26 Jun
2011
26 Jun
'11
4:50 p.m.
Hi all,
With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2 synth
plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various LV2 synth
plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/
I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm
missing? I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new users when
Ardour hits the big 3.0.
Thanks
Leigh
26 Jun
26 Jun
5:02 p.m.
Hi Leigh!
Don't think you missed anything there that I'm aware of. One important
point you neglected to mention is that none of the currently available
LV2 synths support MIDI CC, although at least Minicomputer LV2
promises to support this soon.
I've not tried drobilla's MDA plugins yet but looking at the source I
see there is a subsynth plugin so I wonder how this stacks up against
the calf LV2 synths?
Dan
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Leigh Dyer <lsd(a)wootangent.net> wrote:
Hi all,
With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2 synth
plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various LV2 synth
plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/
I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm missing?
I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new users when Ardour hits the
big 3.0.
Thanks
Leigh
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
5:17 p.m.
On 06/27/2011 01:02 AM, allcoms wrote:
Hi Leigh!
Don't think you missed anything there that I'm aware of. One important
point you neglected to mention is that none of the currently available
LV2 synths support MIDI CC, although at least Minicomputer LV2
promises to support this soon.
Hopefully that's not too big a problem in Ardour 3 -- its automation
framework does a fine job of automating plugin parameters without those
plugins having to expose them as MIDI CCs. I already have a track in the
works using Calf Monosynth with automation controlling the filter
cutoff, for instance.
Thanks
Leigh
I've not tried drobilla's MDA plugins yet but looking at the source I
see there is a subsynth plugin so I wonder how this stacks up against
the calf LV2 synths?
Dan
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Leigh Dyer<lsd(a)wootangent.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2 synth
> plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various LV2 synth
> plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
>
> http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/
>
> I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm missing?
> I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new users when Ardour hits the
> big 3.0.
>
> Thanks
> Leigh
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
5:34 p.m.
Hi Leigh!
Hopefully that's not too big a problem in Ardour 3
-- its automation
framework does a fine job of automating plugin parameters without those
plugins having to expose them as MIDI CCs. I already have a track in the
works using Calf Monosynth with automation controlling the filter cutoff,
for instance.
Thats great to hear, obviously you know something I don't. Can you
automate any parameter under monosynth? Calf organ too? How?
Thanks,
Dan
Thanks
Leigh
I've not tried drobilla's MDA plugins yet but looking at the source I
see there is a subsynth plugin so I wonder how this stacks up against
the calf LV2 synths?
Dan
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Leigh Dyer<lsd(a)wootangent.net> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2 synth
> plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various LV2 synth
> plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
>
> http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/
>
> I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm missing?
> I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new users when Ardour hits
> the
> big 3.0.
>
> Thanks
> Leigh
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
27 Jun
27 Jun
3:15 a.m.
On 06/27/2011 01:34 AM, allcoms wrote:
Hi Leigh!
You can automate any parameter that the plugin exposes as an LV2 control
port, which for most plugins is all of them. Ardour 2 had these
automation features for effects plugins (LV2 and LADSPA), so having them
apply to LV2 synths is just a natural extension of that.
Here's a quick crash course in setting up a MIDI track with some plugin
automation, using Calf Monosynth as the example:
1) Create a MIDI track, and add Calf Monosynth to it
2) Add some notes
3) Click the "a" button on the track to open the Automation drop-down
4) Select Plugins/Calf Monosynth/Cutoff. An automation lane should
appear below your track
5) In the automation lane, click on "Manual" and change this to
"Play"
6) Click within the automation lane to add some control points; they'll
be joined by a line, which is the curve the automation will follow.
7) Create and adjust the control points until you get the curve you're
after. You'll probably have to increase the height of the automation
lane to get finer control over the control point values.
8) Play the track, and watch and listen as the synth's cutoff frequency
follows the automation curve
Some synths may not like having their parameters changed in realtime
like this, but it definitely works well for the above case, and I'd
imagine most other parameters in Calf Monosynth and Calf Organ will be
fine with automation, too.
Thanks
Leigh
Hopefully that's not too big a problem in
Ardour 3 -- its automation
framework does a fine job of automating plugin parameters without those
plugins having to expose them as MIDI CCs. I already have a track in the
works using Calf Monosynth with automation controlling the filter cutoff,
for instance.
Thats great to hear, obviously you know something I don't. Can you
automate any parameter under monosynth? Calf organ too? How?
Thanks,
Dan
>
> Thanks
> Leigh
>
>>
>> I've not tried drobilla's MDA plugins yet but looking at the source I
>> see there is a subsynth plugin so I wonder how this stacks up against
>> the calf LV2 synths?
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Leigh Dyer<lsd(a)wootangent.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2 synth
>>> plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various LV2 synth
>>> plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
>>>
>>> http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/
>>>
>>> I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm
missing?
>>> I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new users when Ardour hits
>>> the
>>> big 3.0.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Leigh
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Linux-audio-user mailing list
>>> Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
>>> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
10:33 a.m.
Hi Leigh!
4) Select Plugins/Calf Monosynth/Cutoff. An automation
lane should appear
below your track
Ah yes, quite embarrassed am I! Thats how it should work in theory yes
but I've not had any luck just yet. I've tried automating monosynth
cutoff as you have under both with A3 alpha5 under natty with the calf
plugins from the repos and using A3 alpha8 with the calf plugins that
come with AV Linux 5 (which should be very recent git versions I'd
imagine although I'm not able to check right now) and in both cases
the sound altered slightly as soon as the first bit of MIDI CC data
was encountered but then- nothing ie no dynamic adjustment of cutoff
via auto curves occured.
I wrote to the Big Bull (That's Kryz - CALF head cow) a few months ago
asking about this and he said MIDI CC control wasn't supported. I
don't think he's had a proper go with A3 yet but I'm surprised he
didn't mention I should be able to control it the way you are. Maybe
my calf version isn't bleeding edge enough although I can't see much
having changed since AV Linux 5 got release a couple of weeks ago. Has
anyone else successfully automated monosynth or calf organ controls
under A3?
