On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Esteban Viveros <emviveros(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: probably no Linux VST either, which essentially means no plugins at all? a bit of wild choice ...

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:31 PM, R. Mattes wrote: 1. Last time I checked, Novation, M-Audio, Roland etc. had no OSC keyboards, just regular MIDI ones :) 2. Whether Linux VST is present is a goddamn _question_ :) Let's not jump at conclusions, shall we? Me. Bitwig is a tool primarily for composition and live performance. You don't need every single plugin out there for that, and Bitwig appears to have enough built-in effects and instruments to get cracking. I'm looking forward to both improved MIDI editing in A3 and whatever Harry has in the pipeline for Luppp, but so far Bitwig looks like exactly what I need for experimenting, trying ideas etc. In terms of going from an idea to an actual sound that represents it no DAW/sequencer I tried on Linux is good enough, in my humble opinion. (At which point the usual LAU hell breaks loose, I suppose.) Alexandre

On 01/22/2014 08:52 PM, R. Mattes wrote: I'm working to make my plugin host (Carla) work as a plugin too (LV2 working right now). This allows to have Carla within Carla, or use it inside say Ardour and Qtractor. If I make it work as VST, then you could use it to get DSSI and LV2 in Bitwig. Well, assuming LinuxVST is working there of course... See this forum topic for related discussion and some screenshots: http://linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11975

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine < alexandre.prokoudine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: To clarify the point here: Bitwig has *builtin* effects. Whether you really miss LV2 or LADSPA depends on whether those builtin effects do what you want. For lots of people, they will be adequate.

It's not a show stopper, IMHO. Not having a Jack support would have been a much bigger suck. -- Brett W. McCoy -- http://www.brettwmccoy.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it, it would overturn the world." -- Jelaleddin Rumi

Isn't it a disadvantage of such all-in-one-daws that all music produced with it sounds pretty similar to each other, everybody uses the same samples and plugins. An creative advantage of modular linuxaudio could be that you've a high level of creativity and uniqueness in your music. On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Hartmut Noack &lt;zettberlin(a)linuxuse.de&gt;wrote;wrote:

On 02/06/2014 05:02 AM, rosea grammostola wrote: Can't the same be said about the 12 tones of a musical scale? You can think of rhythm and interval juxtaposition as knobs on the plugins. Yes, the fundamental blocks are finite but the method of building them into a cohesive whole are infinite. David

On 02/06/2014 11:02 AM, rosea grammostola wrote: They do? I don't... I truly believe that a tool is just a tool. It's the person handling the software that makes the decisions. Sure one decision could be "I wanna sound *exactly* like <insert commercially successful artist here>" or maybe the person doesn't have any (personal/unique) musical ideas in the first place. And a creative disadvantage could be that your software might be unstable and limited in what you can do with it? -- Atte http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk

On 02/06/2014 01:39 PM, Paul Davis wrote: Aaah, that "industry standard" sound........

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Paul Davis wrote: This uniformity cannot possibly be true! Every DAW does channels summing differently in a unique, distinctive way! Everybody knows that :-P Alexandre

On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 09:16 -1000, david wrote: That much in the charts does sound equal is caused by such nonsense: On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 10:41 +0200, Vytautas Jancauskas wrote: If DJs don't hire good audio engineers, but mix their crap on their own. The used recording gear, DAW or analog gear has less to do with it, just the fashion what real or virtual instruments are used have got influence, but there are for sure more proprietary virtual instruments available, than Linux instruments.

"Isn't it a disadvantage of such all-in-one-daws that all music produced with it sounds pretty similar to each other, everybody uses the same samples and plugins. An creative advantage of modular linuxaudio could be that you've a high level of creativity and uniqueness in your music." I do not agree with the premise that because everybody uses the same plugins it all sounds similar. As for samples, all-in-one DAW does not force you to use any samples, rarely does a DAW come with decent samples anyway. And same plugins can be used in a very different way. Also, it is funny you say that. Doesn't every person here use same stuff - a couple of main synths and a limited set of plugins? -- Louigi Verona http://www.louigiverona.ru/

