11 Jun
2004
11 Jun
'04
8:08 a.m.
Well as a profesional linux user (music is my dayjob) I can maybe describe
some of the things that make linux much more productive for me than mac or
windows.
Jack is one of the key points. (with alsa sequencer but midi loopback is not
unique, the mac has had that for ages)
Workspaces and keyboard control in the window manager is another.
As you say, making a production involves a lot of different pieces of software
and/or equipment. I work mainly in software these days, but there are always
some things easier with outboard stuff.
So I need many different programs, and the fact that they can all talk to each
other is great, because ,even on the mac, you always need that one small
utility to fix a little thing, do a special effect etc.
For instance, I had to do some songs for a children's theatre show (music for
the elephant, the crocodile on the train etc). It was so nice to edit the
score in rosegarden (which has pretty nice score entry) send it as midi to
fluidsynth and hydrogen and record it into ardour which has the best
editing/mixing facilities.
I can quickly make a special special-effect in csound and run parts of a
session through that, never having to quit this, start that, make batches so
etc.
So unless you are willing to stick with one mega-application (logic or
cubase), and I have never been able to, linux is more productive in this
way.
The other thing that makes linux more productive for me is the windowmanager I
am using: ion, a tabbed/tiled window manager which I would like to promote
here as one of the most productivity enhancing piece of software I know.
It is unorthodox, but it manages your windows instead of cluttering the
desktop. No icons, no eyecandy. Takes getting used to, but I never ever have
to hunt for a window hidden underneath somewhere, or find it on the toolbar
or the thingy OSX has now (a seperate program that shows all windows in
minature so you can click where you want to go).
Instead I have the screens (dual head) seperated into tiles, I can navigate
with my keyboard to whatever window I want, I optimize screen real-estate, so
it is much easier to show many different plugin windows f.i. etc.. etc..
But I have worked a only little bit on OSX and I found it very annoying,
ridiculous special effects, a toolbar that pops up,no extra workspaces to
order your apps. Way to much fluff.
In conclusion, I can say that I could probably make the endresult, the music,
on any system, but that I can do it quicker and more to my liking on linux.
But I am not your average user probably, I code sometimes as a hobby and I
like looking at the internals.
Gerard
On Friday 11 June 2004 09:01, linux-audio-dev-request(a)music.columbia.edu
From: Tim Orford <tim(a)orford.org>
i dont mean to be aggressive, i'm just really
intrigued to
know how people get any music done. There is never any talk on
this list or LAU about real software usage or workflows etc.
for most people its not enough just to be able to do something,
it has to be doable without impacting productivity or creativity.
my personal experience is this: Music production is now an
integrated process where the synthesis, composition, programming,
recording, arrangement, and mixing of music overlap and everything
is editable at all stages. I guess i'm biased by my own desires and
studio experiences, but i do beleive this is what the majority of
people want.
such a system is not acheivable by bedroom hackers, it requires
some cooperation and organisation. Currently all we have are
the supporting peripherals (synths, editors, fx).
is there really noone here who is seriously interested in this?
--
electronic & acoustic musics-- http://www.xs4all.nl/~gml
11 Jun
11 Jun
9:38 a.m.
Thank you, i really appreciate your comments. Very useful, for me at
least.
My purpose in pursuing this subjuct is as a (wanabe) developer, and
therefore my comments concentrate on how this setup can be improved, so
pls view in that light - no criticism intented:-)
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 12:00:46PM +0000, vanDongen/Gilcher wrote:
Jack is one of the key points. (with alsa sequencer
but midi loopback is not
unique, the mac has had that for ages)
agreed
Workspaces and keyboard control in the window manager
is another.
agreed, but outside of this discussion, i think.
[...] It was so nice to edit the
score in rosegarden (which has pretty nice score entry) send it as midi to
fluidsynth and hydrogen and record it into ardour which has the best
editing/mixing facilities.
i guess this is a fairly typical LAD setup...
I can quickly make a special special-effect in csound
and run parts of a
session through that, never having to quit this, start that, make batches so
etc.
maybe i should check out csound?