11:21 a.m.
On 06/27/2011 06:33 PM, allcoms wrote:
Hi Leigh!
Be careful with the terminology here -- MIDI CCs aren't being used at
all with this kind of plugin automation. Ardour is sending values to the
LV2 control ports on the synth plugin, without using MIDI at all. That's
why the same technique works for automating parameters on effects
plugins that have no MIDI ports (in both Ardour 3 and Ardour 2).
Ardour 3 will support MIDI CC automation, too, and that will be very
handy for external synths, but for plugins, I think plugin automation is
the way to go.
That said, I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this -- it
definitely should work. I know Paul Davis mentioned some issues with
automation in the alpha 8 release notes, so that may be related.
Hopefully you'll have more luck with the next alpha.
If you want to make sure your automation value are actually being
applied, you can check visually by leaving the plugin UI open while you
play your track. You should see the parameter value change as the track
plays; in this case, you'd see the Cutoff knob turning itself.
Thanks
Leigh
4) Select Plugins/Calf Monosynth/Cutoff. An
automation lane should appear
below your track
Ah yes, quite embarrassed am I! Thats how it should work in theory yes
but I've not had any luck just yet. I've tried automating monosynth
cutoff as you have under both with A3 alpha5 under natty with the calf
plugins from the repos and using A3 alpha8 with the calf plugins that
come with AV Linux 5 (which should be very recent git versions I'd
imagine although I'm not able to check right now) and in both cases
the sound altered slightly as soon as the first bit of MIDI CC data
was encountered but then- nothing ie no dynamic adjustment of cutoff
via auto curves occured.
11:33 a.m.
Be careful with the terminology here -- MIDI CCs
aren't being used at all
with this kind of plugin automation. Ardour is sending values to the LV2
control ports on the synth plugin, without using MIDI at all. That's why the
same technique works for automating parameters on effects plugins that have
no MIDI ports (in both Ardour 3 and Ardour 2).
Yep - well aware of this sire
Ardour 3 will support MIDI CC automation, too, and that will be very handy
for external synths, but for plugins, I think plugin automation is the way
to go.
That said, I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this -- it definitely
should work. I know Paul Davis mentioned some issues with automation in the
alpha 8 release notes, so that may be related. Hopefully you'll have more
luck with the next alpha.
If you want to make sure your automation value are actually being applied,
you can check visually by leaving the plugin UI open while you play your
track. You should see the parameter value change as the track plays; in this
case, you'd see the Cutoff knob turning itself.
If I leave the plugin window open (natty, calf plugins from repo,
alpha5) I do indeed see the cutoff moving as desired. I have the
resonance turned right up but still I cannot hear any noticeable
change in the sound. However, if I move the cutoff slider manually
during playback it works as expected. Hmmm!
Paul's big natch for alpha 8 was noting that MIDI CC (yes, I know, but
undoubtedly this is closely linked) is still quite borked so maybe
this will work as expected come alpha9?
D.
26 Jun
26 Jun
5:12 p.m.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
Hi all,
With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2 synth
plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various LV2 synth
plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/
I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm missing?
https://github.com/rekado/lv2-mdaEPiano
Nice electric piano, Doesn't work with a3 though.
http://intonarumori.sourceforge.net/index.html
Never tried it.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
27 Jun
27 Jun
11:42 a.m.
On 06/27/2011 01:12 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
Thanks for those -- I tried the mdaEPiano and confirmed that it doesn't
work for me in Ardour 3, either, but it can definitely go on the list. I
looked through the site for Crazynth, but couldn't actually find a
download anywhere, so I'll skip this one for now.
Thanks
Leigh
Hi all,
With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2 synth
plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various LV2 synth
plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/
I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm missing?
https://github.com/rekado/lv2-mdaEPiano
Nice electric piano, Doesn't work with a3 though.
http://intonarumori.sourceforge.net/index.html
Never tried it.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
26 Jun
26 Jun
5:58 p.m.
Leigh Dyer wrote:
With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2 synth
plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various LV2 synth
plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/
I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm
missing? I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new users when
Ardour hits the big 3.0.
Hi Leigh,
I've built and installed this one but haven't got it working :
http://www.lms.lnt.de/research/activity/systems/topics/synth/index_lv2.shtml
Haven't tested this one :
http://github.com/rekado/lv2-mdaEPiano
This one is nice with A3 :
https://github.com/magnusjonsson/qin
Too bad Ardour doesn't support native VST, we'd have the Loomer synths
and the pizmidi plugins.
Best,
dp
27 Jun
27 Jun
11:50 a.m.
On 06/27/2011 01:58 AM, Dave Phillips wrote:
Leigh Dyer wrote:
Excellent, I'll add all of those. I didn't have any luck with the first
two either, but Qin is a nice little find.
With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2 synth
plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various LV2 synth
plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/
I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm
missing? I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new users when
Ardour hits the big 3.0.
Hi Leigh,
I've built and installed this one but haven't got it working :
http://www.lms.lnt.de/research/activity/systems/topics/synth/index_lv2.shtml
Haven't tested this one :
http://github.com/rekado/lv2-mdaEPiano
This one is nice with A3 :
https://github.com/magnusjonsson/qin Too bad Ardour doesn't support native VST,
we'd have the Loomer synths
and the pizmidi plugins.
Definitely -- it's happened almost by stealth, but all-of-a-sudden, we
seem to have far more synth plugins as native VSTs than we do as DSSI or
LV2 plugins. It's great to see Loomer support it, and it's naturally the
format that other commercial developers would lean toward, too -- the
Pianoteq devs, for instance, have mentioned that VST would be the
easiest plugin format for them:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/05/makers-of-pianoteq-talk-piano-modelin…
Thanks
Leigh
Best,
dp
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
2 Jul
2 Jul
4:48 p.m.
