On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 23:15 +0100, Hartmut Noack wrote: this is a bit like saying you can probably run windows applications, but oh, yeah, they need to be open source. there are almost no open source VST plugins; those that are are generally not portable to Linux as-is. most users, when they ask "can i run VST plugins" mean "can i run unmodified win32/x86 plugins", and the answer to that is "only with Wine" --p

Dave Phillips wrote: Tim Orford et al are maintaining a list of Linux compatible VST plugins at http://ladspavst.linuxaudio.org/

On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 22:17 +0100, Hartmut Noack wrote: I respectfully disagree. If it was possible to run arbitrary win32/x86 VST's on linux/x86 with no hassle, there would very little barrier to people moving to linux for their audio needs. plugins are often the blocking issue to this migration, not host applications. like it or not, the plugins exist, and they are not appearing for linux at anything close to a sufficient rate to justify any active audio users migrating at present. --p

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Davis schrieb: Yeah - true again. Saying goodbye to their VST-plugins is the thing experienced Win/Mac-users abhor the most. So it would help to draw people to Linux if they could run their DLLs whithout hassle. Still I think that too much attention and efforts are focussed towards making VST-DLLs run in Linux and too little towards free, native solutions. Many that work with Linux have only a brief look at LADSPA-plugins and apps like AMS or Specimen - they test it for 2-3h then they say "OK so what - I want my NI-DLLs back." It is true, that LADSPA does not have the same powers in store as the VST-world but not only the plugins that are there are used as they could be used. It is quite funny to see someone who writes software in a modular system and does not understand, that 5-6 simple LADSPA-plugins can be used as modules to build something new, that is powerful and flexible. So one might call me a zelot - I am with Linux because it is GNU. And I dislike to have interactive applications running, that do not fit into the free ecosystem of GNU/Linux. So I think solutions like LV2 need much more attention then they get now. best regs HZN sorry Paul for sending this twice - mixed up the adresses :-)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Davis schrieb: No-zealots seem not to care for many things... Well I am too busy being zealotic too ;-) You know - running around all day advertising GNU/Linux, preaching, arguing,rolling eyes .... Maybe some talented audio-hackers out there have use for an expert in advanced zealotics who is eager to work for their deification once they embrace the holy book of GPL ? ;-) ;-) unwavering regards HZN

Paul Davis wrote: VST plugins (especially soft synths) are designed to be limited. Especially those who emulate old synthesizers are mostly all the same. The only difference is in the GUI (and obviously in the limited set of oscillators, filters and so on of that particular synth). I can only speak for myself, but I guess that most people using open source software are not interested in such kind of tools. There's no reason to limit possibilities in the open source world because you don't have to sell the same synth again and again. I thought a lot of times about starting to write a soft synth similar to those available in the VST world. But - again, at least for me - there's no motivation, since I can fire up csound and create any kind of sound I would imagine with a bunch of lines. Of course I don't have the shiny graphical interfaces with rendered knobs. Instead I have unlimited possibilities (as much oscillators as I want, connected in any possible way, filters, effects, and so on). It's all about marketing. Yes, there are also commercial modular synthesizers which are versatile as well. But, again, I can express much more (and more quickly) with a bunch of lines in csound than using virtual patch cords. The main reason to have virtual patch cords is marketing. Moreover, even if we had VST plugins working perfectly on Linux, most people wouldn't switch anyway. Linux is free, so it can't be as good as an o.s. that costs money. Most musicians don't pay for software anyway, but they perceive commercial software as better, because of its value in money. This is less true for a web browser, for instance. Everybody like Firefox. But it's crucial for most kinds of software. Especially in art and music - where a lot has to do with irrationality and subjective perception - most people don't trust open source software. Just my 2 cents. -c.

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Cesare Marilungo <cesare(a)poeticstudios.com> wrote: I'm perhaps speaking out of turn, or addressing a different issue, but I think one reason to have virtual patch cords is immediacy of use. Much as I like guitar amps to have a bunch of tone-shaping knobs, I almost always end up using my pignose guitar amp, which has only one knob - volume. For myself, the lack of options allows me to be more immediately expressive. There are many times I believe I'd appreciate a similar lack of options in software solutions. -- daneasley(a)gmail.com http://burntpossum.com