then ?

geoff



There are other Linux applications like Energy XT, however the designers
of that program have actually been so rude as actually ask for money in
exchange for their software which apparently makes them some sort of
Luddites in the Linux world, or something worse....

Linux users don't like paying for software.
It's one of the key reasons the game company Loki went out of
business.

And like a bad apple, pun intended, they spoil the bunch for the
people who don't mind paying a little for a quality product.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

On 17/05/10 12:39, Olafur Gunnlaugsson wrote:
Þann 14/05/2010 09:48, skrifaði Ian Bell:
On 13/05/10 23:37, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Peter wrote:


What really makes me chuckle with all this talk of latency, real time
and Windows vs Linux operating systems is that everyone seems to have
missed the point that using a PC to record music is like using a hammer
to fix a screw - it is a tool designed for a completely different job.
That's why I will be sticking to my standalone DAW with is own built in
RTOS, complete control surface and no latency issues whatsoever.

Cheers

Ian

Yes and no, the problem is the size of the market, writing an OS from
the ground up is cost prohibitive and the 2 most used OS's in pro-audio
have traditionally been QNX and TRON may require more work done on them
for the purpose than can be recouped easily.


Who said anything about writing an OS from the ground up? There are
plenty of commercial RTOSs readily available.


Cheers

Ian
In this instance a computer built from consumer products is a more
reasonable solution

[Olafur Gunnlaugsson]

Þann 18/05/2010 09:14, skrifaði Ian Bell:
On 17/05/10 12:39, Olafur Gunnlaugsson wrote:
Þann 14/05/2010 09:48, skrifaði Ian Bell:
On 13/05/10 23:37, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Peter wrote:


What really makes me chuckle with all this talk of latency, real time
and Windows vs Linux operating systems is that everyone seems to have
missed the point that using a PC to record music is like using a hammer
to fix a screw - it is a tool designed for a completely different job.
That's why I will be sticking to my standalone DAW with is own built in
RTOS, complete control surface and no latency issues whatsoever.

Cheers

Ian

Yes and no, the problem is the size of the market, writing an OS from
the ground up is cost prohibitive and the 2 most used OS's in pro-audio
have traditionally been QNX and TRON may require more work done on them
for the purpose than can be recouped easily.


Who said anything about writing an OS from the ground up? There are
plenty of commercial RTOSs readily available.

Yes but as I said what support for audio do they offer ?

QNX and TRON did for a time specifically go after the music market, I
think most samplers had TRON at one time but current development systems
for them have not kept up with the times so you are facing the same
problem, cost







Cheers

Ian
In this instance a computer built from consumer products is a more
reasonable solution

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

On 18/05/10 10:39, Olafur Gunnlaugsson wrote:
Þann 18/05/2010 09:14, skrifaði Ian Bell:
On 17/05/10 12:39, Olafur Gunnlaugsson wrote:
Þann 14/05/2010 09:48, skrifaði Ian Bell:
On 13/05/10 23:37, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Peter wrote:


What really makes me chuckle with all this talk of latency, real time
and Windows vs Linux operating systems is that everyone seems to have
missed the point that using a PC to record music is like using a hammer
to fix a screw - it is a tool designed for a completely different job.
That's why I will be sticking to my standalone DAW with is own built in
RTOS, complete control surface and no latency issues whatsoever.

Cheers

Ian

Yes and no, the problem is the size of the market, writing an OS from
the ground up is cost prohibitive and the 2 most used OS's in pro-audio
have traditionally been QNX and TRON may require more work done on them
for the purpose than can be recouped easily.


Who said anything about writing an OS from the ground up? There are
plenty of commercial RTOSs readily available.

Yes but as I said what support for audio do they offer ?

QNX and TRON did for a time specifically go after the music market, I
think most samplers had TRON at one time but current development systems
for them have not kept up with the times so you are facing the same
problem, cost




I am not sure what you mean by support for audio. Audio is an
application, not an element of an RTOS.

Cheers

Ian

[High Plains Thumper[_2_]]

Olafur Gunnlaugsson wrote:

In Linux you have to compile your own real-time kernel and live with
the fact that not all programs work in that configuration and even
more annoyingly that most music programs do not take advantage of it,
there is a real time Linux distribution out there, granted, but it is
outdated and has an annoying habit of not working out of the box

FUD. There is a real time patch and it is easily applied.

And Linux people do not want to discuss the issue, they just go into
religious nutcase mode and start waffling on about JACK being a
ground-breaking technology that will change the face of the market,
not realising that the high latency issues with that technology make
it unusable for studio usage

Sounds like flatfish. So all Linux users are nut cases. Figures.

Unless major distributions start shipping with an RT kernel by
default and we start seeing some industry strength software, there is
no software available on linux that would replace my old Cubase
Audio Falcon installation for instance and that thing is getting on
20 years old, making posts like yours are just a sick joke, and an
old one to boot, when the first multitrack recorder for linux shipped
in 1997 I read a lot of articles like this, that was 13 years ago and
nothing has happened in the meantime ... except that I no longer
have a linux partition on my disk

Yup.

--
HPT