[linux-audio-user] VST plugins and linux

Dave Phillips dlphilp at bright.net
Wed Jan 15 10:09:01 EST 2003


nick wrote:

> I still have trouble understanding this view (except for non-standard tunings..)

Consider the 0-127 steps of MIDI volume control (ctrl #7). Does that
really seem adequate for a continuous controller ? The granularity of
most MIDI controllers is a real problem for some kinds of composition.
Consider too that MIDI was designed as a keyboard-oriented protocol, so
it's entire underlying assumption is that you'll be making music with a
keyboard. MIDI is notoriously "difficult" for MIDI controllers other
than keyboards, drum machines, and sequencers.
 
> Everyone seems to love knocking MIDI, but MIDI is a *real* standard,
> supported by countless manufacturers for two decades now. Any
> improvements or a new standard are going to arise from the MIDI
> consortium itself and the support of manufacturers.. If MIDI were too
> primitive for the job, then we wouldn't have all these neat hardware
> synths!! MIDI's simplicity is also one of its greatest strengths along
> with its low overhead and easy processing.

All true. However, we had great synths before MIDI (take a look at what
a Matrix 10 still gets on the used market) and we've had some real
clunkers since MIDI (though generally I agree with you: MIDI did bring
about cheaper and better hardware).

MIDI does certain kinds of work beautifully well. It can be twisted into
doing some things it wasn't really designed for, and there are many
things it simply isn't good for at all. If I want to write a
humanly-playable (or maybe not) piece for piano then I'm likely to use a
MIDI sequencer. If I want to write a piece with a sort of timbral flow
(klangfarbenmelodie) as its compositional basis, with no discernible
pulse or beat rhythm, then I'm probably not going to use MIDI.
 
> I hope that one day some commercial manufacturers will port their apps
> to Linux, but does anyone honestly expect their going to use XAP? No, as
> soon as this happens XAP will be forgotten. And XAP is just going to
> alienate potential audio developers from Linux - from where i stand it
> just looks too complicated and over-engineered. I can't help but feel a
> lot of energy is being spent here by well-meaning individuals which
> could be better spent by settling on a simpler standard and getting on
> with application support, the biggest gap for Linux.

Again, there is a gap with regard to *certain kinds* of music software,
namely the big packages from Steinberg and Cakewalk. But there are other
tools available for Linux musicians, tools that do not assume that the
user is coming from a MIDI-oriented aproach to music.

I believe you've oversimplified the argument that the big manufacturers
are just going to roll in and wipe out the work already done by the LAD
people (and others). I doubt that Steinberg et al. have a team boning up
on their Linux GUI toolkit skills, and they're definitely going to need
such a team. They'll have to determine how to handle the existence of
two primary graphics toolkits (GTK and Qt; I know there are others but
those two are most commonly encountered in Linux applications). Plus
they're going to have to learn a great deal about Linux itself and the
existing (and evolving) Linux audio infrastructure; I doubt they'll want
to replace it with their own, and if they do then that's another number
of years and quantity of manpower that they will not commit to Linux
ports unless they're sure to make money from them.

Well, they obviously don't see the money here now, so they're not coming
to the show. Meanwhile, Paul Davis, Kai Vehmanen, the ALSA team, Werner
Schweer, the Rosegarden guys, Andrew Morton, and so many others are
going straight ahead designing and implementing a professionally-capable
Linux audio system and applications for it. It's quite possible that by
the time Steinberg releases Cubase4Linux no-one will want it: Ardour,
XAP, ALSA, and JACK are likely to have evolved to the point where a
purely open-source alternative to the big packages will exist. Not much
of a contest then: pay $$$ for a closed-source single-vendor package, or
go with open-source GPL'd software in constant development by a talented
community of programmers dedicated to the improvement and enrichment of
the Linux audio world. This is a development model that even Microsoft
admits is too tough for them to meet head-on, so I don't think it'll be
any easier for Steinberg and Co.

Btw, I should emphasize too that I think Steinberg, Logic,
Cakewalk/Sonar, and other similar manufacturers produce damned fine
software. But so do we, and just like them we're getting better and
better at it. The future for Linux audio looks pretty bright from
here...
 
Best regards,

== Dave Phillips

	The Book Of Linux Music & Sound at http://www.nostarch.com/lms.htm
	The Linux Soundapps Site at http://linux-sound.org



More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list