28 Apr
2010
28 Apr
'10
10:17 a.m.
Hey guys!
Read it here:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=…
Any comments are welcome.
Cheers!
L.V.
28 Apr
28 Apr
11:16 a.m.
Louigi Verona wrote:
Hey guys!
Read it here:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=…
<http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=linux_electronic>
Any comments are welcome.
Cheers!
L.V.
I don't agree completely. I'm doing several kinds of music, from
hardrock and jazz playing guitars made of wood, to electronic music
"constructed" by the sequencer. The only real annoying issue to me, is
MIDI jitter when using the absolutely needed external equipment, as I
often pointed out, there are no emulations, for no OS, for e.g. CME
microchips used by Oberheim, Roland, Sequential etc.. Coders like Fons
do say that this jitter shouldn't be audible, but it is, it's breaking
every groove. Btw. jitter is a problem for other OS too, excepted of
some very expensive solutions or for very oldish Computers such as the
C64 or Atari ST.
I don't agree that electronic musicians do use overloaded effect chains.
An experienced electronic musician should be an experienced audio
engineer too. I do agree that for other OS there are "better" FX, but
even for those OS there aren't effects that reach the quality of 19"
rack FX. There's a limit for the quality of Linux FX at the moment, but
OTOH listen to electronic productions, independent and mainstream, both
are produced with "better" FX, but at the end most productions are in
the bobo because of the idiotic usage of multi-band compressors. The
disadvantages of Linux will give us the chance to focus to the more
important things. Some time ago I pointed out, that music doesn't need
automation for mixers, musicians need to control the dynamic etc. by
playing OR BY EDITING the instruments.
Full ACK because of the GUIs, that's why I e.g. do use Qtractor instead
of Ardour + Rosegarden and I'm always whining about basics like panning
samples e.g. for fluidsynth. Today Linux audio lacks regarding to user
friendliness OTOH other OS do lack because of ethics. Btw. I experienced
that Linux do need much more resources, than other OS does, but IMO
today this isn't a problem any more.
Rakarrack
A very good Linux app, unfortunately similar to Qtractor, Jconv(olver)
and others, it has been treated as an orphan by distros, even by audio
distros, while users bagged to include packages.
And again the GUI, a problem for e.g. Jconv, there is a GUI, but this
GUI has disadvantages.
Btw. it's needed that FX can be synced to sequencers, when changing the
tempo delay edited by ms is bad, it's needed that FX can be synced by
notes, instead of ms.
"Some decade ago composers did not have a whole lot more toys to tinker
with." This isn't true, 19" equipment was more expensive, but even today
no OS do reach the possibilities of this equipment. "it can synthesize
any sound you want" no real and no virtual synth is able to do this, you
need several synth.
You are aware that you e.g. don't need to roll knobs, but that you
instead could move the mouse up and down?
I agree, even a ping-pong delay is hard to do, or better completely
impossible, if it should be a very clean and hard ping-pong delay.
"in the hardware world a composer could've had only one or two to use
for several of his albums" No, sharing synth with friends, having one
expensive, but in addition low cost synth, because not all sounds needs
to be fat.
Aaaaargh, could you please add "Change theme to white" at top of your
articles?
2 cents,
Ralf
11:33 a.m.
Hey Ralf!
Thanks a lot for your feedback, it is very valuable.
I am writing dub and ambient music, as can be seen from my site. For 7
months I tried to do music the Linux way, having no more possibility to use
Windows. Unfortunately, no matter how hard I tried, it did not work.
Perhaps, you did not work in electronic genres - they are very different
from hardrock and jazz in exactly the way I described in the article. In
electronic music you have to use lots of effects, especially in ambient. If
you want to seriously transform sound, a LADSPA chorus and LADSPA flanger
will not work - unfortunately. And I tried a lot. It is not a matter of
audio engineering - effects in electronic music help you to construct sound,
it is not a matter of mastering. By effects that "construct" sound I mean
filter sweeps and vocoders and phasers and filter sequencers and such stuff.
So perhaps you just misunderstood me.
In fact, this is very important. I know that many people in Linux Audio do
not know very well electronic music that is strictly sound manipulation
rather than putting together notes, since, as I've stated in the article, my
observations show that atm most people on linux are the "acoustic" type.
This is a generalization that may be incorrect, I am not holding to it, but
I doubt I am mistaken.
As for hardware, I did not understand what you are trying to say. 19" rack
equipment was more expensive? Okay. Maybe. But it doesn't take away the fact
that buying hardware is expensive. And "cheap" synths back in the days were
rare. In the 90s the amount of cheap affordable synths has increased. Also,
cheap in terms of music hardware is still pretty expensive, to be honest.
But this is really not the point. I know for a fact that many popular
electronic musicians of the 90s have used a limited amount of hardware per
studio. It is bewildering to a modern composer who uses 12 various soft
synths in one production that Squarepusher used TB-303, a drummachine and
one more micro synth for his first two albums.
Cheers!
Louigi.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>wrote;wrote:
Louigi Verona wrote:
Hey guys!
Read it here:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=…
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=…
Any comments are welcome.
Cheers!
L.V.
I don't agree completely. I'm doing several kinds of music, from hardrock
and jazz playing guitars made of wood, to electronic music "constructed" by
the sequencer. The only real annoying issue to me, is MIDI jitter when using
the absolutely needed external equipment, as I often pointed out, there are
no emulations, for no OS, for e.g. CME microchips used by Oberheim, Roland,
Sequential etc.. Coders like Fons do say that this jitter shouldn't be
audible, but it is, it's breaking every groove. Btw. jitter is a problem for
other OS too, excepted of some very expensive solutions or for very oldish
Computers such as the C64 or Atari ST.
I don't agree that electronic musicians do use overloaded effect chains. An
experienced electronic musician should be an experienced audio engineer too.
I do agree that for other OS there are "better" FX, but even for those OS
there aren't effects that reach the quality of 19" rack FX. There's a limit
for the quality of Linux FX at the moment, but OTOH listen to electronic
productions, independent and mainstream, both are produced with "better" FX,
but at the end most productions are in the bobo because of the idiotic usage
of multi-band compressors. The disadvantages of Linux will give us the
chance to focus to the more important things. Some time ago I pointed out,
that music doesn't need automation for mixers, musicians need to control the
dynamic etc. by playing OR BY EDITING the instruments.
Full ACK because of the GUIs, that's why I e.g. do use Qtractor instead of
Ardour + Rosegarden and I'm always whining about basics like panning samples
e.g. for fluidsynth. Today Linux audio lacks regarding to user friendliness
OTOH other OS do lack because of ethics. Btw. I experienced that Linux do
need much more resources, than other OS does, but IMO today this isn't a
problem any more.
Rakarrack
A very good Linux app, unfortunately similar to Qtractor, Jconv(olver) and
others, it has been treated as an orphan by distros, even by audio distros,
while users bagged to include packages.
And again the GUI, a problem for e.g. Jconv, there is a GUI, but this GUI
has disadvantages.
Btw. it's needed that FX can be synced to sequencers, when changing the
tempo delay edited by ms is bad, it's needed that FX can be synced by notes,
instead of ms.
"Some decade ago composers did not have a whole lot more toys to tinker
with." This isn't true, 19" equipment was more expensive, but even today
no
OS do reach the possibilities of this equipment. "it can synthesize any
sound you want" no real and no virtual synth is able to do this, you need
several synth.
You are aware that you e.g. don't need to roll knobs, but that you instead
could move the mouse up and down?
I agree, even a ping-pong delay is hard to do, or better completely
impossible, if it should be a very clean and hard ping-pong delay.
"in the hardware world a composer could've had only one or two to use for
several of his albums" No, sharing synth with friends, having one expensive,
but in addition low cost synth, because not all sounds needs to be fat.
Aaaaargh, could you please add "Change theme to white" at top of your
articles?
2 cents,
Ralf
12:10 p.m.
Hi Louigi :)
Hey Ralf!
Thanks a lot for your feedback, it is very valuable.
I am writing dub and ambient music, as can be seen from my site. For 7
months I tried to do music the Linux way, having no more possibility
to use Windows. Unfortunately, no matter how hard I tried, it did not
work. Perhaps, you did not work in electronic genres - they are very
different from hardrock and jazz in exactly the way I described in the
article. In electronic music you have to use lots of effects,
especially in ambient. If you want to seriously transform sound, a
LADSPA chorus and LADSPA flanger will not work - unfortunately. And I
tried a lot. It is not a matter of audio engineering - effects in
electronic music help you to construct sound, it is not a matter of
mastering. By effects that "construct" sound I mean filter sweeps and
vocoders and phasers and filter sequencers and such stuff. So perhaps
you just misunderstood me.
No, I do understand you. Btw. are you able to mix dub bass sounds by
using Linux? And if so, please give me some hints. I don't care much
about the quality of chorus and flangers, but a lot regarding to the
quality of EQs, especially when mixing basses for dub.
In fact, this is very important. I know that many
people in Linux
Audio do not know very well electronic music that is strictly sound
manipulation rather than putting together notes, since, as I've stated
in the article, my observations show that atm most people on linux are
the "acoustic" type. This is a generalization that may be incorrect, I
am not holding to it, but I doubt I am mistaken.
You are mistaken I'm an "acoustic" type, but I'm also an
"electronic"
type and there were a lot of people asking for the same as you do. Most
developers ignore our needs regarding to "electronic" music. Anyway, a
lot of "electronic" musicians are mistaken regarding to the usage of FX.
An example, you don't need any compressor, if you know how to use EQs.
As for hardware, I did not understand what you are
trying to say. 19"
rack equipment was more expensive? Okay. Maybe. But it doesn't take
away the fact that buying hardware is expensive. And "cheap" synths
back in the days were rare. In the 90s the amount of cheap affordable
synths has increased. Also, cheap in terms of music hardware is still
pretty expensive, to be honest.
You can use MIDIfied Casio home organs, a second hand Roland MT-32 or
Yamaha FB-01 etc., just having one expensive synth could be enough,
because most sounds needs to be decent for the backing.
But this is really not the point. I know for a fact
that many popular
electronic musicians of the 90s have used a limited amount of hardware
per studio. It is bewildering to a modern composer who uses 12 various
soft synths in one production that Squarepusher used TB-303, a
drummachine and one more micro synth for his first two albums.
I'm 43 years old now and started as an professional video and audio
engineer at the age of 16 at the university of Essen, so when I started
making music some years before, it was the time when MIDI was introduced
to the market.
Today there aren't any virtual synth and FX that use algorithms that are
able to hold a candle to this old hardware synth and FX. A good
calibrated 4-track recorder with a frequency response around 40Hz to
14KHz nearly does reach the sound quality of modern hard disk recorders
and for some aspects the sound is better even for a 4-track analog
recorder, not to mention better analog equipment.
You can't compare this to ways of doing music productions.
+2 cents,
Ralf
1:02 p.m.
Louigi Verona wrote:
TB-303
In the early 80ies a friend had this drum machine. It isn't one of
Roland's most cultic drum machines, but anyway, you can't compare two
(oops, before I wrote "to" instead of "two") completely different ways
of making music. The studio in the box is a studio in a box, in a box,
in a box and nothing more. I don't have enough money to maintain my
analog equipment + oldish computers, that's why I grown to like the
studio in the box, but any assertions that modern computers or even
professional digital equipment are able to replace oldish analog
equipment is hype, or for people without "keen ear" (this means
physically and trained).
6:58 p.m.
Am Mittwoch, den 28.04.2010, 11:16 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
And again the GUI, a problem for e.g. Jconv, there is
a GUI, but this
GUI has disadvantages.
I know about to GUI's for jconvolver,
http://sourceforge.net/projects/conviction/
and
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jcgui/
but I didn't found a single feature request or bug report for one of
this projects. ?
hermann
29 Apr
29 Apr
8:25 a.m.
hermann wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 28.04.2010, 11:16 +0200 schrieb Ralf
Mardorf:
I tested $ ls /usr/src/jcgui*
/usr/src/jcgui-0.4
/usr/src/jcgui-0.6
To be fair, IIRC it isn't buggy and it is user friendly. I'm not sure
any more what exactly the issue is I didn't like, but IIRC not all
settings can be controlled and there is an issue for IOs, at least it
add an additional delay feature. Anyway, Fon's jconv(olver) is an
excellent reverb by contrast with other reverbs for computers using any
OS. I prefer hardware algorithm reverbs.
I'll take a look at http://sourceforge.net/projects/conviction/, thank you.
Ralf
And again the GUI, a problem for e.g. Jconv,
there is a GUI, but this
GUI has disadvantages.
I know about to GUI's for jconvolver,
http://sourceforge.net/projects/conviction/
and
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jcgui/
but I didn't found a single feature request or bug report for one of
this projects. ?
hermann
28 Apr
28 Apr
11:40 a.m.
