[linux-audio-dev] Slashdot: linux-based music keyboard workstation released

Benno Senoner sbenno at gardena.net
Wed Nov 12 17:32:23 UTC 2003


Thomas Webb wrote:

>>I love people when people makes such allegations.
>>Where did you get the proof that it is crippled ?
>>It's a full fledged PC with
>>    
>>
>[...]
>
>I love when people quote me out of context. The next
>thing i said was "withold the cripple, but double the
>cost" It is the full-flegedness that I dislike.
>
Sorry it was not my intention.

>> but the target of the keyboard is the professional
>>musicians that want
>>a turnkey solution or developers that want to create
>>    
>>
>
>The main problem I have with this is the idea that the
>best thing for musicians is a turnkey solution. That's
>the advantage of a computer. This workstation has all
>of the advantages of a computer, but also all of the
>disadvantages. The benefit of hardware is its
>simplicity. Extra functionality here does nothing but
>obfuscate. The funnest and most intuitive synths to
>work with are the ones that are knob-laden and menu
>sparse.
>
I think there are many differend kind of targets of musicians.
One cannot generalize ("no one will need the Mediastation's functionality"
or "the Mediastation is suitable for everyone").
The target is certainly the power user that wants a flexible and all-in-one
portable keyboard/music studio. Perhaps it will remain a nice market, 
the company
 is small so it could be completely ok.
Before they began the design of the Mediastation they asked many
pro musicians what features they would like to have in such keyboard.
(some of the company play keyboards since a few decades and over the years
they bought and played most of the commonly available keyboards so I think
they know what they are doing.
Perhaps the concept will fail, who knows. Only time will tell.
After all I'm just a poor code slave that likes to code audio stuff.
If collaborating on commercial linux audio does not have future I can 
always
work on my usual ISP/networking stuff. :-)))


>>To quote Domenico, the main hardware engineer of the
>>keyboard, according 
>>to him
>>the Mediastation is the Ferrari or Lamborghini of
>>keyboards :-)
>>The company is small and can not produce high
>>volume, low margin gear.
>>    
>>
>
>I respect Italian design - from lamborghini to ducati
>to farfisa to gucci (use the google!) However, I don't
>understand the appeal of expensive inneficiency. I
>think the pinnacle of car design is the optimal
>combination of cheapness and niceness (like Toyota),
>not the maximization of the latter (Lamborghini, Rolls
>Royce). This applies to any piece of hardware.
>
Yes I partly agree that the Ferrari is not an ideal vehicle for all 
purposes, so I'd compare
the Mediastation more to a Mercedes, which occasionally can be driven
on small, bumpy mountain roads :-)

>>There are tons of boards (just look at
>>linuxdevices.com), but unfortunately
>>audio is quite demanding in terms of CPU power so
>>you end up using
>>a standard ATX PC board again.
>>    
>>
>
>huh? The news here is that someone is actually using a
>PC board to make hardware. The norm is cheaper,
>smaller processors that are more specialized. That's
>why I can't run konqueror on my korg.
>
Ever asked why these companies are recycling stuff that is almost decades
old and sell it as fresh water ?
Often new keyboard models are using almost the same hardware as older
ones but with a new display, different button panels and added sounds.
This means often same old DSPs, same polyphony problems, same limited
RAM addressability etc.
Year 2003 and Korg still releases a brand new keyboard,
the Pa-X Pro that fully expanded costs $4000-$4500 and has a polyphony of
only 64 voices. Why this ? Perhaps because there is some truth in my 
statements ?

>>If you use a cheap embedded linux board you will
>>have to add powerful
>>audio hardware, middleware layers, DSP with custom
>>applications etc ...
>>that will drive up the cost again.
>>    
>>
>
>DSPs are cheap. Call TI and you can get some free
>samples. you don't need to "add" powerful audio
>hardware. This scenario you are referring to of the
>super-expensive synth only refers to if you insist on
>using only off-the-shelf parts. Obviously, this isn't
>wnat the big synth manufacturers have to contend with.
>For them, it's circut design, DSPs, etc. high initial
>investment, but in the long run, much cheaper parts.
>
It is not that easy as you describe it.
If you build a cost effective and well functioning keyboard / musical device
that works and scales well and show it to me I'll believe your thesis.
(keep in mind that companies cannot design new devices every month
because they have to recoup the R&D costs so they try to stretch the
product lifetime as far as possible).

At least in a few months you will be able to see if I'm wrong or right.

>Okay, so this is a nice expensive computer. Great. I
>just don't see this in any way as big inroads into
>embedded Linux and audio.
>
What does "big inroads" mean ? Who stated that ?
The Mediastation will just be a nice and flexible musical device that
runs on an open operating system and on open applications, which
will give it a potentially very long product lifetime compared to 
proprietary,
embedded systems and it could even be that the TCO (total cost of ownership)
 will be lower than on other keyboards.
We will see, currently it does not make too much sense to discuss about this
because we must first see if it will gain acceptance or if it will fade into
obscurity like other cool hardware devices built in the past.

cheers,
Benno






More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list