On 06/27/2011 07:49 PM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
On 06/27/2011 01:58 AM, Dave Phillips wrote:
Talk about timing -- Pianoteq 3.6.7, which was just released, includes
32-bit and 64-bit native VSTs. There's no announcement on the website
yet, but the new version is online; the trial version, which includes
the VST plugin, is here:
http://www.pianoteq.com/try
I just tried it in Qtractor, and didn't have a lot of luck (I couldn't
get its GUI to appear, or get it to make noise), but the readme reports
success with Renoise and energyXT.
Thanks
Leigh
Too bad Ardour doesn't support native VST,
we'd have the Loomer synths
and the pizmidi plugins.
Definitely -- it's happened almost by stealth, but all-of-a-sudden, we
seem to have far more synth plugins as native VSTs than we do as DSSI or
LV2 plugins. It's great to see Loomer support it, and it's naturally the
format that other commercial developers would lean toward, too -- the
Pianoteq devs, for instance, have mentioned that VST would be the
easiest plugin format for them:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/05/makers-of-pianoteq-talk-piano-modelin…
6:24 p.m.
On 07/02/2011 04:48 PM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
On 06/27/2011 07:49 PM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
Yep and the standalone version has JackSession support.
They should release a LV2 version instead imho. LV2 is much better
supported on Linux then VST. LV2 is ready for it...
\r
On 06/27/2011 01:58 AM, Dave Phillips wrote:
Talk about timing -- Pianoteq 3.6.7, which was just released, includes
32-bit and 64-bit native VSTs. There's no announcement on the website
yet, but the new version is online; the trial version, which includes
the VST plugin, is here:
http://www.pianoteq.com/try
I just tried it in Qtractor, and didn't have a lot of luck (I couldn't
get its GUI to appear, or get it to make noise), but the readme
reports success with Renoise and energyXT. Too bad Ardour doesn't support native VST,
we'd have the Loomer synths
and the pizmidi plugins.
Definitely -- it's happened almost by stealth, but all-of-a-sudden, we
seem to have far more synth plugins as native VSTs than we do as DSSI or
LV2 plugins. It's great to see Loomer support it, and it's naturally the
format that other commercial developers would lean toward, too -- the
Pianoteq devs, for instance, have mentioned that VST would be the
easiest plugin format for them:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/05/makers-of-pianoteq-talk-piano-modelin…
6:55 p.m.
On 07/03/2011 02:24 AM, rosea grammostola wrote:
They should release a LV2 version instead imho. LV2 is much better
supported on Linux then VST. LV2 is ready for it...
I'm not sure that LV2 is really that much better supported -- it has
better support in open-source apps (notably Ardour 3), but Renoise
apparently has very solid native VST support.
I'd love to have an LV2 Pianoteq, but being realistic, I know that
there's a good chance that it won't happen. I'm sure it's a lot of extra
work to implement support for a new plugin format, compared to simply
porting the existing VST code to a new platform.
If we want to encourage more commercial developers to bring their
Windows/OS X VST plugins across to Linux, I think having good native VST
support in common hosts is going to help. I know that's not a goal some
would share, but I'm personally in favour of having as many options
available as possible.
Thanks
Leigh
\r
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
8:11 p.m.
On 07/02/2011 06:55 PM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
On 07/03/2011 02:24 AM, rosea grammostola wrote:
I wonder if it's true
that it is hard to write a LV2 plugin, if you have
a standalone and VST version already. They asked about a possible way to
'convert' a VST to a LV2 plugin, but iirc David Robillard was not very
enthusiastic about it. And he might have a point, VST is the ugly here,
not LV2. On the other hand, it questionable whether this is the best
strategy to make Linux as good as it can be as platform for proaudio. I
am very happy having Pianoteq for Linux, it makes Linux more valuable
for me as a platform for music production and it would we very hard to
come up with something like Pianoteq as a community and this is true for
other stuff.
They should release a LV2 version instead imho. LV2 is much better
supported on Linux then VST. LV2 is ready for it...
I'm not sure that LV2 is really that much better supported -- it has
better support in open-source apps (notably Ardour 3), but Renoise
apparently has very solid native VST support.
I'd love to have an LV2 Pianoteq, but being realistic, I know that
there's a good chance that it won't happen. I'm sure it's a lot of
extra work to implement support for a new plugin format, compared to
simply porting the existing VST code to a new platform.
If we want to encourage more commercial developers to bring their
Windows/OS X VST plugins across to Linux, I think having good native
VST support in common hosts is going to help. I know that's not a goal
some would share, but I'm personally in favour of having as many
options available as possible.
Hmm a selective choice might not be bad if that
available selection is
of good quality. I'd rather like to see some more quality LV2 plugins.
But on the other hand, I enjoy my Pianoteq version *very* much as I
mentioned before...
\r
9:47 p.m.
2011/7/2 rosea grammostola <rosea.grammostola(a)gmail.com>om>:
I wonder if it's true that it is hard to write a LV2 plugin
I don't think so.
But there is still missing the single, all inclusive package.
By introducing liblilv and libsuil, and the rest of his work,
David Robillard already did a great job reducing dependencies.
Both, VST and LV2, have midi+audio IN and OUT.
The problem in the conversion process likely is the GUI,
but for applications as Pianotec, which use a cross-platform-GUI-library (juced)
that should not be difficult to handle.
On the other hand, it questionable whether this is the
best strategy to
make Linux as good as it can be as platform for proaudio.
That's not questionable: Linux has to be as good as possible OOTB
for media and audio to be successful, because that is a very large and important
sector, for users (pro and non-pro) (TV,DVD,games,audio,production,etc..)
IMO, the pro- and non-pro nonsense was introduced, in order to sell
trash to the masses (at a very low price, though).
For software, especially open source, we don't need that distinction,
that's my conviction at least.
Many so called "pro-user" enjoy simple and accessible interfaces,
while a "non-pro" can became "pro" quickly and any time, if he/she
progresses,
requiring dedicated features then, if time passes.
There is no simple solution, but I'm convinced that good GUI
can both: offer diversity and hide complexity.
I am very happy having Pianoteq for Linux
Me too, even though it's closed src.
.. it would we very hard to come up with something
like Pianoteq as a community and this is true for other stuff.
I believe, that everything is possible with open source.