None of the LADSPA ones I tried just give you a normal
3/16 delay.
What exactly do you mean with this? Are you talking about triplets? Just
use the calculator to find out how long a triplet is regarding to the
BPM and round the result to the available ms. Or is 3 for left to center
to right, for semiquavers?
11:49 a.m.
Difficult to explain. let me draw:
C5 is a note
C5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A 3/16 would create this kind of echo:
C5 _ _ c5 _ _ c5 _
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>wrote;wrote:
None of the LADSPA ones I tried just give you a normal
3/16 delay.
What exactly do you mean with this? Are you talking about triplets? Just
use the calculator to find out how long a triplet is regarding to the BPM
and round the result to the available ms. Or is 3 for left to center to
right, for semiquavers?
12:19 p.m.
Louigi Verona wrote:
Difficult to explain. let me draw:
C5 is a note
C5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A 3/16 would create this kind of echo:
C5 _ _ c5 _ _ c5 _
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net <mailto:ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net>> wrote:
None of the LADSPA ones I tried just give you a normal 3/16 delay.
What exactly do you mean with this? Are you talking about
triplets? Just use the calculator to find out how long a triplet
is regarding to the BPM and round the result to the available ms.
Or is 3 for left to center to right, for semiquavers?
Please add your reply under the quote.
You're talking about triplets, especially because you do dub music ;).
This is possible.
60000/120BPM=500ms for a 1/4 note. E.g. 500ms/3=166.7ms for triplets,
reps. 166.7ms/x or 166.7ms*x for other triplets.
12:34 p.m.
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Louigi Verona wrote:
Resp. you aren't talking about triplets if e.g. one _ is for 1/8 note.
Do you wish to have a delay were not all delays do come at a steady note?
Difficult to explain. let me draw:
C5 is a note
C5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A 3/16 would create this kind of echo:
C5 _ _ c5 _ _ c5 _
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net <mailto:ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net>> wrote:
None of the LADSPA ones I tried just give you a normal 3/16
delay.
What exactly do you mean with this? Are you talking about
triplets? Just use the calculator to find out how long a triplet
is regarding to the BPM and round the result to the available ms.
Or is 3 for left to center to right, for semiquavers?
Please add your reply under the quote.
You're talking about triplets, especially because you do dub music ;).
This is possible.
60000/120BPM=500ms for a 1/4 note. E.g. 500ms/3=166.7ms for triplets,
reps. 166.7ms/x or 166.7ms*x for other triplets.
12:59 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>wrote;wrote:
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I am not sure guys what you are talking about.
I understand that you can multiply something - this is very clear. You can
even forget about plugins and just take the sound and paste it with a lower
volume.
I cannot always point a finger to what exactly i do not like about delays.
CALF vintage delays is nice, but the fact that I can make it pan ping-pong
only by setting different time in L and R is not good. And the whole
Subdivide control is very confusing. In many simple VSTs you have 1, 2/4,
3/16 kinda settings and it is all tied to a tempo. Echoverse in Rakarrack is
very good.
Louigi Verona wrote:
Resp. you aren't talking about triplets if e.g. one _ is for 1/8 note. Do
you wish to have a delay were not all delays do come at a steady note?
Difficult to explain. let me draw:
C5 is a note
C5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A 3/16 would create this kind of echo:
C5 _ _ c5 _ _ c5 _
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ralf Mardorf <
ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net <mailto:ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net>> wrote:
None of the LADSPA ones I tried just give you a normal 3/16 delay.
What exactly do you mean with this? Are you talking about
triplets? Just use the calculator to find out how long a triplet
is regarding to the BPM and round the result to the available ms.
Or is 3 for left to center to right, for semiquavers?
Please add your reply under the quote.
You're talking about triplets, especially because you do dub music ;).
This is possible.
60000/120BPM=500ms for a 1/4 note. E.g. 500ms/3=166.7ms for triplets,
reps. 166.7ms/x or 166.7ms*x for other triplets.
1:06 p.m.
Louigi Verona wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net <mailto:ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net>> wrote:
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Louigi Verona wrote:
Difficult to explain. let me draw:
C5 is a note
C5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A 3/16 would create this kind of echo:
C5 _ _ c5 _ _ c5 _
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net
<mailto:ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net>
<mailto:ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net
<mailto:ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net>>> wrote:
None of the LADSPA ones I tried just give you a
normal 3/16 delay.
What exactly do you mean with this? Are you talking about
triplets? Just use the calculator to find out how long
a triplet
is regarding to the BPM and round the result to the
available ms.
Or is 3 for left to center to right, for semiquavers?
Please add your reply under the quote.
You're talking about triplets, especially because you do dub
music ;).
This is possible.
60000/120BPM=500ms for a 1/4 note. E.g. 500ms/3=166.7ms for
triplets, reps. 166.7ms/x or 166.7ms*x for other triplets.
Resp. you aren't talking about triplets if e.g. one _ is for 1/8
note. Do you wish to have a delay were not all delays do come at a
steady note?
I am not sure guys what you are talking about.
I understand that you can multiply something - this is very clear. You
can even forget about plugins and just take the sound and paste it
with a lower volume.
I cannot always point a finger to what exactly i do not like about
delays. CALF vintage delays is nice, but the fact that I can make it
pan ping-pong only by setting different time in L and R is not good.
And the whole Subdivide control is very confusing. In many simple VSTs
you have 1, 2/4, 3/16 kinda settings and it is all tied to a tempo.
Echoverse in Rakarrack is very good.
I've written this before, I completely agree that there's no Linux delay
able to do simple "real" ping-pong delay, e.g. as my Yamaha SPX 90 II is
able to do.
11:48 a.m.
Hi,
Hey guys!
Read it here:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=…
<http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=linux_electronic>
Any comments are welcome.
Just a couple of points.
You write: "[...] by an electronic musician I mean a person who needs
fancy effects and whose work relies more on manipulating sound rather
than actually playing notes and just getting them together. A modern
electronic composer heavily relies on chains of effects which allow him
to work with the sound in a flexible and imaginative way."
I don't share that point of view. Although I understand that the concept
of 'electronic musician' is very ambiguous. Any 'musician' now-a-days
has to deal with 'electronics' (computers)... In the same way the
interpretation of the definition of 'electronic music' spans from
dance-like music with an 'electronic' flavour to what some would call
'electronic art music'.
In general I can see a point in being as extreme as considering only two
applications, but I find the 'they have nice polished gui, so they are
cool' approach a little simplistic. Nothing against polished guis :)
Lorenzo
11:55 a.m.
Hey Lorenzo!
The point is not extreme. It deals with music which requires sound
manipulation. Thanks to everybody's feedback, I might change the wording to
better explain what I mean. As stated in the article, by electronic musician
there I mean a musician who manipulates sound. Usually, it is ambient-kinda
music, like this:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=music&t=catalogue&n…
If you listen to that, it is a whole class of electronic music. Having an
app like Rakarrack is key for that kind of music - in fact, it is all about
transforming sounds, there are no melodies in a strict sense of the word.
Prior to Rakarrack I was on my way to installing Windows XP on another
laptop for music. Now that plan is put to a halt.
So my article is for a rather niche kind of composers, but it is a niche I
want the devs to know about.
L.V.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Lorenzo <lsutton(a)libero.it> wrote:
Hi,
Hey guys!
Read it here:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=…
Any comments are welcome.
Just a couple of points.
You write: "[...] by an electronic musician I mean a person who needs fancy
effects and whose work relies more on manipulating sound rather than
actually playing notes and just getting them together. A modern electronic
composer heavily relies on chains of effects which allow him to work with
the sound in a flexible and imaginative way."
I don't share that point of view. Although I understand that the concept of
'electronic musician' is very ambiguous. Any 'musician' now-a-days has
to
deal with 'electronics' (computers)... In the same way the interpretation of
the definition of 'electronic music' spans from dance-like music with an
'electronic' flavour to what some would call 'electronic art music'.
In general I can see a point in being as extreme as considering only two
applications, but I find the 'they have nice polished gui, so they are cool'
approach a little simplistic. Nothing against polished guis :)
Lorenzo
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
12:25 p.m.
Louigi Verona wrote:
Hey Lorenzo!
The point is not extreme. It deals with music which requires sound
manipulation. Thanks to everybody's feedback, I might change the
wording to better explain what I mean. As stated in the article, by
electronic musician there I mean a musician who manipulates sound.
Usually, it is ambient-kinda music, like this:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=music&t=catalogue&n…
<http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=music&t=catalogue&num=5>
If you listen to that, it is a whole class of electronic music. Having
an app like Rakarrack is key for that kind of music - in fact, it is
all about transforming sounds, there are no melodies in a strict sense
of the word.
Prior to Rakarrack I was on my way to installing Windows XP on another
laptop for music. Now that plan is put to a halt.
So my article is for a rather niche kind of composers, but it is a
niche I want the devs to know about.
L.V.
I exactly was thinking about music similar to
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=music&t=catalogue&n…ue&num=0, so
there's no misunderstanding.
3:26 p.m.
On Wednesday 28 April 2010, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Louigi Verona wrote:
That is quite listenable music IMO, but on my system, seems to be suffering
from sign reversals on some notes. Pulse Audio system of course so its also
full of other, unrelated ticks and pops. Neither are the musics fault IMO.
Listening to Daydream Sessions.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
HOST SYSTEM RESPONDING, PROBABLY UP...
Hey Lorenzo!
The point is not extreme. It deals with music which requires sound
manipulation. Thanks to everybody's feedback, I might change the
wording to better explain what I mean. As stated in the article, by
electronic musician there I mean a musician who manipulates sound.
Usually, it is ambient-kinda music, like this:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=music&t=catalogue&n…
<http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=music&t=catalogue&num=5>
If you listen to that, it is a whole class of electronic music. Having
an app like Rakarrack is key for that kind of music - in fact, it is
all about transforming sounds, there are no melodies in a strict sense
of the word.
Prior to Rakarrack I was on my way to installing Windows XP on another
laptop for music. Now that plan is put to a halt.
So my article is for a rather niche kind of composers, but it is a
niche I want the devs to know about.
L.V.
I exactly was thinking about music similar to
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=music&t=catalogue&n…ue&num=0, so
there's no misunderstanding.
3:50 p.m.
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 28 April 2010, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
It's not the kind of music I've got the rest to do without being
completely stoned, but my alter ego "scorpion-mouse, spiny mouse" has
fun listening to it and right now I'm not stoned. I prefer e.g. Arnold
Schönberg, for old school, but his music is absolutely perfect regarding
to what music is all about. I prefer to listen to more restless
musicians, because I'm a borderline personality, anyway, his music is
quiet cool :). So! I fear he knows what he's talking about ;).
Louigi Verona wrote:
That is quite listenable music IMO, but on my system, seems to be suffering
from sign reversals on some notes. Pulse Audio system of course so its also
full of other, unrelated ticks and pops. Neither are the musics fault IMO.
Listening to Daydream Sessions.
Hey Lorenzo!
The point is not extreme. It deals with music which requires sound
manipulation. Thanks to everybody's feedback, I might change the
wording to better explain what I mean. As stated in the article, by
electronic musician there I mean a musician who manipulates sound.
Usually, it is ambient-kinda music, like this:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=music&t=catalogue&n…
<http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=music&t=catalogue&num=5>
If you listen to that, it is a whole class of electronic music. Having
an app like Rakarrack is key for that kind of music - in fact, it is
all about transforming sounds, there are no melodies in a strict sense
of the word.
Prior to Rakarrack I was on my way to installing Windows XP on another
laptop for music. Now that plan is put to a halt.
So my article is for a rather niche kind of composers, but it is a
niche I want the devs to know about.
L.V.
I exactly was thinking about music similar to
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=music&t=catalogue&n…ue&num=0, so
there's no misunderstanding.
8 p.m.
This is one of my fav. mixes to pass by my ears in a long time... minimal
but funky, sloppy&loose with a groove like they did back in the day... a
good sampling of leading-edge "minimal house" stuff, (aka it has a 4/4
beat).... it's a very "old school" (not Schönberg oldschool!) sound, yet
well evolved past the TB303 ...
http://www.residentadvisor.net/podcast-episode.aspx?id=201 (get it before
they remove the audio from the archive)
A mix from the artist currently known as "19.454.18.5.25.5.18" (containing
at least two, and probably three of his own Horizontal Ground tracks), who's
technique is:
Working on tracks... Shaping hi-hats and bleeps,
playing it till it
grooves. No arrangement, just playing.
tracklist:
http://www.residentadvisor.net/forum-read.aspx?id=98246&page=6#p206
ob-linux -- what it looks like to a trainspodder:
http://nielsmayer.com/ts-episode-timeline.png
http://nielsmayer.com/ts-episode-evnt-anls.png
-- Niels.
http://nielsmayer.com
29 Apr
29 Apr
8:32 a.m.
