[LAU] [RFC] A “poor man’s”, yet professional level studio setup

lacuna_ at gmx.net lacuna_ at gmx.net
Tue Feb 23 16:32:54 CET 2021

In my research on Linux audio laptop with high channel count, I decided to use a desktop with a RME HDSPe card.

The only ways I can see, how it might be possible to get many hq i/o channels on a laptop:
- The closed AVB-driver.
- Older firmware version of Motu AVB is running at up to 48k.
- Firewire, but Firewire is dead.
- RME Madiface with missing Express Card slot on today's laptops.
- Maybee a tunnel through Thunderbold with a Sonnet Echo Express (this works with Macbooks, but does Linux and Thunderbold?)
- DiGiCo UB Madi up to 48k.
- Using a desktop or RaspberryPi-like single board computer only for it's PCIe slot with RME cards and establishing an ethernet connection towards the laptop with Jack2 or Netjack or Zita-njbridge, plus some wordclock maybe. This adds some latency but might be cool for work on / off the studio. 
In terms of 'contemporary' professional studio standards, this software is missing:
- Linear phase equalizer
- Melodyne
- MaxxBass / Rennaisance Bass
- Automatic phase alignment plugin
- Realistic state-of-the-art algorithmic reverb (such as Bricasti, Exponential Audio, TC Electronics)
Please correct me, if I'm wrong.
For some tasks you'd have to choose alternatives, such as
MuseScore instead of Sibelius

I would add
Ardour, Reaper, Renoise, U-He, Dexed, VCV-Rack, Pure Data, Iannix
to the list, - althought not all are open source or free.
Some might be more or less important for Pop or multi-mic Classical recordings.

In video postprocessing Linux can't compete with other distros, as far as I am aware of.
Add FFmpeg, Unity and Blender.



On February 22, 2021 10:15:38 PM HST, Lorenzo Sutton <lorenzofsutton at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/02/21 19:37, Paul Davis wrote:
> In relation to the Francesco's original post:
> One other aspect would be: why such a focus on a network for audio and
> not audio cables and some hardware (mixer(s), monitors, etc.). I
> understand network for control (e.g. having a mobile device
> controlling
> play/stop/ transport / record of the DAW), but for audio why not just
> use (balanced!) cables and stuff? If as I understand this would be a
> relatively small studio (e.g. 2-3 adjacent rooms).
> Finally, one thing to keep in mind would be compatibility
> (interoperability to use a more fancy word), with the 'outside' world:
> while wanting to do a 'FLOSS studio' is commendable, you will
> inevitably
> have to send stuff around, so software which is able e.g. to stem
> export, or use decently supported formats (MusicXML for scores?), etc.
> (I was surprised to learn from one of the people at the studio during
> the scoring that they didn't want a FLAC file I sent them because it
> 'wouldn't work on a Mac' and only AIFF.. but that's another story).
> Lorenzo

Well, nothing's more compatible inside a studio than audio cables. :)

Odd about FLAC and Macs. Macs support FLAC for playback. What DAW were they using on Mac?

David W. Jones
gnome at hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community

Sent from my Android device with F/LOSS K-9 Mail.
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org

More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list