4 May
2015
4 May
'15
8:02 p.m.
I have some question regarding versions of Ardour
that people are using.
Currently, I am running Fedora 20, and their
software repository has two versions of Ardour available:
ardour-2.8.16-12.fc20
ardour-3.5.403-1.fc20
I seem to recall that in the past, despite
Ardour3 being available, some people were still preferring
to use Ardour2. This seems to be supported by the
fact that Fedora offers both versions.
Why might one prefer Ardour2 over Ardour3?
Thanks
4 May
4 May
8:56 p.m.
On Monday, May 4, 2015, Ivan K <ivan_521521(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I have some question regarding versions of Ardour
that people are using.
Currently, I am running Fedora 20, and their
software repository has two versions of Ardour available:
ardour-2.8.16-12.fc20
ardour-3.5.403-1.fc20
I seem to recall that in the past, despite
Ardour3 being available, some people were still preferring
to use Ardour2. This seems to be supported by the
fact that Fedora offers both versions.
Why might one prefer Ardour2 over Ardour3?
I think some people stayed with A2 just because it was working well for
them and didn't want to run risks or change their workflow.
Now that a more robust Ardour 4 is out, I guess usage of A2 will decrease
even more. I would not recommend anyone to install A2 or A3 nowadays. It
may take a while for A4 to arrive at official Fedora, Ubuntu etc repos, but
in the meantime you can get it directly from ardour.org (KXStudio
repositories for Ubuntu users already have A4).
Bruno
Thanks
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org <javascript:;>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
9:54 p.m.
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 06:02:37PM +0000, Ivan K wrote:
Why might one prefer Ardour2 over Ardour3?
Three reasons may have contributed to the choice:
* A3 takes more memory than A2. For example on my old
laptop (only 512 MB) A3 is unusable, even with a very
lean & mean desktop, while I have recorded 20+ tracks
on that machine with A2 without any problem.
* The editing model changed.
* When A3 emerged it offered little advantage if you
didn't need the new MIDI features.
The first problem may be solved with A4 (but I still need
to test this). The second is just something you need to get
used to.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
10:03 p.m.
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 06:02:37PM +0000, Ivan K
wrote:
A4 now has about 3000 bug fixes compared to A2. I suppose that if you know
that A2 never has a problem with your workflow, good for you.
For everybody who doesn't know that, A2 is just a completely stupid choice.
Why might one prefer Ardour2 over Ardour3?
* When A3 emerged it offered little advantage if you
didn't need the new MIDI features.
10:07 p.m.
On 05/04/15 15:03, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org
<mailto:fons@linuxaudio.org>> wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 06:02:37PM +0000, Ivan K wrote:
Paul,
Are you working with Harrison on Mixbus? If so, will they be going
to v3 any time in the near future. If not, I guess I won't worry about
them ;-)
Cheers,
Jan
Why might one prefer Ardour2 over Ardour3?
* When A3 emerged it offered little advantage if you
didn't need the new MIDI features.
A4 now has about 3000 bug fixes compared to A2. I suppose that if you
know that A2 never has a problem with your workflow, good for you.
For everybody who doesn't know that, A2 is just a completely stupid
choice.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
10:08 p.m.
I can't comment on Harrison's release schedule. Certainly v3 of mixbus is
being worked on and will be released, but as to the timeline, that's not
for me to so (and I don't know it, either).
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Jan Depner <eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> wrote:
On 05/04/15 15:03, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org>
wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 06:02:37PM +0000, Ivan K
wrote:
A4 now has about 3000 bug fixes compared to A2. I suppose that if you
know that A2 never has a problem with your workflow, good for you.
For everybody who doesn't know that, A2 is just a completely stupid
choice.
Paul,
Are you working with Harrison on Mixbus? If so, will they be going to
v3 any time in the near future. If not, I guess I won't worry about them
;-)
Cheers,
Jan
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing
listLinux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.orghttp://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
Why might one prefer Ardour2 over Ardour3?
* When A3 emerged it offered little advantage if you
didn't need the new MIDI features.
10:13 p.m.
Le 04/05/2015 22:03, Paul Davis a écrit :
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org
<mailto:fons@linuxaudio.org>> wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 06:02:37PM +0000, Ivan K wrote:
;)
Always weighting the words, hey!