Niels Mayer wrote:
http://www.residentadvisor.net/podcast-episode.aspx?id=201 (get it
before they remove the audio from the archive)
http://www.residentadvisor.net/forum-read.aspx?id=98246&page=6#p206
<http://www.residentadvisor.net/forum-read.aspx?id=98246&page=6#p206>
Registration is needed :(.
28 Apr
28 Apr
2 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Hey guys!
Read it here:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=…
Any comments are welcome.
Louigi, just as general comment, I don't think that your opening gambit is
correct. If anything, I would suspect that there is a greater percentage of
what you term "electronic musicians" as contrasted with "acoustic"
musicians
among those who use Linux than there is in the general population of
musicians, or even musicians who use computers. However, in all these
communities, the number of "electronic musicians" is smaller than the number
of "acoustic musicians" in absolute terms. Thus, when you start exploring
the Linux audio world, you run into a lot of people using non-electronic
instruments, but this is no different than if you were to start exploring
the world of "people who make music" in general.
In addition, I think that you already know that you have a fairly particular
definition of "electronic musician" that actually excludes a lot of the
electronic music composers and performers who have traditionally found Linux
to be fairly hospitable place. These are specifically people who are not in
search of new synths or FX units with which to play relatively conventional
compositions with (perhaps) rather unusual timbres, but instead want the
control and possibilities presented by tools like SuperCollider, PureData,
Common Music and so on and so forth. I don't think that one group is more
important than the other, but I do know how labels can be a problem, both in
terms of a reduction in cognitive distinctions and also in social exclusion.
--p
2:33 p.m.
Paul Davis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Louigi Verona
<louigi.verona(a)gmail.com <mailto:louigi.verona@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hey guys!
Read it here:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=…
<http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=linux_electronic>
Any comments are welcome.
Louigi, just as general comment, I don't think that your opening
gambit is correct. If anything, I would suspect that there is a
greater percentage of what you term "electronic musicians" as
contrasted with "acoustic" musicians among those who use Linux than
there is in the general population of musicians, or even musicians who
use computers. However, in all these communities, the number of
"electronic musicians" is smaller than the number of "acoustic
musicians" in absolute terms. Thus, when you start exploring the Linux
audio world, you run into a lot of people using non-electronic
instruments, but this is no different than if you were to start
exploring the world of "people who make music" in general.
In addition, I think that you already know that you have a fairly
particular definition of "electronic musician" that actually excludes
a lot of the electronic music composers and performers who have
traditionally found Linux to be fairly hospitable place. These are
specifically people who are not in search of new synths or FX units
with which to play relatively conventional compositions with (perhaps)
rather unusual timbres, but instead want the control and possibilities
presented by tools like SuperCollider, PureData, Common Music and so
on and so forth. I don't think that one group is more important than
the other, but I do know how labels can be a problem, both in terms of
a reduction in cognitive distinctions and also in social exclusion.
--p
No Paul, you're mistaken. Linux isn't able to to hold a candle to
"construed music", regarding to proprietary solutions. But I've learned
my lesson. I was pissed because of the abilities Linux (doesn't) makes
available and at the same time I again get near contact to a known
German jazz musician who (once was a friend and who) doesn't care about
technology. Now I do remember my roots and abilities, but OTOH this
musician ask me to help him to manage some MIDI issues.
The bad ... Linux audio isn't able to keep place with the two other
popular Os'. The good ... reflection ... why does musicians make music
and doesn't write a book etc. using their fantasies instead?
Linux is miles apart to be "zeitgeisty" reagrding to audio, but exactly
this is the chance to remember what's music all about.
I guess most people are using proprietary hardware, without having
knowledge how sounds are influenced by "nature".
--r
3:32 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>wrote;wrote:
In addition, I think that you already know that you have a fairly
particular definition of "electronic musician" that actually excludes a lot
of the electronic music composers and performers who have traditionally
found Linux to be fairly hospitable place. These are specifically people who
are not in search of new synths or FX units with which to play relatively
conventional compositions with (perhaps) rather unusual timbres, but instead
want the control and possibilities presented by tools like SuperCollider,
PureData, Common Music and so on and so forth. I don't think that one group
is more important than the other, but I do know how labels can be a problem,
both in terms of a reduction in cognitive distinctions and also in social
exclusion.
--p
I absolutely do not imply that one group is more important than another. I
don't like getting into that kind of argument at all.
All in all, the feedback I am getting from LAD is very valuable to me in
terms of understanding how everybody sees Linux Audio.
So please do understand I am not whining and the article I presented to you
is more of a story of how one particular composer
discovered suitable tools for himself.
The labels thing is more controversial - it tends to be. I hate labels
myself. But at the same time I have difficulty finding another term.
"Electronic musician" is a rather general term, no argument there, this is
why I specifically mention what I mean by that in the article.
There is a number of people outside linux and some inside linux community
who are specifically interested in the state of affairs in linux
regarding a certain type of workflow. This article is an update for them. I
do not regret sharing it on the LAD, obviously.
Louigi.
3:37 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
All in all, the feedback I am getting from LAD is very valuable to me in
terms of understanding how everybody sees Linux Audio.
So please do understand I am not whining and the article I presented to you
is more of a story of how one particular composer
discovered suitable tools for himself.
please don't think i read anything in your post as a whine. there are people
who think that they "know" what "electronic music" actually *is*, and
they
write articles and post to mailing lists and forums about it without
realizing that they are just talking about their own particular little niche
within a much broader world. your article didn't make it clear to me whether
or not you understand this. its clear from other emails to LAD that you do.
--p
3:39 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>wrote;wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
fair enough. I will edit the article having read some of the feedback and
will try to highlight the niche nature of what I think these tools are very
well suitable for.
All in all, the feedback I am getting from LAD is very valuable to me in
terms of understanding how everybody sees Linux Audio.
So please do understand I am not whining and the article I presented to
you is more of a story of how one particular composer
discovered suitable tools for himself.
please don't think i read anything in your post as a whine. there are
people who think that they "know" what "electronic music" actually
*is*, and
they write articles and post to mailing lists and forums about it without
realizing that they are just talking about their own particular little niche
within a much broader world. your article didn't make it clear to me whether
or not you understand this. its clear from other emails to LAD that you do.
--p
2:31 p.m.
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:17:51 +0400
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hey guys!
Read it here:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=…
Any comments are welcome.
Cheers!
L.V.
Just two comments:
1) yes, rakarrack *does* rock - incredible sounds you can get from that
creature (for anyone interested, git version has many more goodies
than last release)
2) If you want to have more and more precise control on your effects
(like the 3/16 delay you mentioned) you really should look into pd or
supercollider. Don't fool yourself saying "I am no coder". You can
learn, at various degrees. And while it may be more difficult to learn
than playing with a gui, the time investment will be rewarded. If
your focus is on electronic music, you really should learn to use (at
least to some degree) the more advanced tools: on a computer, these are
things like pd and sc.
If you're italian (which your name strongly suggests ;) ) there's an
excellent supercollider book by Andrea Valle (in italian) on this page:
http://www.fonurgia.unito.it/andrea/wikka.php?wakka=SuperCollider
cheers
Renato
2:59 p.m.
Renato wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:17:51 +0400
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's not that every user is a noob regarding to this, but for some users
this is less intuitive to use, when being musically creative and perhaps
Louigi (seemingly from Italy, but perhaps from New England or somewhere
else ;) does know solutions that satisfy his needs, regarding to the way
he is creative, but not regarding to political issues.
OT: I wouldn't be surprised if Louigi is from New England :D.
Hey guys!
Read it here:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=…
Any comments are welcome.
Cheers!
L.V.
Just two comments:
1) yes, rakarrack *does* rock - incredible sounds you can get from that
creature (for anyone interested, git version has many more goodies
than last release)
2) If you want to have more and more precise control on your effects
(like the 3/16 delay you mentioned) you really should look into pd or
supercollider. Don't fool yourself saying "I am no coder". You can
learn, at various degrees. And while it may be more difficult to learn
than playing with a gui, the time investment will be rewarded. If
your focus is on electronic music, you really should learn to use (at
least to some degree) the more advanced tools: on a computer, these are
things like pd and sc.
If you're italian (which your name strongly suggests ;) ) there's an
excellent supercollider book by Andrea Valle (in italian) on this page:
http://www.fonurgia.unito.it/andrea/wikka.php?wakka=SuperCollider
cheers
Renato
3:36 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Renato <rennabh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Just two comments:
1) yes, rakarrack *does* rock - incredible sounds you can get from that
creature (for anyone interested, git version has many more goodies
than last release)
2) If you want to have more and more precise control on your effects
(like the 3/16 delay you mentioned) you really should look into pd or
supercollider. Don't fool yourself saying "I am no coder". You can
learn, at various degrees. And while it may be more difficult to learn
than playing with a gui, the time investment will be rewarded. If
your focus is on electronic music, you really should learn to use (at
least to some degree) the more advanced tools: on a computer, these are
things like pd and sc.
Hey Renato!
I am Russian (my artist name has a long story).
The PD and supercollider... I am hoping to give some useful insight to you
guys here
about how chaps like myself view this.
Most importantly - I like learning new stuff. I really do. The amount of
things I did learn,
having switched to GNU/Linux us enormous.
What stops me from using PD and CSound and such is not the fact that I need
to learn something.
It is the fact that the workflow, the process itself is very different. It
might be inspiring in its own
way, but this is not what I am seeking 4 at the moment. Just like some
people prefer to work with
hardware, getting basically the same result, there are people who want to
work with certain types
of software and get into certain types of methods to get to their goal. It
is more than a simple
matter of fancy.
The article and the apps I've shown do satisfy that, I tried to highlight
things I found valuable to
myself.
L.V.
29 Apr
29 Apr
12:10 a.m.
On April 28, 2010 08:37:14 am Renato wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:17:51 +0400
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I agree. Louigi seems to be as excited about it as I was when I
found it.
A rack effects that 'just works' and looks nice.
Take it from a demanding axe player - it's good.
Distortion/overdrive defines our sound, and rakarrack shines here
with many types of drive to suit everyone.
Just a request: Would be awesome as a DSSI plugin so that we
don't have to use rakarrack in a 'send and return' loop within our apps,
which causes latency due to the round trip...
Tim.
Hey guys!
Read it here:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=…
tronic
Any comments are welcome.
Cheers!
L.V.
Just two comments:
1) yes, rakarrack *does* rock - incredible sounds you can get from that
creature (for anyone interested, git version has many more goodies
than last release)
2) If you want to have more and more precise control on your effects
(like the 3/16 delay you mentioned) you really should look into pd or
supercollider. Don't fool yourself saying "I am no coder". You can
learn, at various degrees. And while it may be more difficult to learn
than playing with a gui, the time investment will be rewarded. If
your focus is on electronic music, you really should learn to use (at
least to some degree) the more advanced tools: on a computer, these are
things like pd and sc.
If you're italian (which your name strongly suggests ;) ) there's an
excellent supercollider book by Andrea Valle (in italian) on this page:
http://www.fonurgia.unito.it/andrea/wikka.php?wakka=SuperCollider
cheers
Renato
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
30 Apr
30 Apr
6:41 a.m.
On April 28, 2010 06:05:22 pm Tim E. Real wrote:
On April 28, 2010 08:37:14 am Renato wrote:
Just a follow-up about plugins:
Wow, man! I just spent an hour playing with
Guitarix Distortion (ladspa plugin) +
caps C* Amp VTS (ladspa amp sim plugin)
in MusE's plugin rack.
Gotta tell ya, by the end of the session I had the
sweetest, most pleasant sounding, longest
yet cleanest sustain, from just two ladspa plugins.
Strumming, appegios, pick sweeps, chunka chunka power chords,
long sustain, esp with hammer-ons...
I don't know what it was about the combination
but I can't wait to try tomorrow (it's late).
Am I correct in what I thought I heard?
2nd order harmonic 'style' all the way through the chain?
I know C* amp is tube and I think Guitarix is as well, am I correct?
It seemed to help with the picking.
I saw some other quite capable looking tube preamp ladspa plugins
as well, can't wait to try them with the C* amp series, which I never
realized was so good !
I suppose I've always been looking for a monolithic solution.
Been disappointed by one single plugin. Sort of give up looking, you know?
But two really is better than one.
I learned that from studying pedal schematics, I had built simple
two-diode fuzz boxes and began to wonder how they get that 'metal' or
'crunch' sound. So I knew that more than one 'diode stage' was required,
but never tried it with ladspa plugins till now. I had also learned a key
difference between fuzz and other types - asymmetrical clipping.
Rakarrack made it easy to experiment, with its two independent drive stages.
Once I tried Rakarrack, I was finally able to retire my analog FX box
(Boss SE70) from its send-and-return (insert) loop in MusE.