But the community has to be large (maybe larger)
and has to actively (and financially) support the projects of their interest.
My current impression: The LAU and LAD community is *very* active,
but still very small (compared to closed audio world).
> I think having good native VST
> support in common hosts is going to help.
>
IMO no. We need OOTB, reliable LV2.
But on the other hand, I enjoy my Pianoteq version
*very* much ...
Don't worry.
Applications serious with Linux support *will* support LV2.
That's what their customers use, that's what they want.
--
E.R.
11:09 p.m.
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Emanuel Rumpf wrote:
It depends on where you are coming from. I've certainly heard
complaints about that.
True. But it's hard to become larger when there are still so many
problems with even basic things.
Let's see. Right here and right now I'm interested in buying Loomer's
Aspect synth, but it comes in native VST for Linux only which isn't
supported by A3 (yes, I know about Qtractor, and no, I don't use it
for reasons too off-topic to mention). Personally, I have no problem
with proprietary APIs used by free apps as long as I can use whatever
I have. For me music is clearly more important than whatever RMS has
to say about freedom.
The question is: how can you ensure a developer that releasing LV2
version is going to have a nice ROI? I see two ways: 1) buying
specifically native VST to cover porting expenses (and get a free LV2
later), and 2) let developers count the cost and team up with other
users to invest into LV2 version. Given the fact that Pianoteq was
developed on Linux in the first place, you probably don't have to
explain to its core team anything. You only have to somehow make sure
ROI happens the way it should.
But that's just talking. Let's have impressive hosts first :)
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
I wonder if
it's true that it is hard to write a LV2 plugin
I don't think so. IMO, the pro- and non-pro nonsense was introduced, in
order to sell
trash to the masses (at a very low price, though).
For software, especially open source, we don't need that distinction,
that's my conviction at least.
Pro/non-pro distinction is perfectly justified by targeting at groups
of people who have different needs, where customization of UI is
likely to be a nightmare for both developers and users (and as such
customization is often overrated).
.. it would we
very hard to come up with something
like Pianoteq as a community and this is true for other stuff.
I believe, that everything is possible with open source.
But the community has to be large (maybe larger)
and has to actively (and financially) support the projects of their interest.
My current impression: The LAU and LAD community is *very* active,
but still very small (compared to closed audio world). > I think
having good native VST
> support in common hosts is going to help.
>
IMO no. We need OOTB, reliable LV2.
11:46 p.m.
2011/7/2 Alexandre Prokoudine <alexandre.prokoudine(a)gmail.com>om>:
True. But it's hard to become larger when there are still so many
problems with even basic things.
Evolution of linux audio partly appears very obscure.
You only have to somehow make sure
ROI happens the way it should.
Eventually it is so simple :)
I often wonder, why companies are so reluctant to support linux.
The answer appears to be: customer support !
That can eat a lot of (often unpaid) time.
The actual software-porting process mostly is negligible,
especially if the application is based on cross-platform-libs
and has been ported to OSX already, which is true for
many closed propr. apps.
But - would it be possible: a (closed proprietary) linux software
release, *without* any (customer) support ?
... That would mean, customers would pay the software,
but not get the guarantee to make it working ... ?
But that's just talking. Let's have impressive
hosts first :)
Right !
Where are those impressive hosts ? ;)
--
E.R.
3 Jul
3 Jul
12:01 a.m.
... That would mean, customers would pay the software,
but not get the guarantee to make it working ... ?
I believe that is the way to scare away everybody thinking about using
linux. You have to pay for a program, and then the company won't even help
you get it working! Community support would be a good incentive to support a
platform, and this is area is one where the Linux Audio scene
fares strongly. Rarely is there a question unanswered on this list, and
rarely can the problem genuinely not be fixed. IMO that is the basis for a
healthy environment for development of software, weather it be closed or
open sourced.
The cost involved in porting software may be negligible, but the cost
involved in testing & QA for another platform is conciderable. If the linux
market share doesn't make it worth its while for this company to support the
linux platform, it won't do so. Having said that, I strongly encourage
commercial software companies to support the platform, as I feel its the
best one out there for low-lat audio :)
-Harry
2 Jul
2 Jul
9:45 p.m.
Excerpts from Leigh Dyer's message of 2011-07-02 18:55:07 +0200:
On 07/03/2011 02:24 AM, rosea grammostola wrote:
How many commercial hosts are there? There are certainly more free
software hosts on Linux.
They should release a LV2 version instead imho. LV2 is much better
supported on Linux then VST. LV2 is ready for it...
I'm not sure that LV2 is really that much better supported -- it has
better support in open-source apps (notably Ardour 3), but Renoise
apparently has very solid native VST support. I'd love to have an LV2 Pianoteq, but being
realistic, I know that
there's a good chance that it won't happen. I'm sure it's a lot of extra
work to implement support for a new plugin format, compared to simply
porting the existing VST code to a new platform.
Both requires porting. I don't dare to judge how much work each case is.
There aren't that many native VST plugins, so I guess it's far from
simple.
If we want to encourage more commercial developers to
bring their
Windows/OS X VST plugins across to Linux, I think having good native VST
support in common hosts is going to help. I know that's not a goal some
would share, but I'm personally in favour of having as many options
available as possible.
Thanks
Leigh
Native VST support is a bane. It will drag along the VST license
troubles indefinitely. In my opinion every work done for native VST is
work lost for LV2, and it's not like there are a lot of developers
around.
At one point native VST might have seemed attractive (VST but more
stable than non-native, what else is the point of it?), but this
must have been the time before LV2. DSSI and especially ladspa might
have been limited in one way or another, but LV2 is potentially superior
to VST and while there's certainly much that can be done, I doubt that
it really lacks behind in capabilities even now.
So in my opinion native VST should be forgotten about as fast as
possible.
Philipp
9:59 p.m.
2011/7/2 Philipp Überbacher <hollunder(a)lavabit.com>om>:
... In my opinion every work done for native VST is
work lost for LV2 ...
... So in my opinion native VST should be forgotten about as fast as
possible.