I don't think it's a "complete stupid choice", as well as A4 is not
either. And if you don't need MIDI, I also think you might not want to
change, as all the bug fixed weren't criticals, and also because the new
GUI isn't that easy for someone not used to that scrolling way (I
insist, and that's what I've been able to check with starting students).
And I agree with Fons about the memory use too.
Obviously, you and the whole staff did a really big work with A3 and A4,
and there's not point arguing it was better before, it was not.
But I've to say that I felt a bit "lost" when the switch has been done,
telling my students that A3 arrived, A2 being unsupported, and then
finally telling them to wait a bit cause there were several severe bugs
to be fixed - which is no problem to me, that's the way it has to be,
and I suppose there was no way to allow A2 to open A3 sessions (to be
able to get back). That's why even now, I feel safer telling them to use
A2, and telling them A4 exists but I cannot tell them I'm sure it works,
as I don't have tested the same way as A2, for which there are bugs,
known for most of them, and for the most critical, I explain them what
to do to avoid them.
--
ORL
AMMD - Freak & Free Arts Coo[r]p
www.ammd.net - 095 234 72 48
Why might one prefer Ardour2 over Ardour3?
* When A3 emerged it offered little advantage if you
didn't need the new MIDI features.
A4 now has about 3000 bug fixes compared to A2. I suppose that if you
know that A2 never has a problem with your workflow, good for you.
For everybody who doesn't know that, A2 is just a completely stupid
choice.
10:26 p.m.
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:13 PM, ORL <orl(a)ammd.net> wrote:
Le 04/05/2015 22:03, Paul Davis a écrit :
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org>
wrote:
many, many of the bugs were ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL. the fact that you may not
run into them with the workflow you use doesn't change this.
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 06:02:37PM +0000, Ivan K
wrote:
A4 now has about 3000 bug fixes compared to A2. I suppose that if you
know that A2 never has a problem with your workflow, good for you.
For everybody who doesn't know that, A2 is just a completely stupid
choice.
;)
Always weighting the words, hey!
I don't think it's a "complete stupid choice", as well as A4 is not
either. And if you don't need MIDI, I also think you might not want to
change, as all the bug fixed weren't criticals,
Why might one prefer Ardour2 over Ardour3?
* When A3 emerged it offered little advantage if you
didn't need the new MIDI features.
But I've to say that I felt a bit "lost" when the switch has been done,
telling my students that A3 arrived, A2 being unsupported,
we "supported" A2 by developing A3. we "supported" A3 by developing
A4. the
application development process is *never* going to stop. if you choose to
stick with a specific version in order to open historical sessions, that is
fine. But the result of us "supporting" A2 is ... Ardour 4.0. in the future
it will be Ardour 5.0.
i repeat: using Ardour 2.x for new sessions is, in my opinion, completely
indefensible.
and then finally telling them to wait a bit cause there were several severe
bugs to be fixed - which is no problem to me,
that's the way it has to be,
and I suppose there was no way to allow A2 to open A3 sessions (to be able
to get back).
what program has ever offered forward compatibility?
10:36 p.m.
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 04:03:06PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
A4 now has about 3000 bug fixes compared to A2. I
suppose that if you know
that A2 never has a problem with your workflow, good for you.
But how many of those 3000 bugs were A2 bugs, and not related
to new features or changes in A3 ?
That said, except for the memory issue there was for me
no reason to stay with A2. Of the 10 systems or so I used
in Parma all had A3 shortly after it was released, the
only exception being the 1/2 GB laptop. And that was used
for recording only, so using just a tiny fraction of the
available features. In that role it was (and still is)
quite stable.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
10:05 p.m.
On 4 May 2015 at 18:02, Ivan K <ivan_521521(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I have some question regarding versions of Ardour
that people are using.
Currently, I am running Fedora 20, and their
software repository has two versions of Ardour available:
ardour-2.8.16-12.fc20
ardour-3.5.403-1.fc20
Maybe you can get an advance copy of something for
Ardour 4 in the works for F21 or F22 via the JAM respin?
http://spins.fedoraproject.org/jam-kde/ That group
communicates, at least in part, on the Fedora-music-list
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
I hope that's useful. Of course, if something doesn't work, contact
the JAM group first, rather than the Ardour team.
Cheerio....
--
Kevin
10:58 p.m.