Ramble ramble...
Cheers. Tim.
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:17:51 +0400
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I agree. Louigi seems to be as excited about it as I was when I found it.
A rack effects that 'just works' and looks nice.
Take it from a demanding axe player - it's good.
Distortion/overdrive defines our sound, and rakarrack shines here
with many types of drive to suit everyone.
Just a request: Would be awesome as a DSSI plugin so that we
don't have to use rakarrack in a 'send and return' loop within our apps,
which causes latency due to the round trip...
Tim. Hey guys!
Read it here:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=linux&a=…
ec tronic
Any comments are welcome.
Cheers!
L.V.
Just two comments:
1) yes, rakarrack *does* rock - incredible sounds you can get from that
creature (for anyone interested, git version has many more goodies
than last release) 2) If you want to have more and more precise
control on your effects
(like the 3/16 delay you mentioned) you really should look into pd or
supercollider. Don't fool yourself saying "I am no coder". You can
learn, at various degrees. And while it may be more difficult to learn
than playing with a gui, the time investment will be rewarded. If
your focus is on electronic music, you really should learn to use (at
least to some degree) the more advanced tools: on a computer, these are
things like pd and sc.
If you're italian (which your name strongly suggests ;) ) there's an
excellent supercollider book by Andrea Valle (in italian) on this page:
http://www.fonurgia.unito.it/andrea/wikka.php?wakka=SuperCollider
cheers
Renato
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
8:18 a.m.
Tim E. Real wrote:
Just a follow-up about plugins:
Wow, man! I just spent an hour playing with
Guitarix Distortion (ladspa plugin) +
caps C* Amp VTS (ladspa amp sim plugin)
in MusE's plugin rack.
Gotta tell ya, by the end of the session I had the
sweetest, most pleasant sounding, longest
yet cleanest sustain, from just two ladspa plugins.
Strumming, appegios, pick sweeps, chunka chunka power chords,
long sustain, esp with hammer-ons...
I don't know what it was about the combination
but I can't wait to try tomorrow (it's late).
Am I correct in what I thought I heard?
2nd order harmonic 'style' all the way through the chain?
I know C* amp is tube and I think Guitarix is as well, am I correct?
It seemed to help with the picking.
I saw some other quite capable looking tube preamp ladspa plugins
as well, can't wait to try them with the C* amp series, which I never
realized was so good !
I suppose I've always been looking for a monolithic solution.
Been disappointed by one single plugin. Sort of give up looking, you know?
But two really is better than one.
I learned that from studying pedal schematics, I had built simple
two-diode fuzz boxes and began to wonder how they get that 'metal' or
'crunch' sound. So I knew that more than one 'diode stage' was
required,
but never tried it with ladspa plugins till now. I had also learned a key
difference between fuzz and other types - asymmetrical clipping.
Rakarrack made it easy to experiment, with its two independent drive stages.
Once I tried Rakarrack, I was finally able to retire my analog FX box
(Boss SE70) from its send-and-return (insert) loop in MusE.
Ramble ramble...
Cheers. Tim.
Hi Tim :)
so you do play guitars directly to the mixing console too?!
I had the most satisfying result when I used a Hughes & Kettner 19"
tube-device, borrowed from a friend.
When I need sustain for clean sounds, e.g. for bottleneck, I still use a
Boss CS-3 Compression Sustainer.
Did you get deep basses for the guitar's sound by using guitarix? I
guess this is the biggest problem, so when playing directly to the
mixing console I often use a drop D, unfortunately this leads to
Badmotorfinger like compositions.
But I do agree that some Linux (to be fair and Windows) plugins do
produce good sounds and even if playing without a real stack has some
disadvantages, I like to have the option to listen to distortion and amp
simulation, while I just record the clean guitar signal, so I'm able to
change the kind of distortion and amp simulation later. Btw. instead of
an amp simulation I sometimes use early reflection reverb, for this I
prefer hardware effects from the 80ies, because of their limited
frequency response and OTOH better early reflection simulations they're
a kind of amp simulation.
Rakarrack is very good, excepted of the deepness for the bass sound of
the guitar. I guess playing Rakarrack to a stack would enable to abandon
all other effect devices, as long as somebody e.g. won't simulate the
original sound of Jimi Hendrix, e.g. like Randy Hansen does. Some
effects can't be replaced.
Compiling Rakarrack for outdated distros sometimes doesn't work :(, but
an outdated distro might be a stable recording system ;).
Cheers!
Ralf
9:17 p.m.
On April 30, 2010 02:18:02 am you wrote:
Tim E. Real wrote:
Yes, I have a real
Marshall JCM800 but only use it for gigs.
When I'm at home I prefer my stereo.
Hence the generous use of plugins for simulation.
I don't even use the Marshall for recording, which I know is
probably a bit strange, but with the vast array of plugins
available it's more fun to play with them.
Let's face it, these days real 'single sound' amps are a bit old fashioned
and simulation is all the rage with, for example, Line6 etc...
As the decades progress, the sheer quantity of music styles
requires being able to simulate lots of genres, particularly when viewed
from a 'cover band' approach.
I record direct, and then I can fool around with the amp sounds later.
I use a Radial Engineering JDI direct box (made in Canada, eh!)
into my MAudio Delta 1010 sound card. It's a passive non-powered
box but it's one of the best.
Until now I have mostly been using SimulAnalog's famous JCM900 VST
dll plugin under dssi-vst. (I do wish they would open-source those plugs!)
Just a follow-up about plugins:
Wow, man! I just spent an hour playing with
Guitarix Distortion (ladspa plugin) +
caps C* Amp VTS (ladspa amp sim plugin)
in MusE's plugin rack.
Gotta tell ya, by the end of the session I had the
sweetest, most pleasant sounding, longest
yet cleanest sustain, from just two ladspa plugins.
Strumming, appegios, pick sweeps, chunka chunka power chords,
long sustain, esp with hammer-ons...
I don't know what it was about the combination
but I can't wait to try tomorrow (it's late).
Am I correct in what I thought I heard?
2nd order harmonic 'style' all the way through the chain?
I know C* amp is tube and I think Guitarix is as well, am I correct?
It seemed to help with the picking.
I saw some other quite capable looking tube preamp ladspa plugins
as well, can't wait to try them with the C* amp series, which I never
realized was so good !
I suppose I've always been looking for a monolithic solution.
Been disappointed by one single plugin. Sort of give up looking, you
know? But two really is better than one.
I learned that from studying pedal schematics, I had built simple
two-diode fuzz boxes and began to wonder how they get that 'metal' or
'crunch' sound. So I knew that more than one 'diode stage' was
required,
but never tried it with ladspa plugins till now. I had also learned a
key difference between fuzz and other types - asymmetrical clipping.
Rakarrack made it easy to experiment, with its two independent drive
stages. Once I tried Rakarrack, I was finally able to retire my analog FX
box (Boss SE70) from its send-and-return (insert) loop in MusE.
Ramble ramble...
Cheers. Tim.
Hi Tim :)
so you do play guitars directly to the mixing console too?!
I had the most satisfying result when I used a Hughes & Kettner 19"
tube-device, borrowed from a friend.
When I need sustain for clean sounds, e.g. for bottleneck, I still use a
Boss CS-3 Compression Sustainer.
In my case, when I say long sustain, I mean
maximally distorted
long sustain for that metal/rock sound, great for soloing.
It was very nice to hear it without any 'buzzy' 'raspy' sounds
common when experimenting with plugins.
It occurred to me last night that many distortion/overdrive plugins
are modelled on semiconductor diode based pedals, not tubes.
Maybe that's why C* Amp and Guitarix sounded good together.
Did you get deep basses for the guitar's sound by using guitarix? I
guess this is the biggest problem, so when playing directly to the
mixing console I often use a drop D, unfortunately this leads to
Badmotorfinger like compositions.
Mm, I think the bass response was mostly provided
by the
C* Amp simulator, but yeah guitarix probably helped.
I did not go too crazy with either one's tone controls, I more or less
left them in the middle.
But I do agree that some Linux (to be fair and Windows) plugins do
produce good sounds and even if playing without a real stack has some
disadvantages, I like to have the option to listen to distortion and amp
simulation, while I just record the clean guitar signal, so I'm able to
change the kind of distortion and amp simulation later.
Exactly. Record clean
while listening with whatever amp sound suits you,
and then fool around with the recorded sound later on playback.
In the past, using a dedicated HW FX box and a crappy consumer sound card
meant that my recorded guitar track was 'written in stone' and the sound
could not be changed very much after the fact.
Thankfully we have Linux, Jack, and pro sound cards, eh?
Btw. instead of
an amp simulation I sometimes use early reflection reverb, for this I
prefer hardware effects from the 80ies, because of their limited
frequency response and OTOH better early reflection simulations they're
a kind of amp simulation.
I don't know, seems to me that some of the IR or
convolver based
amp sim plugins sound an awful lot like just EQs with very annoying peaks.
I don't know how C* Amp does it, but it sounded pretty good.
Rakarrack is very good, excepted of the deepness for the bass sound of
the guitar. I guess playing Rakarrack to a stack would enable to abandon
all other effect devices, as long as somebody e.g. won't simulate the
original sound of Jimi Hendrix, e.g. like Randy Hansen does. Some
effects can't be replaced.
Yeah, once you introduce a real guitar amplifier at
the end, you really have to
turn off all amp sim plugins to avoid them fighting with the amp's natural
sound.
Funny, I read the other day, some years ago Rush's Geddy Lee stopped
using bass amps on stage and went direct into the sound system.
So without any bass amps on stage, for a touch of humour,
he put washing machines in their place ! LOL.
Tim.
Compiling Rakarrack for outdated distros sometimes doesn't work :(, but
an outdated distro might be a stable recording system ;).
Cheers!
Ralf
1 May
1 May
4:55 a.m.
Tim E. Real wrote:
Until now I have mostly been using SimulAnalog's
famous JCM900 VST
dll plugin under dssi-vst. (I do wish they would open-source those plugs!)
Aha, it's for free :), http://www.simulanalog.org/GSuite.zip, until now
I didn't use VSTs when recording with Linux, but the web says, this VST
should be awesome,
http://www.google.de/#hl=de&ei=vJLbS_jPJc6YOMjj9JIH&sa=X&oi=spe…
:).
On the web page there are some PDFs.
Perception and Congnition
A perceptual approach on equalization
<http://www.simulanalog.org/eq.pdf>
A perceptual approach on clipping and saturation
<http://www.simulanalog.org/clip.pdf> Volume cranked up in amp debate
<http://www.trueaudio.com/at_eetjlm.htm> (by Brian Santo)
Numerical methods and models
State variable changes to avoid non-computational issues
<http://www.simulanalog.org/statevariable.pdf>
A complete model of a tube amplifier stage
<http://www.simulanalog.org/tubestage.pdf>
Analysis and high performance simulation of linear networks
Polynomial interpolators for High-Quality Resampling (Olli
Niemitalo) <http://www.student.oulu.fi/%7Eoniemita/DSP/deip.pdf>
Programming Techniques
Optimizing with SIMD instructions
<http://www.simulanalog.org/optimization.htm>
Compiler Benchmarks <http://www.simulanalog.org/compiler.htm>
I have little use for it, because of a lack of knowledge, dunno, perhaps
it's useful for some people from the list.
Thank you for the information Tim :),
Ralf
9:02 p.m.
On April 30, 2010 10:55:09 pm you wrote:
I have not tried their other plugins in the suite yet, but the following
statement probably applies to them as well:
That JCM900 vst is by far the most absolutely mind-blowingly realistic
recreation of a Marshall amp *ever*. Most people agree.
It is *THE* standard by which *all* other plugins are judged, commercial
or free!
Sadly, I just found out the hard way that it has a really nasty
denormalization problem. It's so bad I may not be able to use it any more.
People have tried fancy anti-denormalization plugins ahead of it, with no
luck, apparently.
MusE has a basic DC anti-denormalization feature, and it didn't help.
Also Guitarix seems to have a slight issue too, but thankfully MusE's
basic anti-denormalization feature cured it.
(Many thanks to Robert for the painstaking work on that feature!)
Can I get some comments on an issue nagging me for years:
Maybe I never learned some golden rule about floating point,
please correct me if I'm ignorant of some crucial technique or fact
which would help: ...
I used to be fanatical about floating point (remember the co-processor days?)
But I've grown to dislike it.
Bankers won't use it for calculations.
(Have you ever been stung by extra or missing pennies using a 'NUMBER'
database field instead of a 'BCD' field? I have.)
So why do we use floating point for scientific and audio work?
Considering audio can have really small values, does it not lead to errors
upon summation of signals?
Why do we not use some sort of fixed-point computations?
