[LAU] off topic (was: Re: ableton live in vmware)

[Niklas Klügel]

cunnilinux himself schrieb:
>> Some people here (more or less) desperately need a similar application for linux.
>>     
>
> off topic, but...
> people in linux audio scene always DESPERATELY need something just
> like a copy of some fancy (commercial) app on win/mac.
> that's the main and only reason why linux is (semi-)deficient in the
> pro audio world.
>
>   
just to add my 2 cents...

regarding monolithic vs. modular (across applications):
while the latter (theoretically) allows for more flexibility of 
processing, akin to the proven unix-concepts of pipelining (and 
therefore the development of something jack-alike for audio/video etc 
became an obvious evolution for -primarily- LAU/D), it does not allow 
for certain common concepts in the workflow of composition and dsp. 
technically - or at least _without hassle_. those include nearly all 
operations that:
1a) allow you to temporarily bounce (aka freezing) parts of the signal 
chain (tracks, single processed clips, subchannels) - thus saving cpu 
cycles in rather complex arrangements.
1b) keep sequencing and time-information on 
processed/bounced/re-recorded material
1c) saving disk-space and processing time by recording only the 
necessary parts of the bounce while still being a proper/correct bounce.
2) modifying a group of modules in the signal chain and the sequence 
data e.g. cloning, deleting, replacing etc.
3) exchange meta-information such as the set of notes in a track to e.g. 
allow samplers to efficiently just load the samples needed to play the 
track, prefetching large chunks of audio-data or sub-track tempi for 
sync'd f/x.
4) limit the amount of organization in 1x) and mixing units 
(pre-/post-fx or mixer or sub-channels and modulation sources across tracks)
I am sure you can come up with some more. Those are all points taken 
care of in halfway sane, up-to-date DAWs that are monolithic and points 
like 1 & 2 are basic editing operations that - for me - increase the 
efficiency by a factor of 4 in time spent fiddling with the arrangement. 
The early versions of Ableton didnt do 1) for example and my time spent 
on organizing heavy arrangements (30-50 tracks with lots of automated 
f/x) was unbearable, not to mention that the quality of execution of the 
sequencing and composition itself suffered due to that.
5) of course easy recall of chains(+sequence data) etc
These points are of conceptual nature.

regarding supercollider&csound vs ableton:
the power of sc3&csound lies exactly in their monolithic nature, the 
deep integration of sequencing (and processing sequences) and signal 
processing. This has nearly nothing to do with the principle of 
interconnecting rather autarkic applications needles to say jack.

I don't want to comment too much on the state of LA and don't want to be 
unjust to the devs. From my developer-view most technologies and 
libraries are pretty much awesome, technically sound and well-written. 
But even if I decided that I did not want to use my (commercial) f/x and 
synths anymore and wrote my dsp stuff in supercollider I wouldnt be able 
to get even close to the quality and efficiency of a workflow that is 
common for me.

Now, to get to the peak of my flamboyant troll-post:
To ignorantly summarize: there are mainly two opinions of LAD, one is 
about scratching your own itch and putting something together as 
greatest common divisor that puts all parts into some kind of context. 
The other is to create a solution for professional audio/composition and 
whatnot. Both offer a solution for music-production (it does not 
necessarily matter whether monolithic or modular; modular implies more 
communication and specification, though) but the latter involves doing 
your homework right. To state more precisely, as a dev you _have_ to 
engage with commercial tools to understand the current state of art of 
the music-production workflow. In fact ,I wished that most LAD-devs 
produced more music that push their but more importantly the commercial 
tools to their limits to see what the necessities for such a 
professional F/OSS audio-production solution are. Because from judging 
from most tools, I see a severe lack thereof - especially emphasizing 
the workflow. Otherwise you will always have to face ppl mistaking the 
set of tools as professional audio solution and wining about it or the 
lack of integration (native, virtualized, whatever) of commercial tools. 
Don't take me wrong, I personally don't believe in most commercial tools 
as being the peak of music-technology. In fact, even conceptually, I 
think that most concepts of visualizing, interacting and processing 
musical events is entirely wrong.

niklas