The idea that daws sound the "same" has been refuted fairly well by previous commenters. I'll add that using sample libs is arguably the most likely to sound similar if users record with them in their natural state, and not work at developing a unique sound with the same base material. Example. My main working libs set is the Sonic Implants Orchestral collection (I have others, but this is the meat and bones i work with daily), which i've owned since it was first released, in gig format. (And linuxsampler is my closest friend and ally in the linux audio world for playing them) In their "factory" state, the orchestral instruments and sections are recorded in situ, meaning they're recorded with a built in stage presence. At first glance, it would seem that every muso using the SI collection is going to get the same end result, i.e. the oboe always sounds like this, the flute has a slightly sharp top C, etc. Sounds ok, until the muso realizes that his oboe masterpiece will have exactly the same sonic signature as the next muso, unless he does something to change that. This goes for notes as well, where a detached G4 oboe note for example, will always start and stop exactly the same. (in general) And this is where the notion of OOTB falls flat. The sample libs are an instrument, in effect, and just like a live player or players, they need to be learnt as an instrument, with many hours practising not just playing technique (orchestration should be a prerequisite for this), but manipulation skills, where tools and plugins like EQ, and IR space, give the user a chance to uniquely stamp his style on the standard set. Manipulating the base set is the real skill set required, to have your own signature, and is essential to avoid the "same" sound as many others who don't perceive these skills are important. As a further quick example, i have 2 flutes, one of a different tone than the other. I will mix them in an orchestral project, alternately and together, but i will also, where it is merited, and usually when the flute line is exposed in some way, add a little mid and take a little off the top in EQ to differentiate the base samples from the rest of the project. So to imprinted presence. Earlier sample libs manufacturers feted this as a feature, but it wasn't too lonf after that that users assumed they were trapped by this, and manufacturers started taking a different approach, where IR samples were added separately to sample sets, with a text or data file loaded into popular samplers, enabling users to more directly control the direction and strength of ER, and tutti IR. Nevertheless, imprinted samples can be manipulated to quite some degree to minimise or change the imprinted IR, albeit with quite a bit of effort, often by panning and doubling sections to different stage locations with an addition IR, narrowing both fields to minimise the imprinted effect. This sounds totally at odds with assumed perspectives of "traditional" IR, ER and EQ, but hey, if it works... As a former orchestral player, and with a formal music education, the knowledge i gained was invaluable in writing score, putting together orchestral projects, etc. But when using "factory" sample libs on a computer, a completely new set of skills was required to project that unique sonic image. I know most of you are electronica based, and by preference, but imho, the same principles apply. ZynaddsubFX as an example, comes with preset banks, and if one is experienced in using this fine app, you can almost figure out which preset the user has applied, if "nothing" is done to the preset, the same as factory sample libs. (The same is true for sample libs. "He's using SI, or VSL, or Project Sam", etc) It's the users job to be the muso, and consider the preset, or sample lib as the START point, from which lots can be done to develop one's own sound. It's not the end result, unless the user chooses that, by any stretch of the imagination, and in the hands of users who are willing to go on from the factory standard, it's possible to depart almost completely from the notion of this is AMSynth, this is how it "sounds...." I would hope that this short note provides another view for users, and possibly devs, with the mindset of a synth or sample set being the "finished" product. This may seem like stating the obvious, but i've heard many pieces over quite a few years from home users and professionals alike, where they write something assuming the result to be the finished article based on factory settings, and then wonder why it sounds the same as so many others, using the same tools, without a perceivable difference in sonic style. As a final comment, in the process of writing this, i respectfully suggest devs building plugins, VIs, and hosts consider this as well. The more tools you add (and make the process of using them as quick and efficient as possible, the easier the process of integrating manipulative tools like midi integration with controls you've built (for just one example), and the more hosts provide the mechanisms and framework that enables the users to depart even further from "factory" beginnings, the greater chance the user has to enjoy a much greater creative opportunity to express him or her self, in creating his or her unique sonic signature. Alex.

On 02/06/2014 10:16 PM, Simon Wise wrote: Part of my childish fantasy about composing for "real" instruments like strings or horns or organ is that the sampled or synthesized sound is just a placeholder until I can have a real instrumentalist play the part on a real instrument for a real recording. -- David W. Jones gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community http://dancingtreefrog.com

On 02/07/2014 02:47 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: Look at Jack White. He loves vintage analog equipment and effects. And the guitarist in my church band keeps his little old effects pedal limping along because he says he can't get the same sound from the much newer effects box he bought to replace it. -- David W. Jones gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community http://dancingtreefrog.com

On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 09:41 -0500, Brett McCoy wrote: ;D +1 Alban Berg Quartett ;) I'm a chronic depressive German, so nothing is able to hold a candle for my taste, than Schubert played by the Alban Berg Quartett playing Schubert :p and I really like 80s-no-future-punk-rock :D. Aaargh, I own a nice single coil Ibanez guitar, but I love to play the SG's of friends :). The fingerboard of a SG is close to a classical guitar, the mechanics are bad, but the "rest" is amazing. It's my favourite guitar, just because I grow up as a musician by imitating Jimi, I bought this single coil Ibanez. Today I would buy a SG :).

On 02/07/2014 05:54 AM, Jeremy Jongepier wrote: Lead guitarist I played with in 1973-1975 had a 1959 Gibson SG. It didn't feel or sound anything like my classical guitar (1973 Garcia Concert Model 3). In his hands, it was always high-treble with the wah-wah cranked for high treble; I still have a hearing loss in that range courtesy of him. Who in a garage band used earplugs back then? -- David W. Jones gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community http://dancingtreefrog.com

On Sat, 2014-02-08 at 09:14 -0500, Brett McCoy wrote: I dislike my cheap earplugs, but I plug tissues or similar into the ear canal. To rock without protection is very dangerous. OTOH for me acute hearing loss more often was caused psychologically than by too loud music. The medicine you get is poison and it's without guarantee. If you really lose hearing of some frequencies, it can't be healed anymore. Better protect your ears in the future. Btw. in Germany the maintenance of industrial health and safety standards are null and void if you work with children. By rights people should wear hearing protection when working with young children.