I mean take this simple BASIC program:
LET A = 0
LOOP: PRINT A
A = A + 0.000001
GOTO LOOP
It produces the stupidest output with wandering errors after several
iterations. A two-dollar calculator wouldn't do that.
It plagued me when I worked with 3D drawing, too.
You move an object incrementally several times in some direction
but you can't get back to the original position by the reverse
process. That's called 'non-return-to-zero'.
Tim E. Real wrote:
Wow, man! I just spent an hour playing with
Guitarix Distortion (ladspa plugin) +
caps C* Amp VTS (ladspa amp sim plugin)
in MusE's plugin rack.
Silly me! I missed a piece of the puzzle. The C* Cabinet
plugins.
I was supposed to put a cabinet after the amp.
Sounds even better now!
It now approaches the type of sound that the JCM900 vst gives.
Until now I
have mostly been using SimulAnalog's famous JCM900 VST
dll plugin under dssi-vst. (I do wish they would open-source those
plugs!)
Aha, it's for free :), http://www.simulanalog.org/GSuite.zip, until now
I didn't use VSTs when recording with Linux, but the web says, this VST
should be awesome,
http://www.google.de/#hl=de&ei=vJLbS_jPJc6YOMjj9JIH&sa=X&oi=spe…
ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=JCM+900+VST&spell=1&fp=af503062d682e13a
:).
On the web page there are some PDFs.
Perception and Congnition
A perceptual approach on equalization
<http://www.simulanalog.org/eq.pdf>
A perceptual approach on clipping and saturation
<http://www.simulanalog.org/clip.pdf> Volume cranked up in amp debate
<http://www.trueaudio.com/at_eetjlm.htm> (by Brian Santo)
Numerical methods and models
State variable changes to avoid non-computational issues
<http://www.simulanalog.org/statevariable.pdf>
A complete model of a tube amplifier stage
<http://www.simulanalog.org/tubestage.pdf>
Analysis and high performance simulation of linear networks
Polynomial interpolators for High-Quality Resampling (Olli
Niemitalo) <http://www.student.oulu.fi/%7Eoniemita/DSP/deip.pdf>
Programming Techniques
Optimizing with SIMD instructions
<http://www.simulanalog.org/optimization.htm>
Compiler Benchmarks <http://www.simulanalog.org/compiler.htm>
I have little use for it, because of a lack of knowledge, dunno, perhaps
it's useful for some people from the list.
Yesterday I took some time to read
some of those papers.
Fascinating stuff, especially when presented with an audio effects/amp
simulation goal in mind.
Tim.
Thank you for the information Tim :),
Ralf
10:18 p.m.
On Saturday 01 May 2010, at 20.57.36, "Tim E. Real" <termtech(a)rogers.com>
wrote:
[...]
I used to be fanatical about floating point (remember
the co-processor
days?) But I've grown to dislike it.
Bankers won't use it for calculations.
(Have you ever been stung by extra or missing pennies using a 'NUMBER'
database field instead of a 'BCD' field? I have.)
So why do we use floating point for scientific and audio work?
Dynamic range, performance and ease of use. (However, as most FPUs - apart
from SIMD implementations that generally don't have denormals at all - lack a
simple switch to disable denormals, the last point is pretty much eliminated,
I think...)
Considering audio can have really small values, does
it not lead to errors
upon summation of signals?
Yes, and no. If you add values in the same general order of magnitude, it's
pretty much like adding integers. If you add a very small value to a very
large one, and the difference is so large that the mantissas don't overlap,
nothing happens! >:-)
Why do we not use some sort of fixed-point
computations?
I do, sometimes. ;-) However, it's a PITA, and I do it only when the code is
supposed to scale to hardware with slow FPUs or no FPUs at all. I suspect
floating point implementations would run faster on current PC/workstation CPUs
- but then again, *correct* (ie denormal handling) code may not...! I'm not
sure.
--
//David Olofson - Developer, Artist, Open Source Advocate
.--- Games, examples, libraries, scripting, sound, music, graphics ---.
| http://olofson.net http://kobodeluxe.com http://audiality.org |
| http://eel.olofson.net http://zeespace.net http://reologica.se |
'---------------------------------------------------------------------'
10:19 p.m.
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Tim E. Real <termtech(a)rogers.com> wrote:
Can I get some comments on an issue nagging me for years:
Maybe I never learned some golden rule about floating point,
please correct me if I'm ignorant of some crucial technique or fact
which would help: ...
Arbitrary precision arithmetic will take care of all these problems. At a
great cost to performance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary-precision_arithmetic .
It's part of the Java Language:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/math/package-summary.html
Provides classes for performing arbitrary-precision integer arithmetic
(BigInteger) and arbitrary-precision decimal
arithmetic (BigDecimal).
BigInteger is analogous to Java's primitive integer types except that it
provides arbitrary precision, hence operations on BigIntegers do not
overflow or lose precision. In addition to standard arithmetic operations,
BigInteger provides modular arithmetic, GCD calculation, primality testing,
prime generation, bit manipulation, and a few other miscellaneous
operations. BigDecimal provides arbitrary-precision signed decimal numbers
suitable for currency calculations and the like. BigDecimal gives the user
complete control over rounding behavior, allowing the user to choose from a
comprehensive set of eight rounding modes.
Arbitrary precision math has been part of the Lisp/Scheme world for a long
time; it's also in the mainstream via mathematica:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/topics?pli=1
-- Niels
http://nielsmayer.com
11:26 p.m.
On May 1, 2010 04:19:22 pm you wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Tim E. Real
<termtech(a)rogers.com> wrote:
Thanks for the comments. That's really smart of Java!
Beautiful.
I guess they don't fool around in an app like Mathematica, either.
I'm familiar with Scheme via the Geda suite, but less so with Lisp.
The last time I dealt with BCD was in the great Borland C++ Builder.
At the time version 4 had minimal support for it, but in the end
I had to write my own classes for it, when I had to switch my entire
DB app from 'NUMBER' to 'BCD' fields. Ugh... Yeah, slow and a PITA.
I've always wondered why they don't make a fixed-point co-processor...
Thanks. Tim.
Can I get some comments on an issue nagging me
for years:
Maybe I never learned some golden rule about floating point,
please correct me if I'm ignorant of some crucial technique or fact
which would help: ...
Arbitrary precision arithmetic will take care of all these problems. At a
great cost to performance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary-precision_arithmetic .
It's part of the Java Language:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/math/package-summary.html
Provides classes for performing arbitrary-precision integer arithmetic
(BigInteger) and arbitrary-precision decimal
arithmetic (BigDecimal).
BigInteger is analogous to Java's primitive integer types except that it
provides arbitrary precision, hence operations on BigIntegers do not
overflow or lose precision. In addition to standard arithmetic
operations, BigInteger provides modular arithmetic, GCD calculation,
primality testing, prime generation, bit manipulation, and a few other
miscellaneous operations. BigDecimal provides arbitrary-precision signed
decimal numbers suitable for currency calculations and the like.
BigDecimal gives the user complete control over rounding behavior,
allowing the user to choose from a comprehensive set of eight rounding
modes.
Arbitrary precision math has been part of the Lisp/Scheme world for a long
time; it's also in the mainstream via mathematica:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica/topics?pli=1
-- Niels
http://nielsmayer.com
2 May
2 May
12:20 a.m.
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Tim E. Real <termtech(a)rogers.com> wrote:
I've always wondered why they don't make a fixed-point co-processor...
That's what the three other 3.4G cores are for... or should be, in a more
ideal world.
It's too bad people don't write programs that can automatically decompose
into a parallel-execution (e.g. multithread) solution. Today's talk on using
continuation-passing style in scheme was a step in the right direction (
http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2010/download/kjetil.pdf ) -- "Implementing a
Polyphonic MIDI Software Synthesizer using Coroutines, Realtime Garbage
Collection, Closures, Auto-Allocated Variables, Dynamic Scoping, and
Continuation Passing Style Programming" Kjetil Matheussen. [[plug:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicm/book.html -- Structure and Interpretation of
Classical Mechanics ]]
Speaking of java, all these concepts should be "cloudified" -- figure out a
way to get google app engine to make a "cloudsynth" (of course, it should
integrate qmidinet so as to setup midi routing appropriately). Maybe using
clojure -- since it's basically lisp in java, with attention paid to
parallel programing. And since underlying clojure is java, you get the
standardized and widely-used/debugged java.math libs such as arbitrary
precision arithmetic, so you can mix and remix to your hearts' content
without bit-loss... of course, if a mix itself was a closure, then there'd
be no bit-loss, or copying, since everything would just be a computation
upon an original, prior, sound source. (You'll be able to 'unmix' any sound
-- kind of like an infinite "mix" undo -- and like self-describing data, a
"self describing mix")....
For more info on clojure and functional programming:
See
http://www2.computer.org/cms/Computer.org/ComputingNow/homepage/2009/0609/r…
good intro.
The Promises of Functional Programming
By Konrad Hinsen
Adopting a functional programming style could make your programs more
robust, more compact, and more
easily parallelizable. However, mastering it requires some effort.
Wondering whether Google App Engine would be able to host such an
application, I check
http://elhumidor.blogspot.com/2009/04/clojure-on-google-appengine.html which
says:
THE BIG CAVEAT
Two unusual aspects of the Google AppEngine environment create pretty major
constraints on your ability to write idiomatic
Clojure.
First, an AppEngine application runs in a security context that doesn't
permit spawning threads, so you won't be able to
use Agents, the clojure.parallel
library, or Futures.
Second, one of the most exciting features of AppEngine is that your
application will be deployed on Google's huge
infrastructure, dynamically
changing its footprint depending on demand. That means you'll potentially be
running on many JVMs at once. Unfortunately this is a strange fit for
Clojure's concurrency features, which are most useful when you have
precise control over what lives on what JVM (and simplest when everything
runs on one JVM). Since shared references (Vars, Refs, and Atoms) are shared
only within a single JVM, they are not suitable for many of their typical
uses when running on AppEngine. You should still use Clojure's atomic
references (and their associated means of modification) for any state that
it makes sense to keep global per-JVM, since there may be multiple threads
serving requests in one JVM. But remember JVMs will come and go during the
lifetime of your application, so anything truly global should go in the
Datastore or Memcache.
-- Niels.
http://nielsmayer.com
1:58 a.m.
On May 1, 2010 06:20:26 pm you wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Tim E. Real
<termtech(a)rogers.com> wrote:
Ah, so
'Stalin' is a Scheme compiler, among many.
So could Scheme be used in real-time audio apps? Jack-SuperApp-Scheme?
What I'm 'Geda'ing at, is a marriage of electronics and realtime audio...
Easy electronics-schematic-to-audio-plugin, or something like that...
Realtime functional audio blocks? (Hmm, PD territory?)
Or beyond audio: Realtime functional electronics blocks?
There was an old linux app - CHIP or something like that - which
allowed you to draw circuits and they 'just worked' live when completed.
I've always wondered why they don't make
a fixed-point co-processor...
That's what the three other 3.4G cores are for... or should be, in a more
ideal world.
It's too bad people don't write programs that can automatically decompose
into a parallel-execution (e.g. multithread) solution. Today's talk on
using continuation-passing style in scheme was a step in the right
direction ( http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2010/download/kjetil.pdf ) --
"Implementing a Polyphonic MIDI Software Synthesizer using Coroutines,
Realtime Garbage Collection, Closures, Auto-Allocated Variables, Dynamic
Scoping, and Continuation Passing Style Programming" Kjetil Matheussen. [[plug: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicm/book.html --
Structure and
Interpretation of Classical Mechanics ]]
Quite the tome. (Found a Poincare term
"resonance island". Sounds neat.)
Good text. Applies mechanics + Scheme programming. And it's free? Well...
Thanks. Tim.
Speaking of java, all these concepts should be "cloudified" -- figure out a
way to get google app engine to make a "cloudsynth" (of course, it should
integrate qmidinet so as to setup midi routing appropriately). Maybe using
clojure -- since it's basically lisp in java, with attention paid to
parallel programing. And since underlying clojure is java, you get the
standardized and widely-used/debugged java.math libs such as arbitrary
precision arithmetic, so you can mix and remix to your hearts' content
without bit-loss... of course, if a mix itself was a closure, then there'd
be no bit-loss, or copying, since everything would just be a computation
upon an original, prior, sound source. (You'll be able to 'unmix' any sound
-- kind of like an infinite "mix" undo -- and like self-describing data, a
"self describing mix")....
For more info on clojure and functional programming:
See
http://www2.computer.org/cms/Computer.org/ComputingNow/homepage/2009/0609/r
W_CS_FunctionalProgramming.pdfas good intro.
The Promises of Functional Programming
By Konrad Hinsen
Adopting a functional programming style could make your programs more
robust, more compact, and more
easily parallelizable. However, mastering it requires some effort.