I started using Ardour3 almost as soon as it was out because I liked the
improvements, but I also found it pretty unstable and was constantly
saving snapshots because it was crashing very often or losing the undos.
Now I'm using Ardour4 and it seems MUCH more stable.
I think the improvements over Ardour2 are HUGE, just a few examples off
the top of my head, excluding MIDI:
- the grid interface for the audio connection manager is the best and
most usable I've ever seen, in any software
- the K12/14/20 meters are invaluable for me (I was using jkmeter for
that before)
- I can configure the meters to go red at, say, -3dBFS instead of 0dBFS
- the vertical scrolling is really good now
- the summary view
- the plug-ins interface and management
- the pan controls
- the stacked view for overlapping regions is a sanity-saver sometimes
And of course, all the fixed bugs.
I'm sure that there are many more and even more outside of my workflow,
and I don't even remember Ardour2 well.
Is it perfect for everyone? Well, nothing is, I work daily with
Pro Tools and it gets its fair amount of cursing from me.
But I think that Ardour has never been so good as now, and even people
who are happy with Ardour2 and didn't like Ardour3 should try Ardour4.
As a side note, I know there's people that still uses Pro Tools 5 (now
it's at 12!) because it works and a messy upgrade can be too risky if
your income depends on that, so I know the concerns.
Paul, please be aware that people that uses software to work can be VERY
conservative, I think it's at the very least understandable and that
it's a choice that don't deserve to be insulted, especially when the
transition to A3 is not been so smooth.
-- Emanuele Rusconi
11:11 p.m.
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Emanuele Rusconi <emarsk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Paul, please be aware that people that uses software to work can be VERY
conservative, I think it's at the very least understandable and that
it's a choice that don't deserve to be insulted, especially when the
transition to A3 is not been so smooth.
I've tried to be as clear as I can: if Ardour 2.x works for your workflow
then keep using it as you see fit. But do not suggest that 2.x is somehow a
superior choice for anybody else. To do so is to essentially reduce the
work that many developers have put in over many years to nothing. I am not
insulting people who feel that Ardour 2.x is perfect for them - I am just
unhappy to see it promoted as in any way better than 4.0.
11:45 p.m.
I switched from 2 to 3 after 3 had been out for awhile, but I found it
much more stable. Ardour 2 used to segfaullt if I zoomed in and out of
the timeline too much, and it experienced unexplainable xruns that never
happened so much in any other program. Everything got much more solid
when I went to v3. Yes, it does use more memory, so I suppose there is
that. I haven't tried v4 yet... so I can't really say about it.
--
+ Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys
+ Sr. UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will
+ University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of
+ James Franck Institute + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet,
+ Materials Research Ctr + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky
5 May
5 May
12:07 a.m.
On Mon, 4 May 2015, Ivan K wrote:
I have some question regarding versions of Ardour
that people are using.
4
Currently, I am running Fedora 20, and their
software repository has two versions of Ardour available:
ardour-2.8.16-12.fc20
ardour-3.5.403-1.fc20
I seem to recall that in the past, despite
Ardour3 being available, some people were still preferring
to use Ardour2. This seems to be supported by the
fact that Fedora offers both versions.
Why might one prefer Ardour2 over Ardour3?
A project started in A2 might be finished in A2. But then, I think also I
would be using the whole OS version surounding it as well (GCDMaster for
example). I personally have not had any problems moving A2 projects to A3
(and then A4) but mine are generally pretty sparse and non-complex to
begin with. I make very little use of the midi editing and so that reason
for moving to A3 did not effect me. However, some of the other things like
the use of control surfaces does. And with things like GCDMaster no longer
available because the libs it uses are not around any more (well they are
around, but would interfere with the newer version lib versions) A4s
improved export is also needed. The LV2 standard seems to have changed...
A4 works better with the newer standard... so A2 might limit you to older
plugins. A4 supports linux VSTs. There is much more than just MIDI editing
to find in A3/4... even little things like the channel strip trim "pot"
that appeared a short while ago.
There are reasons to stick with A2... but not many. In general, for any
computer with 1g ram or more (it is hard to find a newer computer with
even only 2G) and for new projects, A4 is the way to go.
In my opinion...
Ardour is worth supporting. There have been whole HW platforms that are no
longer around (like the Atari ST with some of the very best MIDI
sequencing) because the SW developers were not supported. There are some
really useful Linux projects that are gone for the same reason. audio
creation in the Linux world is a very small group of people... the
everything in Linux is free attitude, has kept some kinds of SW from
really developing well here.