So unless you are willing to stick with one
mega-application (logic or
cubase), and I have never been able to, linux is more productive in this
way.
the major weakness in this setup for me is the neccesity to render the
midi before mixing. At least that means all elements of the arrangement
can be visualised and edited in one place, but re-editing the rendered
parts is problematic. Even aside from the fact that it is not possible
to add tools to assist in organising parts so that the rendering
pipeline (including multiple audio->audio bounces etc) can be viewed or
stepped through in a History like fashion, global edits in Ardour would
not be reflected in Rosegarden, making rerendering potentially very
time consuming. There are many cases where last minute fine changes to midi
parameters are a much more effective than audio processing.
Even if you run the synths output live through Ardour, you are then
left with pieces of the arrangement in separate places, making fine-tuning
of that arrangement much more difficult than it should be; you cannot see
properly and many operations have to be done twice.
i wonder if this is a concern to anyone else?
Despite your comment about the 'mega-application', both Rosegarden and
Ardour aim to be such things, but dont, at the current time, appear to
do anything that the 2 apps you mentioned cant.
The other thing that makes linux more productive for
me is the windowmanager I
am using: ion, a tabbed/tiled window manager which I would like to promote
here as one of the most productivity enhancing piece of software I know.
i am another Ion fan:-)
But I am not your average user probably, I code
sometimes as a hobby and I
like looking at the internals.
me too, but i'm currently very motivated to code, _if_ i could find
something to work on.
once again, very much appreciate your comments!
cheers
--
Tim Orford
10:19 a.m.
the major weakness in this setup for me is the
neccesity to render the
midi before mixing. At least that means all elements of the arrangement
agreed. this is part of the reason why i was interested in supporting
vst/i's on linux. whether you run them as a plugin, or as a standalone
sample-synced application under JACK, the goal is the same.
however, there is still the question of where the MIDI stream is
coming from that drives the instrument.
parts is problematic. Even aside from the fact that it
is not possible
to add tools to assist in organising parts so that the rendering
pipeline (including multiple audio->audio bounces etc) can be viewed or
stepped through in a History like fashion, global edits in Ardour would
not be reflected in Rosegarden, making rerendering potentially very
this lack of integration is the chief drawback to the model JACK has
brought us. its a real concern of mine.
*however*, please consider that ProTools began life without any MIDI
sequencing abilities, and is now the dominant tool in the audio
industry. Despite its dominance, many many many people prefer to use
other MIDI sequencers to handle the generative part of a piece and
then switch to ProTools later. They do this, they say, because of a
combination of preference for the UI of another sequencer and/or the
actual quality of the sequencer aspects of PT.
so, although I am seriously concerned about integrating MIDI
sequencing, editing and real-time MIDI-driven synthesis in ardour, i
am not concerned in the sense that i think its an absolute
requirement. it will be great when we get it to that point, but even
when we do, there will be people who will still choose to use
rosgarden or muse or seq24 or other tools for organizing their MIDI
stuff.
Despite your comment about the
'mega-application', both Rosegarden and
Ardour aim to be such things, but dont, at the current time, appear to
do anything that the 2 apps you mentioned cant.
Please see ardour.org/status.html for the roadmap.
--p
11:28 a.m.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 08:10:35AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
this lack of integration is the chief drawback to the
model JACK has
brought us.
Linuxaudiosystems may prove me wrong, but despite the fact that
Jack raises some difficult issues that need creative thought, i do
beleive it is the only practical way forward.
its a real concern of mine.
thats very good to hear. Perhaps i will raise the issue again later
when i'm not so frustrated.