Wondering whether Google App Engine would be able to host such an
application, I check
http://elhumidor.blogspot.com/2009/04/clojure-on-google-appengine.html
which says:
THE BIG CAVEAT
Two unusual aspects of the Google AppEngine environment create pretty major
constraints on your ability to write idiomatic
Clojure.
First, an AppEngine application runs in a security context that doesn't
permit spawning threads, so you won't be able
to use Agents, the
clojure.parallel library, or Futures.
Second, one of the most exciting features of AppEngine is that your
application will be deployed on Google's huge
infrastructure, dynamically
changing its footprint depending on demand. That means you'll potentially
be running on many JVMs at once. Unfortunately this is a strange fit for
Clojure's concurrency features, which are most useful when you have
precise control over what lives on what JVM (and simplest when everything
runs on one JVM). Since shared references (Vars, Refs, and Atoms) are
shared only within a single JVM, they are not suitable for many of their
typical uses when running on AppEngine. You should still use Clojure's
atomic references (and their associated means of modification) for any
state that it makes sense to keep global per-JVM, since there may be
multiple threads serving requests in one JVM. But remember JVMs will come
and go during the lifetime of your application, so anything truly global
should go in the Datastore or Memcache.
-- Niels.
http://nielsmayer.com 
1:14 a.m.
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Tim E. Real <termtech(a)rogers.com> wrote:
On April 30, 2010 10:55:09 pm you wrote:
http://www.google.de/#hl=de&ei=vJLbS_jPJc6YOMjj9JIH&sa=X&oi=spe…
I completely agree with you: The JCM900 VST rocks! I've been using it a lot
on Windows, now I'm on the Mac, so I haven't used it in a while. Too bad the
source code for these plugins is not available. The papers on the website
only explain the basic principles.
Anyway, I also ran into the denormalization problem quickly, so I just made
a small VST that mixes some -100 dB white noise into the signal. Actually, I
made the noise gain adjustable, because the added noise made my
synth-guitars sound much more authentic. ;-)
Alternatively one could make it more convenient to use by creating a
separate wrapper .dll that loads the JCM900 and just intercepts the
process-calls, while passing any other call to the plugin.
Jan
Tim E. Real wrote:
Wow, man! I just spent an hour playing with
Guitarix Distortion (ladspa plugin) +
caps C* Amp VTS (ladspa amp sim plugin)
in MusE's plugin rack.
Silly me! I missed a piece of the puzzle. The C*
Cabinet plugins.
I was supposed to put a cabinet after the amp.
Sounds even better now!
It now approaches the type of sound that the JCM900 vst gives.
Until now
I have mostly been using SimulAnalog's famous JCM900 VST
dll plugin under dssi-vst. (I do wish they would open-source those
plugs!)
Aha, it's for free :), http://www.simulanalog.org/GSuite.zip, until now
I didn't use VSTs when recording with Linux, but the web says, this VST
should be awesome,
ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=JCM+900+VST&spell=1&fp=af503062d682e13a
I have not tried their other plugins in the suite yet, but the following
statement probably applies to them as well:
That JCM900 vst is by far the most absolutely mind-blowingly realistic
recreation of a Marshall amp *ever*. Most people agree.
It is *THE* standard by which *all* other plugins are judged, commercial
or free!
Sadly, I just found out the hard way that it has a really nasty
denormalization problem. It's so bad I may not be able to use it any more.
People have tried fancy anti-denormalization plugins ahead of it, with no
luck, apparently.
MusE has a basic DC anti-denormalization feature, and it didn't help.
Also Guitarix seems to have a slight issue too, but
thankfully MusE's
basic anti-denormalization feature cured it.
(Many thanks to Robert for the painstaking work on that feature!)
Can I get some comments on an issue nagging me for years:
Maybe I never learned some golden rule about floating point,
please correct me if I'm ignorant of some crucial technique or fact
which would help: ...
I used to be fanatical about floating point (remember the co-processor
days?)
But I've grown to dislike it.
Bankers won't use it for calculations.
(Have you ever been stung by extra or missing pennies using a 'NUMBER'
database field instead of a 'BCD' field? I have.)
So why do we use floating point for scientific and audio work?
Considering audio can have really small values, does it not lead to errors
upon summation of signals?
Why do we not use some sort of fixed-point computations?
I mean take this simple BASIC program:
LET A = 0
LOOP: PRINT A
A = A + 0.000001
GOTO LOOP
It produces the stupidest output with wandering errors after several
iterations. A two-dollar calculator wouldn't do that.
It plagued me when I worked with 3D drawing, too.
You move an object incrementally several times in some direction
but you can't get back to the original position by the reverse
process. That's called 'non-return-to-zero'.
:).
On the web page there are some PDFs.
Perception and Congnition
A perceptual approach on equalization
<http://www.simulanalog.org/eq.pdf>
A perceptual approach on clipping and saturation
<http://www.simulanalog.org/clip.pdf> Volume cranked up in amp debate
<http://www.trueaudio.com/at_eetjlm.htm> (by Brian Santo)
Numerical methods and models
State variable changes to avoid non-computational issues
<http://www.simulanalog.org/statevariable.pdf>
A complete model of a tube amplifier stage
<http://www.simulanalog.org/tubestage.pdf>
Analysis and high performance simulation of linear networks
Polynomial interpolators for High-Quality Resampling (Olli
Niemitalo) <http://www.student.oulu.fi/%7Eoniemita/DSP/deip.pdf>
Programming Techniques
Optimizing with SIMD instructions
<http://www.simulanalog.org/optimization.htm>
Compiler Benchmarks <http://www.simulanalog.org/compiler.htm>
I have little use for it, because of a lack of knowledge, dunno, perhaps
it's useful for some people from the list.
Yesterday I took some time to read
some of those papers.
Fascinating stuff, especially when presented with an audio effects/amp
simulation goal in mind.
Tim.
Thank you for the information Tim :),
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
2:15 a.m.
On May 1, 2010 07:14:41 pm you wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Tim E. Real
<termtech(a)rogers.com> wrote:
Ha! Sounds good. Authentic hiss!
On April 30, 2010 10:55:09 pm you wrote:
http://www.google.de/#hl=de&ei=vJLbS_jPJc6YOMjj9JIH&sa=X&oi=spe…
0&
I completely agree with you: The JCM900 VST rocks! I've been using it a lot
on Windows, now I'm on the Mac, so I haven't used it in a while. Too bad
the source code for these plugins is not available. The papers on the
website only explain the basic principles.
Anyway, I also ran into the denormalization problem quickly, so I just made
a small VST that mixes some -100 dB white noise into the signal. Actually,
I made the noise gain adjustable, because the added noise made my
synth-guitars sound much more authentic. ;-) Tim E. Real wrote:
Wow, man! I just spent an hour playing with
Guitarix Distortion (ladspa plugin) +
caps C* Amp VTS (ladspa amp sim plugin)
in MusE's plugin rack.
Silly me! I missed a piece of the puzzle. The C* Cabinet plugins.
I was supposed to put a cabinet after the amp.
Sounds even better now!
It now approaches the type of sound that the JCM900 vst gives.
Until now
I have mostly been using SimulAnalog's famous JCM900 VST
dll plugin under dssi-vst. (I do wish they would open-source those
plugs!)
Aha, it's for free :), http://www.simulanalog.org/GSuite.zip, until now
I didn't use VSTs when recording with Linux, but the web says, this VST
should be awesome,
ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=JCM+900+VST&spell=1&fp=af503062d682e13a
I have not tried their other plugins in the suite yet, but the following
statement probably applies to them as well:
That JCM900 vst is by far the most absolutely mind-blowingly realistic
recreation of a Marshall amp *ever*. Most people agree.
It is *THE* standard by which *all* other plugins are judged, commercial
or free!
Sadly, I just found out the hard way that it has a really nasty
denormalization problem. It's so bad I may not be able to use it any
more. People have tried fancy anti-denormalization plugins ahead of it,
with no luck, apparently.
MusE has a basic DC anti-denormalization feature, and it didn't help. Alternatively one could make it more convenient to use
by creating a
separate wrapper .dll that loads the JCM900 and just intercepts the
process-calls, while passing any other call to the plugin.
Jan
I tired a quick mod in MusE to do what the author of the caps ladspa suite
did to handle de-normals. He said "A -80dB signal at the Nyquist frequency
or lower". No luck.
But yeah, obviously at some signal level and type, it should stop.
So I'll keep trying. Noise sounds like the best way. -100dB white to start?
OK...
Ugh. A new MusE options panel: Advanced de-normalization options, he he...
Cheers. Keep on rockin'.
Tim.
> Also Guitarix seems to have a slight issue too, but thankfully MusE's
> basic anti-denormalization feature cured it.
> (Many thanks to Robert for the painstaking work on that feature!)
>
> Can I get some comments on an issue nagging me for years:
> Maybe I never learned some golden rule about floating point,
> please correct me if I'm ignorant of some crucial technique or fact
> which would help: ...
>
> I used to be fanatical about floating point (remember the co-processor
> days?)
> But I've grown to dislike it.
> Bankers won't use it for calculations.
> (Have you ever been stung by extra or missing pennies using a 'NUMBER'
> database field instead of a 'BCD' field? I have.)
>
> So why do we use floating point for scientific and audio work?
> Considering audio can have really small values, does it not lead to
> errors upon summation of signals?
> Why do we not use some sort of fixed-point computations?
>
> I mean take this simple BASIC program:
> LET A = 0
> LOOP: PRINT A
> A = A + 0.000001
> GOTO LOOP
>
> It produces the stupidest output with wandering errors after several
> iterations. A two-dollar calculator wouldn't do that.
> It plagued me when I worked with 3D drawing, too.
> You move an object incrementally several times in some direction
> but you can't get back to the original position by the reverse
> process. That's called 'non-return-to-zero'.
>
> > :).
> >
> > On the web page there are some PDFs.
> >
> > Perception and Congnition
> >
> > A perceptual approach on equalization
> > <http://www.simulanalog.org/eq.pdf>
> > A perceptual approach on clipping and saturation
> > <http://www.simulanalog.org/clip.pdf> Volume cranked up in amp
> > debate <http://www.trueaudio.com/at_eetjlm.htm> (by Brian Santo)
> >
> >
> > Numerical methods and models
> >
> > State variable changes to avoid non-computational issues
> > <http://www.simulanalog.org/statevariable.pdf>
> > A complete model of a tube amplifier stage
> > <http://www.simulanalog.org/tubestage.pdf>
> > Analysis and high performance simulation of linear networks
> > Polynomial interpolators for High-Quality Resampling (Olli
> > Niemitalo) <http://www.student.oulu.fi/%7Eoniemita/DSP/deip.pdf>
> >
> > Programming Techniques
> >
> > Optimizing with SIMD instructions
> > <http://www.simulanalog.org/optimization.htm>
> > Compiler Benchmarks <http://www.simulanalog.org/compiler.htm>
> >
> > I have little use for it, because of a lack of knowledge, dunno,
> > perhaps it's useful for some people from the list.
>
> Yesterday I took some time to read some of those papers.
> Fascinating stuff, especially when presented with an audio effects/amp
> simulation goal in mind.
>
> Tim.
>
> > Thank you for the information Tim :),
> >
> > Ralf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
9:05 a.m.
New subject: [MusE-user] De-normals. (Was A small article about tools for electronic musicians)
On May 1, 2010 08:10:27 pm Tim E. Real wrote:
On May 1, 2010 07:14:41 pm you wrote:
(CC'd MusE user list.)
Hey thanks for the tip Jan! Right on!
It worked! Man that is one SOB that's been plaguing me for a while.
I didn't realize what was causing it until the other day.
Turns out Guitarix needed more than just the DC, it needed the noise.
-------------------
To MusE users: No MusE mods required. Here's the way I did it:
To avoid taking up an effect rack slot on each affected track, create a new
Audio Input track with inputs not connected, with a single white noise
ladspa plugin in its effect rack, say the caps C* White noise.
Set the plugin's noise level to the second least value available, like 0.01.
Un-mute the new Audio Input track.
Name the track 'Noise source', let's say.
Set the track level slider to -59dB, *NOT* -infinity, which causes the symptom.
(That's the second least default minimum slider value, settable in options!)
Now add 'Noise source' to each affected track's input routes, aside from any
routes they already had.
Note that if any Wave track effect rack plugins require the noise added,
there's no way to inject the noise to their effect rack unless the Wave
track's record-arm is on.
So do like I usually do anyway... route your Wave tracks to Group tracks,
and put the plugins in the Group tracks.
Similar for other tracks like Synth tracks. Route them to Groups.
Then inject the noise into the Group tracks.
Well, you get the general idea I hope.
Now things should be ready to roll smoothly.
It's striking to adjust the 'Noise source' Audio Input track slider level
to -infinity and all of a sudden things freeze and slow to a crawl.