Now.... there are still those 100 "free" vst plugins,
I've gathered over time, which I'd enjoy to try/use on linux
... but agreed ! Really.
They have to be ported and open-sourced, time changes.
--
E.R.
10:08 p.m.
Philipp Überbacher wrote:
Excerpts from Leigh Dyer's message of 2011-07-02
18:55:07 +0200:
Is LV2 available on Windows & Mac?
If not, and VST wasn't a working option on Linux, then there'd be no
effort by makers of commercial VSTs for Windows/Mac to make them work on
Linux. Why do what might be difficult custom work (porting to LV2) for a
very small set of customers?
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
On 07/03/2011 02:24 AM, rosea grammostola wrote:
How many commercial hosts are there? There are certainly more free
software hosts on Linux.
They should release a LV2 version instead imho.
LV2 is much better
supported on Linux then VST. LV2 is ready for it...
I'm not sure that LV2 is
really that much better supported -- it has
better support in open-source apps (notably Ardour 3), but Renoise
apparently has very solid native VST support. I'd love to have an LV2 Pianoteq, but being
realistic, I know that
there's a good chance that it won't happen. I'm sure it's a lot of extra
work to implement support for a new plugin format, compared to simply
porting the existing VST code to a new platform.
Both requires porting. I don't dare to judge how much work each case is.
There aren't that many native VST plugins, so I guess it's far from
simple.
If we want to encourage more commercial
developers to bring their
Windows/OS X VST plugins across to Linux, I think having good native VST
support in common hosts is going to help. I know that's not a goal some
would share, but I'm personally in favour of having as many options
available as possible.
Thanks
Leigh
Native VST support is a bane. It will drag along the VST license
troubles indefinitely. In my opinion every work done for native VST is
work lost for LV2, and it's not like there are a lot of developers
around.
At one point native VST might have seemed attractive (VST but more
stable than non-native, what else is the point of it?), but this
must have been the time before LV2. DSSI and especially ladspa might
have been limited in one way or another, but LV2 is potentially superior
to VST and while there's certainly much that can be done, I doubt that
it really lacks behind in capabilities even now.
So in my opinion native VST should be forgotten about as fast as
possible.
3 Jul
3 Jul
1:53 a.m.
Excerpts from david's message of 2011-07-02 22:08:02 +0200:
Philipp Überbacher wrote:
The point was that to get native VSTs the windows VSTs need to be ported
too. I really don't know what's easier, someone who's done both might
know.
Excerpts from Leigh Dyer's message of
2011-07-02 18:55:07 +0200:
Is LV2 available on Windows & Mac?
If not, and VST wasn't a working option on Linux, then there'd be no
effort by makers of commercial VSTs for Windows/Mac to make them work on
Linux. Why do what might be difficult custom work (porting to LV2) for a
very small set of customers? On 07/03/2011 02:24 AM, rosea grammostola wrote:
How many commercial hosts are there? There are certainly more free
software hosts on Linux.
They should release a LV2 version instead imho.
LV2 is much better
supported on Linux then VST. LV2 is ready for it...
I'm not sure that LV2 is
really that much better supported -- it has
better support in open-source apps (notably Ardour 3), but Renoise
apparently has very solid native VST support. I'd love to have an LV2 Pianoteq, but being
realistic, I know that
there's a good chance that it won't happen. I'm sure it's a lot of extra
work to implement support for a new plugin format, compared to simply
porting the existing VST code to a new platform.
Both requires porting. I don't dare to judge how much work each case is.
There aren't that many native VST plugins, so I guess it's far from
simple.
If we want to encourage more commercial
developers to bring their
Windows/OS X VST plugins across to Linux, I think having good native VST
support in common hosts is going to help. I know that's not a goal some
would share, but I'm personally in favour of having as many options
available as possible.
Thanks
Leigh
Native VST support is a bane. It will drag along the VST license
troubles indefinitely. In my opinion every work done for native VST is
work lost for LV2, and it's not like there are a lot of developers
around.
At one point native VST might have seemed attractive (VST but more
stable than non-native, what else is the point of it?), but this
must have been the time before LV2. DSSI and especially ladspa might
have been limited in one way or another, but LV2 is potentially superior
to VST and while there's certainly much that can be done, I doubt that
it really lacks behind in capabilities even now.
So in my opinion native VST should be forgotten about as fast as
possible. 
2 Jul
2 Jul
10:34 p.m.
Native VST support is a bane. It will drag along the
VST license
troubles indefinitely. In my opinion every work done for native VST is
work lost for LV2, and it's not like there are a lot of developers
around.
At one point native VST might have seemed attractive (VST but more
stable than non-native, what else is the point of it?), but this
must have been the time before LV2. DSSI and especially ladspa might
have been limited in one way or another, but LV2 is potentially superior
to VST and while there's certainly much that can be done, I doubt that
it really lacks behind in capabilities even now.
So in my opinion native VST should be forgotten about as fast as
possible.
I wonder if commercial plugin manufacturers think LV2 (if they know of
it) is too much of a risk from submarine patents and the like: if they
license VST, they can stand behind Steinberg in the case of any legal
action, whereas if they implement their plugins in LV2, they have to
stand on their own??
Not sure how much basis in fact this line of thinking has, but I
wouldn't be surprised if it is behind some companies seeming
reluctance to embrace LV2.. On the other hand it could just be
laziness and inertia - I imagine if the plugin is already written for
VST in windows, it is considerably less work to port the VST to linux
as native VST rather than recode it for LV2.
J
10:41 p.m.
On 07/02/2011 10:34 PM, James Stone wrote:
The best thing is to focus on the part
you are able to control best.
That means in this case, making LV2 (on Linux) as good as possible first.
Regards,
\r
Native VST
support is a bane. It will drag along the VST license
troubles indefinitely. In my opinion every work done for native VST is
work lost for LV2, and it's not like there are a lot of developers
around.
At one point native VST might have seemed attractive (VST but more
stable than non-native, what else is the point of it?), but this
must have been the time before LV2. DSSI and especially ladspa might
have been limited in one way or another, but LV2 is potentially superior
to VST and while there's certainly much that can be done, I doubt that
it really lacks behind in capabilities even now.