Quite honestly, Ardour is the first SW I have put money into since I
bought some stuff for the ST megga2. I have gotten to the point where I
either did that or bought something closed. The A3 that comes from the
repo is fine as a demo, but the support and updates from the Ardour site
are worth paying for... and the features I would like to see down the road
are worth support as well.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
9:26 a.m.
On Tue, 05 May 2015 00:04:49 +0200, Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
And with things like GCDMaster no longer available
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/gcdmaster/
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/gcdmaster/
There have been whole HW platforms that are no longer
around (like the
Atari ST with some of the very best MIDI sequencing) because the SW
developers were not supported.
Actually it's a HW issue and not a SW issue that most people stopped using
the
Atari. The reason for me to switch to Linux. As an example, what monitor
would
you use, if your Atari monitor should break? Only very old PC monitors are
slow
enough for usage with the Atari ST. The software and hardware developer
scene in
Europe never lacked of being supported, neither the once who developed for
free
as in beer, nor those who get payed. A lot of people hoped that after TT
and Falcon
Atari would continue, especially the QL emulator users. The company Atari
likely
suffered from the well supporting scene. I for example never bought an
Atari HDD
instead I used a LACOM SCSI controller, I'm using a non-Atari Floppy drive
and my
520 ST has got 4 MiB PC RAM. DIY replacing the TOS etc. were naturally.
I'm missing
such a huge and friendly community as there was for the Atari for Linux
audio.
The biggest communities I ever experienced were the C64 and Atari ST HW
and SW
scenes. The problem simply is that Commodore and Atari discontinued.
11:41 a.m.
I know it' a little bit out of topic...
2015-05-05 9:26 GMT+02:00 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>et>:
Only very old PC monitors are slow enough for usage with the Atari ST...
you can use a normal TFT 4:3 monitor in hi-res mode for the old Atari St
series. The Falcon run in every resolution with a TFT
I'm missing such a huge and friendly community as there was for the Atari
for Linux audio...
I think there is a small but nice and friendly community.
http://forum.atari-home.de/
http://www.atari-forum.com/
some of my Atari works 8-)
https://soundcloud.com/xfalcon-dma
8 May
8 May
8:53 a.m.
On 05/04/2015 11:41 PM, Chris Bungue wrote:
I know it' a little bit out of topic...
2015-05-05 9:26 GMT+02:00 Ralf Mardorf:
Only very old PC monitors are slow enough for usage with the Atari ST...
you can use a normal TFT 4:3 monitor in hi-res mode for the old Atari
St series. The Falcon run in every resolution with a TFT
IIRC from my days when I sold Atari STs and Commodore Amigas - the ST's
Monochrome ran a 110Hz refresh rate that made the image look as rock
solid and steady as if someone had painted it on the wall?
--
David W. Jones
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com
10:46 a.m.
On Thu, 07 May 2015 20:53:03 -1000, david wrote:
On 05/04/2015 11:41 PM, Chris Bungue wrote:
Issues are caused by the horizontal refresh rate, but I might be
mistaken, monochrome might work with newer monitors too.
Vertical refresh rate 72 Hz monochrome and 50 or 60 Hz colour.
Horizontal refresh rate 31.5 Khz and 15.75 Khz.
Resolution 640 x 400 and 640 x 200 / 320 x 200
I replied too the list as a general information for Atari owners, but
please continue off-list.
I know it' a little bit out of topic...
2015-05-05 9:26 GMT+02:00 Ralf Mardorf:
Only very old PC monitors are slow enough for usage with the
Atari ST...
you can use a normal TFT 4:3 monitor in hi-res mode for the old
Atari St series. The Falcon run in every resolution with a TFT
IIRC from my days when I sold Atari STs and Commodore Amigas - the
ST's Monochrome ran a 110Hz refresh rate that made the image look as
rock solid and steady as if someone had painted it on the wall?
3491
days inactive
3495
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
17 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Brent Busby -
Bruno Ruviaro -
Chris Bungue -
david -
Emanuele Rusconi -
Fons Adriaensen -
Ivan K -
Jan Depner -
Kevin Cosgrove -
Len Ovens -
ORL -
Paul Davis -
Ralf Mardorf