Don't do it!
Tim.
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Tim E. Real
<termtech(a)rogers.com> wrote:
Ha! Sounds good. Authentic hiss!
On April 30, 2010 10:55:09 pm you wrote:
I completely agree with you: The JCM900 VST rocks! I've been using it a
lot on Windows, now I'm on the Mac, so I haven't used it in a while. Too
bad the source code for these plugins is not available. The papers on the
website only explain the basic principles.
Anyway, I also ran into the denormalization problem quickly, so I just
made a small VST that mixes some -100 dB white noise into the signal.
Actually, I made the noise gain adjustable, because the added noise made
my synth-guitars sound much more authentic. ;-) Tim E. Real wrote:
Wow, man! I just spent an hour playing with
Guitarix Distortion (ladspa plugin) +
caps C* Amp VTS (ladspa amp sim plugin)
in MusE's plugin rack.
Silly me! I missed a piece of the puzzle. The C* Cabinet plugins.
I was supposed to put a cabinet after the amp.
Sounds even better now!
It now approaches the type of sound that the JCM900 vst gives.
> Until now I have mostly been using
SimulAnalog's famous JCM900 VST
> dll plugin under dssi-vst. (I do wish they would open-source those
> plugs!)
Aha, it's for free :), http://www.simulanalog.org/GSuite.zip, until
now I didn't use VSTs when recording with Linux, but the web says,
this VST should be awesome,
http://www.google.de/#hl=de&ei=vJLbS_jPJc6YOMjj9JIH&sa=X&oi=spe…
m= 0&
ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=JCM+900+VST&spell=1&fp=af503062d682e13a
I have not tried their other plugins in the suite yet, but the
following statement probably applies to them as well:
That JCM900 vst is by far the most absolutely mind-blowingly realistic
recreation of a Marshall amp *ever*. Most people agree.
It is *THE* standard by which *all* other plugins are judged,
commercial or free!
Sadly, I just found out the hard way that it has a really nasty
denormalization problem. It's so bad I may not be able to use it any
more. People have tried fancy anti-denormalization plugins ahead of it,
with no luck, apparently.
MusE has a basic DC anti-denormalization feature, and it didn't help. Alternatively one could make it more convenient
to use by creating a
separate wrapper .dll that loads the JCM900 and just intercepts the
process-calls, while passing any other call to the plugin.
Jan
I tired a quick mod in MusE to do what the author of the caps ladspa suite
did to handle de-normals. He said "A -80dB signal at the Nyquist frequency
or lower". No luck.
But yeah, obviously at some signal level and type, it should stop.
So I'll keep trying. Noise sounds like the best way. -100dB white to start?
OK...
Ugh. A new MusE options panel: Advanced de-normalization options, he he...
Cheers. Keep on rockin'.
Tim.
> > Also Guitarix seems to have a slight issue too, but thankfully MusE's
> > basic anti-denormalization feature cured it.
> > (Many thanks to Robert for the painstaking work on that feature!)
> >
9:19 a.m.
New subject: [MusE-user] De-normals. (Was A small article about tools for electronic musicians)
Tim E. Real wrote:
On May 1, 2010 08:10:27 pm Tim E. Real wrote:
IIUC in general, for any used recording app
1. Solution
When recording add parallel to the guitar's signal the noise (by caps C*
White noise) to the input of the plugin.
2. Solution
Add noise (by caps C* White noise) parallel to the outputs.
Ralf
On May 1, 2010 07:14:41 pm you wrote:
(CC'd MusE user list.)
Hey thanks for the tip Jan! Right on!
It worked! Man that is one SOB that's been plaguing me for a while.
I didn't realize what was causing it until the other day.
Turns out Guitarix needed more than just the DC, it needed the noise.
-------------------
To MusE users: No MusE mods required. Here's the way I did it:
To avoid taking up an effect rack slot on each affected track, create a new
Audio Input track with inputs not connected, with a single white noise
ladspa plugin in its effect rack, say the caps C* White noise.
Set the plugin's noise level to the second least value available, like 0.01.
Un-mute the new Audio Input track.
Name the track 'Noise source', let's say.
Set the track level slider to -59dB, *NOT* -infinity, which causes the symptom.
(That's the second least default minimum slider value, settable in options!)
Now add 'Noise source' to each affected track's input routes, aside from any
routes they already had.
Note that if any Wave track effect rack plugins require the noise added,
there's no way to inject the noise to their effect rack unless the Wave
track's record-arm is on.
So do like I usually do anyway... route your Wave tracks to Group tracks,
and put the plugins in the Group tracks.
Similar for other tracks like Synth tracks. Route them to Groups.
Then inject the noise into the Group tracks.
Well, you get the general idea I hope.
Now things should be ready to roll smoothly.
It's striking to adjust the 'Noise source' Audio Input track slider level
to -infinity and all of a sudden things freeze and slow to a crawl.
Don't do it!
Tim. On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Tim E. Real
<termtech(a)rogers.com> wrote:
Ha! Sounds good. Authentic hiss!
On April 30, 2010 10:55:09 pm you wrote:
> Tim E. Real wrote:
> Wow, man! I just spent an hour playing with
> Guitarix Distortion (ladspa plugin) +
> caps C* Amp VTS (ladspa amp sim plugin)
> in MusE's plugin rack.
>
Silly me! I missed a piece of the puzzle. The C* Cabinet plugins.
I was supposed to put a cabinet after the amp.
Sounds even better now!
It now approaches the type of sound that the JCM900 vst gives.
>> Until now I have mostly been using SimulAnalog's famous JCM900 VST
>> dll plugin under dssi-vst. (I do wish they would open-source those
>> plugs!)
>>
> Aha, it's for free :), http://www.simulanalog.org/GSuite.zip, until
> now I didn't use VSTs when recording with Linux, but the web says,
> this VST should be awesome,
>
http://www.google.de/#hl=de&ei=vJLbS_jPJc6YOMjj9JIH&sa=X&oi=spe…
m= 0&
>
ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=JCM+900+VST&spell=1&fp=af503062d682e13a
>
I have not tried their other plugins in the suite yet, but the
following statement probably applies to them as well:
That JCM900 vst is by far the most absolutely mind-blowingly realistic
recreation of a Marshall amp *ever*. Most people agree.
It is *THE* standard by which *all* other plugins are judged,
commercial or free!
Sadly, I just found out the hard way that it has a really nasty
denormalization problem. It's so bad I may not be able to use it any
more. People have tried fancy anti-denormalization plugins ahead of it,
with no luck, apparently.
MusE has a basic DC anti-denormalization feature, and it didn't help.
I completely agree with you: The JCM900 VST rocks! I've been using it
a
lot on Windows, now I'm on the Mac, so I haven't used it in a while. Too
bad the source code for these plugins is not available. The papers on the
website only explain the basic principles.
Anyway, I also ran into the denormalization problem quickly, so I just
made a small VST that mixes some -100 dB white noise into the signal.
Actually, I made the noise gain adjustable, because the added noise made
my synth-guitars sound much more authentic. ;-)
Alternatively one could make it more convenient
to use by creating a
separate wrapper .dll that loads the JCM900 and just intercepts the
process-calls, while passing any other call to the plugin.
Jan
I tired a quick mod in MusE to do what the author of the caps ladspa suite
did to handle de-normals. He said "A -80dB signal at the Nyquist frequency
or lower". No luck.
But yeah, obviously at some signal level and type, it should stop.
So I'll keep trying. Noise sounds like the best way. -100dB white to start?
OK...
Ugh. A new MusE options panel: Advanced de-normalization options, he he...
Cheers. Keep on rockin'.
Tim.
>> Also Guitarix seems to have a slight issue too, but thankfully MusE's
>> basic anti-denormalization feature cured it.
>> (Many thanks to Robert for the painstaking work on that feature!)
>>
>>
4:22 p.m.
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Tim E. Real <termtech(a)rogers.com> wrote:
I tired a quick mod in MusE to do what the author of the caps ladspa suite
did to handle de-normals. He said "A -80dB signal at the Nyquist frequency
or lower". No luck.
But yeah, obviously at some signal level and type, it should stop.
So I'll keep trying. Noise sounds like the best way. -100dB white to start?
OK...
Ugh. A new MusE options panel: Advanced de-normalization options, he he...
You might want to check ardour. It has 3 denormal protection options (2 that
are h/w based, setting processor flags, and 1 that is software based, adding
a very very very very tiny constant value ("DC Bias") to every signal. See
libs/pbd/fpu.cc to find the h/w stuff.
--p
3 May
3 May
3:33 a.m.
On May 2, 2010 10:22:29 am you wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Tim E. Real
<termtech(a)rogers.com> wrote:
Yeah, now I'm wondering if MusE's basic DC protection level was simply
too low, at least for those two plugins in question.
It is currently fixed at
const float denormalBias=1e-18;
I will try raising it and report back.
At some point I will see if I can try those plugs in Ardour and report
how it fared.
Tim.
I tired a quick mod in MusE to do what the author
of the caps ladspa
suite did to handle de-normals. He said "A -80dB signal at the Nyquist
frequency or lower". No luck.
But yeah, obviously at some signal level and type, it should stop.
So I'll keep trying. Noise sounds like the best way. -100dB white to
start? OK...
Ugh. A new MusE options panel: Advanced de-normalization options, he
he...
You might want to check ardour. It has 3 denormal protection options (2
that are h/w based, setting processor flags, and 1 that is software based,
adding a very very very very tiny constant value ("DC Bias") to every
signal. See libs/pbd/fpu.cc to find the h/w stuff.
--p
2 May
2 May
8:39 a.m.
Jan Marguc wrote:
Sadly, I just found out the hard way that it has a really nasty
denormalization problem. It's so bad I may not be able to use it
any more.
People have tried fancy anti-denormalization plugins ahead of it,
with no
luck, apparently.
MusE has a basic DC anti-denormalization feature, and it didn't help.
I completely agree with you: The JCM900 VST rocks! I've been using it
a lot on Windows, now I'm on the Mac, so I haven't used it in a while.
Too bad the source code for these plugins is not available. The papers
on the website only explain the basic principles.
Anyway, I also ran into the denormalization problem quickly, so I just
made a small VST that mixes some -100 dB white noise into the signal.
Wouldn't Jack's -z option solve this issue too?
$ jackd -d alsa --help | grep dither
-z, --dither Dithering mode (default: n)
Actually, I made the noise gain adjustable, because
the added noise
made my synth-guitars sound much more authentic. ;-)
Alternatively one could make it more convenient to use by creating a
separate wrapper .dll that loads the JCM900 and just intercepts the
process-calls, while passing any other call to the plugin.
Jan
3 May
3 May
6:19 a.m.
On May 2, 2010 02:39:23 am you wrote:
Jan Marguc wrote:
I think in our case that's not
necessarily true.
The source of the playing audio data into the plugins can be from a
wave file track. When the app has played past the wave file 'part'
(part of a longer song) and there's no more data to come from
from the part, we 'artificially' insert float 0.0 data instead
(or the fixed denormalize value of 1E-18, if turned on).
There, the data doesn't come from Jack, so I don't know if dithering
would help. It might only help with our 'Audio Input' track type.
I kinda went way off the subject line, eh? Didn't mean to hijack.
Sometimes specific questions branch out.
It's all related, in a way...
Tim.
Sadly, I just found out the hard way that it
has a really nasty
denormalization problem. It's so bad I may not be able to use it
any more.
People have tried fancy anti-denormalization plugins ahead of it,
with no
luck, apparently.
MusE has a basic DC anti-denormalization feature, and it didn't help.
I completely agree with you: The JCM900 VST rocks! I've been using it
a lot on Windows, now I'm on the Mac, so I haven't used it in a while.
Too bad the source code for these plugins is not available. The papers
on the website only explain the basic principles.
Anyway, I also ran into the denormalization problem quickly, so I just
made a small VST that mixes some -100 dB white noise into the signal.
Wouldn't Jack's -z option solve this issue too?
$ jackd -d alsa --help | grep dither
-z, --dither Dithering mode (default: n)
> Actually, I made the noise gain adjustable, because the added noise
> made my synth-guitars sound much more authentic. ;-)
> Alternatively one could make it more convenient to use by creating a
> separate wrapper .dll that loads the JCM900 and just intercepts the
> process-calls, while passing any other call to the plugin.
>
> Jan
2 May
2 May
5:10 p.m.
Tim E. Real wrote:
On April 30, 2010 10:55:09 pm you wrote:
I have not tried their other plugins in the suite yet, but the following
statement probably applies to them as well:
That JCM900 vst is by far the most absolutely mind-blowingly realistic
recreation of a Marshall amp *ever*. Most people agree.
It is *THE* standard by which *all* other plugins are judged, commercial
or free!