*however*, please consider that ProTools began life without any MIDI
sequencing abilities, and is now the dominant tool in the audio
industry. Despite its dominance, many many many people prefer to use
other MIDI sequencers to handle the generative part of a piece and
then switch to ProTools later. They do this, they say, because of a
combination of preference for the UI of another sequencer and/or the
actual quality of the sequencer aspects of PT.
i think you could more succinctly sum up the midi on protools situation
by saying 'its crap'. Even people that use it have to apologise
for it. Its just about usable for people that dont do much editing
but thats about it.
i would be very careful about what lessons are to be drawn from
Protools. Some of the reasons are purely historical and no longer
relevant. Hardware bundling and marketing are factors. It is also
a very polished, reliable product. They were the first to have a semi-open
hardware accelerated software product, which has unfortunately
given them an entrenched monopoly position in a large segment of
the pro market.
but there are a number of well known problems with Protools which should
not be emulated in a contemporary design.
one thing which some people like is its simplicity. Many operational
engineers are actually not very technical. But i'm not sure how
relevant that is on Linux, and i'm not sure if thats an aspect that
Ardour aims to copy.
anyway it does look like Ardour is the only hope for demanding
usage for the forseeable future. It was always my intention to
help with Ardour. Once the pre 1.0 trauma is over and it goes to
Gtk2 i might just be able to do that.
cheers
--
Tim Orford
12:39 p.m.
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 15:10, Tim Orford wrote:
i would be very careful about what lessons are to be
drawn from
Protools. Some of the reasons are purely historical and no longer
relevant. Hardware bundling and marketing are factors. It is also
a very polished, reliable product.
Agreed. OTOH some recent changes in their sw make it more or less
obvious, what the actual market demand is.There's where a few lessons
could be learned.
Marek
10:24 a.m.
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 06:21, Tim Orford wrote:
OK. I've got to look into this Ion thing.
Jan
The other thing that makes linux more productive
for me is the windowmanager I
am using: ion, a tabbed/tiled window manager which I would like to promote
here as one of the most productivity enhancing piece of software I know.
i am another Ion fan:-)
12 Jun
12 Jun
7:30 p.m.
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 07:21, Tim Orford wrote:
me too, but i'm currently very motivated to code,
_if_ i could find
something to work on.
We need a configurable MIDI filtering app, that can translate CCs,
transpose, and all that.
Hop to it! :D
I all seriousness though, maybe it would be a good idea to create a
centralized list of apps that need to be written? Kind of a global
linux audio TODO list.
We could even put enhancements to existing software there as well (ie
"add LASH support to ZynAddSubFx" etc.)
Thoughts?
-DR-
8:34 p.m.
On Sat, 2004-06-12 at 16:20, Dave Robillard wrote:
I all seriousness though, maybe it would be a good
idea to create a
centralized list of apps that need to be written? Kind of a global
linux audio TODO list.
We could even put enhancements to existing software there as well (ie
"add LASH support to ZynAddSubFx" etc.)
votes++
Jan
13 Jun
13 Jun
1:51 p.m.
On Sat, 2004-06-12 at 18:26, Jan Depner wrote:
On Sat, 2004-06-12 at 16:20, Dave Robillard wrote:
A wiki would probably be best; no burden on anyone to maintain
-DR-
I all seriousness though, maybe it would be a
good idea to create a
centralized list of apps that need to be written? Kind of a global
linux audio TODO list.
We could even put enhancements to existing software there as well (ie
"add LASH support to ZynAddSubFx" etc.)
votes++
Jan 
12 Jun
12 Jun
11:33 p.m.
At Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:20:27 -0400,
Dave Robillard wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 07:21, Tim Orford wrote:
> me too, but i'm currently very motivated to code, _if_ i could find
> something to work on.
[snip]
I all seriousness though, maybe it would be a good
idea to create a
centralized list of apps that need to be written? Kind of a global
linux audio TODO list.
We could even put enhancements to existing software there as well (ie
"add LASH support to ZynAddSubFx" etc.)
votes++
On another note, if you're feeling motivated to do anything, consider
writing docs. Before I started developing, I never understood
why developers write crummy docs, or don't write them at all. Now
I "get it." Complete and utter lack of time. So if you *really*
want to help, writing docs would elevate you to Zeus-like status
in my eyes ;-)
-Pete
7408
days inactive
7410
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
9 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Dave Robillard -
Jan Depner -
Marek Peteraj -
Paul Davis -
Pete Bessman -
Tim Orford -
vanDongen/Gilcher