So in my opinion native VST should be forgotten about as fast as
possible.
I wonder if commercial plugin manufacturers think LV2 (if they know of
it) is too much of a risk from submarine patents and the like: if they
license VST, they can stand behind Steinberg in the case of any legal
action, whereas if they implement their plugins in LV2, they have to
stand on their own??
Not sure how much basis in fact this line of thinking has, but I
wouldn't be surprised if it is behind some companies seeming
reluctance to embrace LV2.. On the other hand it could just be
laziness and inertia - I imagine if the plugin is already written for
VST in windows, it is considerably less work to port the VST to linux
as native VST rather than recode it for LV2.
3 Jul
3 Jul
1:58 a.m.
Excerpts from James Stone's message of 2011-07-02 22:34:10 +0200:
I'm not a lawyer and am not sure about the software patent situation,
but I really doubt this is relevant here. There are horrible patent wars
surrounding codecs, but I doubt the same is true for plugin standards
because I doubt they contain anything new.
Again, I don't know what's more work, porting to native VST or LV2. Both
has been done and there isn't exactly a flood of either kind of ports.
Native VST
support is a bane. It will drag along the VST license
troubles indefinitely. In my opinion every work done for native VST is
work lost for LV2, and it's not like there are a lot of developers
around.
At one point native VST might have seemed attractive (VST but more
stable than non-native, what else is the point of it?), but this
must have been the time before LV2. DSSI and especially ladspa might
have been limited in one way or another, but LV2 is potentially superior
to VST and while there's certainly much that can be done, I doubt that
it really lacks behind in capabilities even now.
So in my opinion native VST should be forgotten about as fast as
possible.
I wonder if commercial plugin manufacturers think LV2 (if they know of
it) is too much of a risk from submarine patents and the like: if they
license VST, they can stand behind Steinberg in the case of any legal
action, whereas if they implement their plugins in LV2, they have to
stand on their own??
Not sure how much basis in fact this line of thinking has, but I
wouldn't be surprised if it is behind some companies seeming
reluctance to embrace LV2.. On the other hand it could just be
laziness and inertia - I imagine if the plugin is already written for
VST in windows, it is considerably less work to port the VST to linux
as native VST rather than recode it for LV2.
J 
2 Jul
2 Jul
7:41 p.m.
On 07/02/2011 04:48 PM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
I just tried it in Qtractor, and didn't have a lot
of luck (I couldn't
get its GUI to appear, or get it to make noise), but the readme reports
success with Renoise and energyXT.
Hello Leigh,
32-bit or 64-bit? Vestige or Steinberg VST SDK headers? LinuxVST's don't
work properly on 64-bit compiled against the vestige headers.
Best,
Jeremy
3 Jul
3 Jul
3:43 a.m.
On 07/03/2011 03:41 AM, Jeremy Jongepier wrote:
On 07/02/2011 04:48 PM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
That may explain it then -- I'm on 64-bit and using the Vestige headers.
I'll see if I can rebuild using the official headers instead.
Thanks
Leigh
I just tried it in Qtractor, and didn't have
a lot of luck (I couldn't
get its GUI to appear, or get it to make noise), but the readme reports
success with Renoise and energyXT.
Hello Leigh,
32-bit or 64-bit? Vestige or Steinberg VST SDK headers? LinuxVST's don't
work properly on 64-bit compiled against the vestige headers.
Best,
Jeremy
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
6 Jul
6 Jul
10:18 p.m.
On 07/03/2011 02:43 AM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
On 07/03/2011 03:41 AM, Jeremy Jongepier wrote:
fwiw, i've tested pianoteq 32bit on a qtractor built with vst-sdk (ie.
no vestige) and it seems to work just barely but useless: the gui shows
up, midi input gets all the visual feedback it should but quite
unfortunately there's no piano sound coming out whatsoever ... wait, it
only works when in "monophonic" output mode :/
meanwhile, the standalone jack version works fine as an insert.
cheers
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
On 07/02/2011 04:48 PM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
That may explain it then -- I'm on 64-bit and using the Vestige headers.
I'll see if I can rebuild using the official headers instead.
I just tried it in Qtractor, and didn't have
a lot of luck (I couldn't
get its GUI to appear, or get it to make noise), but the readme reports
success with Renoise and energyXT.
Hello Leigh,
32-bit or 64-bit? Vestige or Steinberg VST SDK headers? LinuxVST's don't
work properly on 64-bit compiled against the vestige headers.
7 Jul
7 Jul
12:56 a.m.
On 07/07/2011 06:19 AM, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
On 07/03/2011 02:43 AM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
Hi Rui,
I had the same behaviour after recompiling my 64-bit build with the
official VST SDK -- I can load the synth and bring up the GUI, but I
only get sound if I set it to Monophonic mode.
On 07/03/2011 03:41 AM, Jeremy Jongepier wrote:
fwiw, i've tested pianoteq 32bit on a qtractor built with vst-sdk (ie.
no vestige) and it seems to work just barely but useless: the gui shows
up, midi input gets all the visual feedback it should but quite
unfortunately there's no piano sound coming out whatsoever ... wait, it
only works when in "monophonic" output mode :/ On 07/02/2011 04:48 PM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
That may explain it then -- I'm on 64-bit and using the Vestige headers.
I'll see if I can rebuild using the official headers instead.
I just tried it in Qtractor, and didn't have
a lot of luck (I couldn't
get its GUI to appear, or get it to make noise), but the readme reports
success with Renoise and energyXT.
Hello Leigh,
32-bit or 64-bit? Vestige or Steinberg VST SDK headers? LinuxVST's don't
work properly on 64-bit compiled against the vestige headers.
meanwhile, the standalone jack version works fine as an insert.
Yep, that works fine :)
Thanks
Leigh
26 Jun
26 Jun
9:11 p.m.
On 06/26/2011 04:50 PM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
Hi all,
With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2 synth
plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various LV2 synth
plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/
I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm
missing? I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new users when
Ardour hits the big 3.0.