That must be a real good plugin then because most people agree also that
the JCM900 is the worst amp of the JCM series (except for the SLX
edition) and some even argue it's one of the worst Marshall standard
tube-amps ever made ;) Glad I sold mine years ago. But you got me
curious as I don't use VST's either.
Best,
Jeremy
Tim E. Real wrote:
Wow, man! I just spent an hour playing with
Guitarix Distortion (ladspa plugin) +
caps C* Amp VTS (ladspa amp sim plugin)
in MusE's plugin rack.
Silly me! I missed a piece of the puzzle. The C*
Cabinet plugins.
I was supposed to put a cabinet after the amp.
Sounds even better now!
It now approaches the type of sound that the JCM900 vst gives.
Until now
I have mostly been using SimulAnalog's famous JCM900 VST
dll plugin under dssi-vst. (I do wish they would open-source those
plugs!)
Aha, it's for free :), http://www.simulanalog.org/GSuite.zip, until
now
I didn't use VSTs when recording with Linux, but the web says, this VST
should be awesome,
http://www.google.de/#hl=de&ei=vJLbS_jPJc6YOMjj9JIH&sa=X&oi=spe…
ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=JCM+900+VST&spell=1&fp=af503062d682e13a
7:13 p.m.
Jeremy wrote:
Tim E. Real wrote:
*lol* Regarding to the real amp the 900 is known as a bad amp by German
80ies Punk-Rock musicians, for the newer Marshall amps with a master
volume the 800er is the most widespread amp here, some older Marshalls
without master volume still are preferred ;). I only own transistor amps
that anyway do sound better than the plugins I know. So any plugin that
would sound like a 900er is welcome, even if I should need a Vox AC 30
sound for some songs ;). Perhaps the plugin's name is intended, to cause
more realistic hopes ;). I don't expect any plugin to emulate a real
stack and btw. even 800er amps manufactured at the same day often do
sound different. Anyway, I guess an amp simulation should simulate the
sound produced by an amp, that was recorded by microphones, I don't
think that today we can expect a simulation of real amps.
On April 30, 2010 10:55:09 pm you wrote:
I have not tried their other plugins in the suite yet, but the following
statement probably applies to them as well:
That JCM900 vst is by far the most absolutely mind-blowingly realistic
recreation of a Marshall amp *ever*. Most people agree.
It is *THE* standard by which *all* other plugins are judged, commercial
or free!
That must be a real good plugin then because most people agree also that
the JCM900 is the worst amp of the JCM series (except for the SLX
edition) and some even argue it's one of the worst Marshall standard
tube-amps ever made ;) Glad I sold mine years ago. But you got me
curious as I don't use VST's either.
Best,
Jeremy Tim E. Real wrote:
Wow, man! I just spent an hour playing with
Guitarix Distortion (ladspa plugin) +
caps C* Amp VTS (ladspa amp sim plugin)
in MusE's plugin rack.
Silly me! I missed a piece of the puzzle. The C* Cabinet plugins.
I was supposed to put a cabinet after the amp.
Sounds even better now!
It now approaches the type of sound that the JCM900 vst gives.
Until now
I have mostly been using SimulAnalog's famous JCM900 VST
dll plugin under dssi-vst. (I do wish they would open-source those
plugs!)
Aha, it's for free :), http://www.simulanalog.org/GSuite.zip, until
now
I didn't use VSTs when recording with Linux, but the web says, this VST
should be awesome,
http://www.google.de/#hl=de&ei=vJLbS_jPJc6YOMjj9JIH&sa=X&oi=spe…
ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=JCM+900+VST&spell=1&fp=af503062d682e13a
3 May
3 May
1:44 a.m.
On May 2, 2010 11:10:33 am Jeremy wrote:
Tim E. Real wrote:
What do you use now? Or what's your favourite?
Does your playing style demand that Marshall sound?
If you play rhythm, probably it's OK, right?
If you play lead, you might say no?
I find Marshalls tend to sound best for the crunchy
Metallica type rhythm sound.
I'm just happy I have some choice now. JCM900 vst or
the C* Amp ladspa JCM800 sim.
Both sound good, and are worthy of using on tracks.
I need some kind of heavy sound, so I should be good to go now.
As for the real JCM900, I can't really judge if it's bad or not
but I have played through them and they seem OK.
I mean, you know most Marshalls have that distinctive sound, so...
You either love it or hate it. Probably a matter of personal taste.
Depends on the type of sound you're after. Rhythm or lead etc.
Here's a funny irony: As we were discussing JCM900, my friend
just dropped of his real JCM900 head for repair!
Shall I make impulse files for it before it leaves? He he...
About the JCM900 vst: It occurred to me that it
sounds like it a simulation of *both* the amp and
some sort of 4x12 cabinet, but they don't seem to mention
the cabinet. Does that seem correct?
I mean, I can't see feeding it into a cab sim at this point.
But still, the sim itself is a really good simulation of the JCM900,
(and cabinet?) whether you like them or not...
Tim.
On April 30, 2010 10:55:09 pm you wrote:
I have not tried their other plugins in the suite yet, but the following
statement probably applies to them as well:
That JCM900 vst is by far the most absolutely mind-blowingly realistic
recreation of a Marshall amp *ever*. Most people agree.
It is *THE* standard by which *all* other plugins are judged, commercial
or free!
That must be a real good plugin then because most people agree also that
the JCM900 is the worst amp of the JCM series (except for the SLX
edition) and some even argue it's one of the worst Marshall standard
tube-amps ever made ;) Glad I sold mine years ago. But you got me
curious as I don't use VST's either.
Best,
Jeremy Tim E. Real wrote:
Wow, man! I just spent an hour playing with
Guitarix Distortion (ladspa plugin) +
caps C* Amp VTS (ladspa amp sim plugin)
in MusE's plugin rack.
Silly me! I missed a piece of the puzzle. The C* Cabinet plugins.
I was supposed to put a cabinet after the amp.
Sounds even better now!
It now approaches the type of sound that the JCM900 vst gives.
Until now
I have mostly been using SimulAnalog's famous JCM900 VST
dll plugin under dssi-vst. (I do wish they would open-source those
plugs!)
Aha, it's for free :), http://www.simulanalog.org/GSuite.zip, until now
I didn't use VSTs when recording with Linux, but the web says, this VST
should be awesome,
http://www.google.de/#hl=de&ei=vJLbS_jPJc6YOMjj9JIH&sa=X&oi=spe…
=0&
ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=JCM+900+VST&spell=1&fp=af503062d682e13a
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
9:46 p.m.
Tim E. Real wrote:
On May 2, 2010 11:10:33 am Jeremy wrote:
Hello Tim,
I'm now using several London City amps. London City was set up at the
end of the sixties in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, as an alternative for
Marshall amps. Well, alternative, they were more or less exact copies,
only with cheaper components. The ones that survived are the best built
amps and my amps (I have four of them) are all revised so they'll
probably last some more decades. I use the amps with a matching London
City 4x12 speaker cabinet fitted with vintage Celestion G12H30 55Hz
speakers.
http://www.autostatic.com/londoncity/img/evilamps.jpg
That's my London City making clear to a Marshall Plexi who's the boss.
I play in two completely different bands with completely different
guitars. One band is a trio in which I use a Telecaster, I play mainly
riffs, open chords and some picking, and the other band is a four-piece
rockmonster for which I use a Yamaha SG2000. In the latter band I do
the solos and a lot of powerchords and riffing:
http://www.jamendo.com/en/track/520056
Best,
Jeremy
Tim E. Real wrote:
What do you use now? Or what's your favourite?
Does your playing style demand that Marshall sound?
If you play rhythm, probably it's OK, right?
If you play lead, you might say no?
I find Marshalls tend to sound best for the crunchy
Metallica type rhythm sound.
On April 30, 2010 10:55:09 pm you wrote:
That must be a real good plugin then because most people agree also
that
the JCM900 is the worst amp of the JCM series (except for the SLX
edition) and some even argue it's one of the worst Marshall standard
tube-amps ever made ;) Glad I sold mine years ago. But you got me
curious as I don't use VST's either.
Best,
Jeremy Tim E. Real wrote:
Wow, man! I just spent an hour playing with
Guitarix Distortion (ladspa plugin) +
caps C* Amp VTS (ladspa amp sim plugin)
in MusE's plugin rack.
Silly me! I missed a piece of the puzzle. The C*
Cabinet plugins.
I was supposed to put a cabinet after the amp.
Sounds even better now!
It now approaches the type of sound that the JCM900 vst gives.
> Until now I have mostly been using
SimulAnalog's famous JCM900 VST
> dll plugin under dssi-vst. (I do wish they would open-source those
> plugs!)
Aha, it's for free :), http://www.simulanalog.org/GSuite.zip, until now
I didn't use VSTs when recording with Linux, but the web says, this VST
should be awesome,
http://www.google.de/#hl=de&ei=vJLbS_jPJc6YOMjj9JIH&sa=X&oi=spe…
=0&
ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=JCM+900+VST&spell=1&fp=af503062d682e13a
I have not tried their other plugins in the suite yet, but the following
statement probably applies to them as well:
That JCM900 vst is by far the most absolutely mind-blowingly realistic
recreation of a Marshall amp *ever*. Most people agree.
It is *THE* standard by which *all* other plugins are judged, commercial
or free! 
11:15 p.m.
Jeremy wrote:
Nice-sounding :), even if the internet sound quality isn't that good.
Petersburg amps are also able to produce this kind of sound, a friend
had one + Marshall speakers, it's written that it should be the Russian
copy of the 70ies 2203 amps with master volume. It's also written that
the 800 amps from the 80ies should be equal to the 2203 from the 70ies.
The best punk-rocking sound I ever could play was a SG with a Marschall
without master volume, both neither the Gibson, nor the amp were mine. I
heard very good recordings done with Laney amps from the 80ies. Btw. I'm
using a Boss OD-2, transistors aren't that bad.
I guess that people who like Metallica's non-rocking pop sound (no
offense, but it's hard to describe the differences by words) could be
fine with plugins, but people who prefer MC5 and other punk-rocking
sound, better do recordings using amps, when ever possible.
IMO it depends to the kind of music, if a plugin is enough. I need
plugins, resp. hardware emulations out of necessity.
4 May
4 May
2:25 p.m.
On 05/03/2010 11:15 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
Nice-sounding :), even if the internet sound quality isn't that good.
Petersburg amps are also able to produce this kind of sound, a friend
had one + Marshall speakers, it's written that it should be the Russian
copy of the 70ies 2203 amps with master volume. It's also written that
the 800 amps from the 80ies should be equal to the 2203 from the 70ies.
The best punk-rocking sound I ever could play was a SG with a Marschall
without master volume, both neither the Gibson, nor the amp were mine. I
heard very good recordings done with Laney amps from the 80ies. Btw. I'm
using a Boss OD-2, transistors aren't that bad.
I guess that people who like Metallica's non-rocking pop sound (no
offense, but it's hard to describe the differences by words) could be
fine with plugins, but people who prefer MC5 and other punk-rocking
sound, better do recordings using amps, when ever possible.
IMO it depends to the kind of music, if a plugin is enough. I need
plugins, resp. hardware emulations out of necessity.
Hello Ralf,
Direct link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1463959/01%20-%20what%20matters%20most.mp3
You should have a chat with the other guitarist of my band ;) He did
several gigs in Germany with his other band, maybe you've heard of them
(Omission). He owns a JCM800 1959 from the 80ies. But it's too hot for
me (I think his pre-amp stage needs some care), I like a clean, clear
sound with ringing highs but still a lot of oomph. The combination of my
guitar (the Yamaha) and the amp+cabinet give me that. I also like it as
clean as possible so I can color my sound better. And with coloring I
mean as transparent as possible, so no OD-2 for me ;) (I use a Fulltone
Full-Drive 2 Mosfet and 2x Ibanez Mostortion through a Wobo
looper/switcher).
Never heard of Petersburg amps, I did some Googling but contrary to
Petersburg amps London City amps are point-to-point and slightly better
build.
Best,
Jeremy
30 Apr
30 Apr
8:44 a.m.
Tim E. Real wrote:
Guitarix Distortion (ladspa plugin) +
caps C* Amp VTS (ladspa amp sim plugin)
in MusE's plugin rack.
PS:
One issue stack vs virtual stack, while for the real stack muted fast
played power chords and hold sharp ninth (e.g. E7#9) are fine, for
virtual stacks there's an overdose of distortion needed for the muted
fast played power chords, so chords similar to sharp ninth often be in a
mess. YMMV.
5312
days inactive
5318
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
56 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
David Olofson -
Gene Heskett -
hermann -
Jan Marguc -
Jeremy -
Lorenzo -
Louigi Verona -
Niels Mayer -
Paul Davis -
Ralf Mardorf -
Renato -
Tim E. Real