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:39 PM, david &lt;gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com&gt; wrote: More of a basement band, but... yeah :-D -- Brett W. McCoy -- http://www.brettwmccoy.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it, it would overturn the world." -- Jelaleddin Rumi

Am 06.02.2014 11:02, schrieb rosea grammostola: Tools do have an influence but it is up to the musician, to evaluate and master that influence in relation to his/her musical vision. And of course: if your musical vision is music with complex polyrythmic structure then a DAW that is optimized to do the olde 4onthefloor will be harder to use to get there. Anyway, I think you refer to the tendency of some hobbyists to actually *follow* lines that software draws by optimization for certain styles, sounds, structures etc. Some people love it, to use templates and resets and since some of those presets and templates are actually excellent, many releases sound similar. This is stupid but not the fault of the software. It is entirely up to those musicians. The only exception would be software, that is so primitive, that it excluselively allows to switch some presets. Regarding Bitwig and its built-ins, that is not the case. They ship some presets but you can alter them to make the plugins sound the same as freaked out as any obscure DIY-hardware or PD-patch would offer. When I talked to the devs at Bitwig I had the very strong impression, that one of their goals is to provide a system with infinite possibilities. Especially the concept for automation is so advanced, that it seems quite hard to handle for my tastes, when you really use all opportunities it has to offer. And the plugin-section is built for modularity, this does not work to the full yet but once it has matured it is actually a complete modular synth in the style of AMS. best regards HZN

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:18:00 +0100 tim &lt;tim(a)klingt.org&gt; wrote: AMS "AlsaModularSynth is a realtime modular synthesizer and effect processor." -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:18:00 +0100, tim wrote No, but we don't need - we have PureData, Supercollider and all sorts of modular synths. But to use them you need rich control channels. That was my point. Nobody said this. But there's a lot of music theses days where you can tell the tool the composer used by the sound of the composition. Cheers, RalfD

On 01/22/2014 06:31 PM, R. Mattes wrote: Me. If the the demo's stable and does what the teaser videos suggest, I'm not even sure I'd care about VST support. So if this works out the way I hope/think, you can buy my renoise license on march 27. Bitwig will be my work horse and (my new found love) radium will be my favorite toy... -- Atte http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk

On 01/28/2014 08:48 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: Which is expected and exactly what I need (the same as renoise and most other linux DAWs, I believe) -- Atte http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk

Am 2014년 01월 22일 18:29, schrieb laurence: the modular system also teased for the next version is strange too. I wish they'd just incorporate Pd into Bitwig. Who needs Max for Live then. m.

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:35:45 -0500 Paul Davis &lt;paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com&gt; wrote: Since we're just doing things, can you make it so that Ardour will just handle multiple USB mics connected to the computer it's running on?? *ducks and runs* -- ====================================================================== Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:02:02 -0500 Paul Davis &lt;paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com&gt; wrote: *** snip *** To quote Mr. F. Leghorn, "That's, I say, that's a JOKE, son." Having been at various times a software developer, tester and support body, I can attest that any time anyone says "Can't it just..." you're looking at a request that would earn a whole integer bump in the release number. I should have realised this was a bit too soon after last week's ranting that Ardour should be both professional and "hobbist" software rants; if I could send whisky to you via TCP/IP, you'd have some in hand already. My apologies for bringing on the shakes again! -- ====================================================================== Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:42:05 -0500 Paul Davis &lt;paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com&gt; wrote: I was too busy being an elite bastard Ardour hobbist and it went right over my head. -- ====================================================================== Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa

Am 2014년 01월 22일 22:35, schrieb Paul Davis: I wasn't suggesting that is is trivial. I was only wondering why they want to reinvent the wheel rather than making use of something that is already there (and in BSD license). This is the screenshot from their site and their patching environment: http://bitwig.com/dms/bitwig/img/announcement_page/sections/2/native-modula…

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Max &lt;abonnements(a)revolwear.com&gt; wrote: Maybe for the same reasons that led to Ingen or AlsaModularSynth or Reaktor or ... ? And maybe because they want tighter integration than can "easily" be reached with PD ?

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Lorenzo Sutton &lt;lorenzofsutton(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: clearly you have not seen Max for Live.

Usually internal plugins are enough. I mean, most plugins on Linux are very basic anyway (not all, but most). On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Brett McCoy &lt;idragosani(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Louigi Verona http://www.louigiverona.ru/

On 01/23/2014 09:46 AM, Lorenzo Sutton wrote: I find this a little bit funny. I hope you're not suggesting that a company of 8 people spending two years developing a DAW 1) are not likely to have a product that can out-perform (in features, completeness, roundedness and stability) the mostly one-man hobby projects (no offence, I love you all) that make up most of our eco system and 2) are not expected to put a price tag on the product? -- Atte http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Lorenzo Sutton wrote: *Highly* debatable. In essence, trying different tools before the idea has settled is much like jamming with new musicians: your concepts inevitably change. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Also, buttom-up? Nice typo :) Alexandre