Thanks
Leigh
Hi Leigh,
Don't forget about good ol' ZynAddSubFX ;)
http://home.gna.org/zyn/
Best,
Jeremy
9:27 p.m.
Sorry J but zyn doesn't work as an LV2 under A3 but I'd love to be
corrected on that too! The abandoned LV2 version only works under
zynjacku AFAIK.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Jeremy Jongepier <jeremy(a)autostatic.com> wrote:
On 06/26/2011 04:50 PM, Leigh Dyer wrote:
Hi all,
With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2 synth
plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various LV2 synth
plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/
I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm
missing? I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new users when
Ardour hits the big 3.0.
Thanks
Leigh
Hi Leigh,
Don't forget about good ol' ZynAddSubFX ;)
http://home.gna.org/zyn/
Best,
Jeremy
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
27 Jun
27 Jun
11:52 a.m.
On 06/27/2011 05:11 AM, Jeremy Jongepier wrote:
Hi Leigh,
Don't forget about good ol' ZynAddSubFX ;)
http://home.gna.org/zyn/
Yep, good point :) It doesn't work for me in Ardour 3, and I get the
impression that it's largely unmaintained these days, but it's certainly
worth mentioning.
Thanks
Leigh
Best,
Jeremy
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
9:55 a.m.
Am 26.06.2011 16:50, schrieb Leigh Dyer:
Hi all,
With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2 synth
plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various LV2 synth
plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/
The experimental CALF-Synths work quite well under Ardour3 alpha, given
they work at all ;-)
I have zero problems with the fluidsynth-plugin, the wavetablesynth does
work too but does not provide much of a wavetable-sound though since it
is not completely programmed yet.
I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm
missing? I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new users when
Ardour hits the big 3.0.
Thanks
Leigh
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
11 a.m.
Hi Leigh,
I noticed that in your screenshot of the so-synths, the so-kl5 and so-666
both don't have their control mode dropdown activated (at least that's how I
interpret it). Is this a bug? Are they not letting you switch between MIDI
CC control and Control Ports? Please let me know so I can fix it if it is.
Jeremy
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Leigh Dyer <lsd(a)wootangent.net> wrote:
Hi all,
With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2 synth
plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various LV2 synth
plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
http://wootangent.net/2011/06/**lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-**list/<http:/…
I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm missing?
I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new users when Ardour hits the
big 3.0.
Thanks
Leigh
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
11:38 a.m.
On 06/27/2011 07:00 PM, Jeremy Salwen wrote:
> Jeremy
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Leigh
Dyer <lsd(a)wootangent.net
> <mailto:lsd@wootangent.net>> wrote:
> Hi all,
> With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking
set to support only LV2
> synth plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various
> LV2 synth plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
> http://wootangent.net/2011/06/
lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a- list/
> <http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/
> I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm
> missing? I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new users when
> Ardour hits the big 3.0.
> Thanks
> Leigh
> ______________________________ _________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user@lists. linuxaudio.org
> <mailto:Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/ listinfo/linux-audio-user
> <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Hi Leigh,
I noticed that in your screenshot of the so-synths, the so-kl5 and
so-666 both don't have their control mode dropdown activated (at least
that's how I interpret it). Is this a bug? Are they not letting you
switch between MIDI CC control and Control Ports? Please let me know
so I can fix it if it is.
Actually, all three synths start with that drop-down box empty; on the
SO-404 instance I'd clicked in there and selected "Control Ports" before
taking the screenshot. Even after flipping that option, I don't think
the parameter sliders are having any effect.
The code I have here is a trunk download from Github, and I'm using
Ardour 3 from SVN on Ubuntu 10.10 AMD64. I built updated packages of
lv2core and lv2-extensions-good to get your package to build. Let me
know if there's any other info you need.
Thanks
Leigh
12:13 p.m.
I'd like to know if the sliders do have any effect.
I checked the code, and it's clear that I do specify a default value for the
mode control. That just might be an issue with ardour (i.e. just the
graphics, I assume not functionality). But if the sliders do nothing even
when they're supposed to be enabled, that's a big problem.
(I don't have ardour3 installed, so thanks)
Jeremy
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Leigh Dyer <lsd(a)wootangent.net> wrote:
On 06/27/2011 07:00 PM, Jeremy Salwen wrote:
Jeremy
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:50 AM,
Leigh Dyer <lsd(a)wootangent.net
> <mailto:lsd@wootangent.net>> wrote:
> Hi all,
> With Ardour 3 coming along, and
looking set to support only LV2
> synth plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the various
> LV2 synth plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed them here:
> http://wootangent.net/2011/06/
lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a- list/
>
<http://wootangent.net/2011/**06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-**list/<http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/ >
> I hope I've covered all
the big ones, but are there any that I'm
> missing? I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new users when
> Ardour hits the big 3.0.
> Thanks
> Leigh
> ______________________________ _________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user@lists. linuxaudio.org
>
<mailto:Linux-audio-user@**lists.linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org >
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/
listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user >
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
Hi Leigh,
I noticed that in your screenshot of the so-synths, the so-kl5 and
so-666 both don't have their control mode dropdown activated (at least
that's how I interpret it). Is this a bug? Are they not letting you
switch between MIDI CC control and Control Ports? Please let me know
so I can fix it if it is.
Actually, all three synths start with that drop-down box empty; on the
SO-404 instance I'd clicked in there and selected "Control Ports" before
taking the screenshot. Even after flipping that option, I don't think the
parameter sliders are having any effect.
The code I have here is a trunk download from Github, and I'm using Ardour
3 from SVN on Ubuntu 10.10 AMD64. I built updated packages of lv2core and
lv2-extensions-good to get your package to build. Let me know if there's any
other info you need.
Thanks
Leigh
12:49 p.m.
On 06/27/2011 08:13 PM, Jeremy Salwen wrote:
I'd like to know if the sliders do have any
effect.
It looks like the sliders definitely aren't having any effect. I opened
SO-404 and set it to Control Ports mode, but none of the sliders did
anything to the sound. However, I was able to control it using MIDI CCs
-- are those meant to work when it's in Control Ports mode, or does that
mean that it's somehow stuck in MIDI mode?
Thanks
Leigh
I checked the code, and it's clear that I do specify a default value for
the mode control. That just might be an issue with ardour (i.e. just
the graphics, I assume not functionality). But if the sliders do
nothing even when they're supposed to be enabled, that's a big problem.
(I don't have ardour3 installed, so thanks)
Jeremy
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Leigh Dyer <lsd(a)wootangent.net
<mailto:lsd@wootangent.net>> wrote:
On 06/27/2011 07:00 PM, Jeremy Salwen wrote:
Hi Leigh,
I noticed that in your screenshot of the so-synths, the so-kl5 and
so-666 both don't have their control mode dropdown activated (at
least
that's how I interpret it). Is this a bug? Are they not letting you
switch between MIDI CC control and Control Ports? Please let
me know
so I can fix it if it is.
Actually, all three synths start with that drop-down box empty; on
the SO-404 instance I'd clicked in there and selected "Control
Ports" before taking the screenshot. Even after flipping that
option, I don't think the parameter sliders are having any effect.
The code I have here is a trunk download from Github, and I'm using
Ardour 3 from SVN on Ubuntu 10.10 AMD64. I built updated packages of
lv2core and lv2-extensions-good to get your package to build. Let me
know if there's any other info you need.
Thanks
Leigh
Jeremy
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Leigh Dyer <lsd(a)wootangent.net
<mailto:lsd@wootangent.net>
<mailto:lsd@wootangent.net <mailto:lsd@wootangent.net>>> wrote:
Hi all,
With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2
synth plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the
various
LV2 synth plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed
them here:
http://wootangent.net/2011/06/ lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a- list/
<http://wootangent.net/2011/ 06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a- list/
<http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/>>
I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that I'm
missing? I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new
users when
Ardour hits the big 3.0.
Thanks
Leigh
______________________________ _________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists. linuxaudio.org <http://linuxaudio.org>
<mailto:Linux-audio-user@ lists.linuxaudio.org
<mailto:Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/ listinfo/linux-audio-user
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/ listinfo/linux-audio-user
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user>>
______________________________ _________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists. linuxaudio.org
<mailto:Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/ listinfo/linux-audio-user
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user>
5 Aug
5 Aug
6:12 a.m.
Hi Leigh,
I looked further into this issue, and it seems that all the problems with
the so-synth GUIs in ardour are a result of these two bugs:
http://tracker.ardour.org/view.php?id=4221
http://tracker.ardour.org/view.php?id=2612
I might try to fix these ardour bugs, but I don't know how I'll be able to
deal with the source.
Jeremy
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Leigh Dyer <lsd(a)wootangent.net> wrote:
On 06/27/2011 08:13 PM, Jeremy Salwen wrote:
I'd like to know if the sliders do have any
effect.
It looks like the sliders definitely aren't having any effect. I opened
SO-404 and set it to Control Ports mode, but none of the sliders did
anything to the sound. However, I was able to control it using MIDI CCs --
are those meant to work when it's in Control Ports mode, or does that mean
that it's somehow stuck in MIDI mode?
Thanks
Leigh
I checked the code, and it's clear that I do
specify a default value for
the mode control. That just might be an issue with ardour (i.e. just
the graphics, I assume not functionality). But if the sliders do
nothing even when they're supposed to be enabled, that's a big problem.
(I don't have ardour3 installed, so thanks)
Jeremy
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Leigh Dyer <lsd(a)wootangent.net
<mailto:lsd@wootangent.net>> wrote:
On 06/27/2011 07:00 PM, Jeremy Salwen wrote:
Hi Leigh,
I noticed that in your screenshot of the so-synths, the so-kl5 and
so-666 both don't have their control mode dropdown activated (at
least
that's how I interpret it). Is this a bug? Are they not letting
you
switch between MIDI CC control and Control Ports? Please let
me know
so I can fix it if it is.
Actually, all three synths start with that drop-down box empty; on
the SO-404 instance I'd clicked in there and selected "Control
Ports" before taking the screenshot. Even after flipping that
option, I don't think the parameter sliders are having any effect.
The code I have here is a trunk download from Github, and I'm using
Ardour 3 from SVN on Ubuntu 10.10 AMD64. I built updated packages of
lv2core and lv2-extensions-good to get your package to build. Let me
know if there's any other info you need.
Thanks
Leigh
Jeremy
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Leigh Dyer <lsd(a)wootangent.net
<mailto:lsd@wootangent.net>
<mailto:lsd@wootangent.net <mailto:lsd@wootangent.net>>> wrote:
Hi all,
With Ardour 3 coming along, and looking set to support only LV2
synth plugins, I've just been writing up some notes on the
various
LV2 synth plugins that are around at the moment. I've listed
them here:
http://wootangent.net/2011/06/ lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a- list/
<http://wootangent.net/2011/ 06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a- list/
<http://wootangent.net/2011/**06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-**list/<http://wootangent.net/2011/06/lv2-synths-for-ardour-3-a-list/>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/
listinfo/linux-audio-user
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user>
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
>
I hope I've covered all the big ones, but are there any that
I'm
missing? I'd love for this to be a handy resource for new
users when
Ardour hits the big 3.0.
Thanks
Leigh
______________________________ _________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists. linuxaudio.org <http://linuxaudio.org>
<mailto:Linux-audio-user@ lists.linuxaudio.org
<mailto:Linux-audio-user@**lists.linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/ listinfo/linux-audio-user
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/ listinfo/linux-audio-user
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user>
>
______________________________ _________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists. linuxaudio.org
<mailto:Linux-audio-user@**lists.linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
4657
days inactive
4697
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
41 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
Alexandre Prokoudine -
allcoms -
Dave Phillips -
david -
Emanuel Rumpf -
Harry Van Haaren -
Hartmut Noack -
James Stone -
Jeremy Jongepier -
Jeremy Salwen -
Leigh Dyer -
Philipp Überbacher -
rosea grammostola -
Rui Nuno Capela