10 Dec
2007
10 Dec
'07
10:31 a.m.
Hi all,
I started to work with audio software on Linux about one year ago and
wrote down
my experiences in a small weblog. Since I managed to get things on the way,
I thought it would be time to sum up the experiences I made in the past
year.
The result is a small midterm-report and I would be glad to hear some of
your thoughts.
Not about the article itself but about the questions I had before I
started to use Linux as
audio production base, about the answers you might have found and about
your personal Likes and Dislikes.
Link:
http://www.sternenhejim.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&i…
--
Best regards,
Sebastian.
Web: linuxaudioblog.sternenhejim.de
10 Dec
10 Dec
6:40 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 15:31 +0100, Sebastian Tschöpel wrote:
Hi all,
I started to work with audio software on Linux about one year ago and
wrote down
my experiences in a small weblog. Since I managed to get things on the way,
I thought it would be time to sum up the experiences I made in the past
year.
The result is a small midterm-report and I would be glad to hear some of
your thoughts.
Not about the article itself but about the questions I had before I
started to use Linux as
audio production base, about the answers you might have found and about
your personal Likes and Dislikes.
Link:
http://www.sternenhejim.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&i…
I think you missed a couple of advantages of Linux tools - 1) the
ability to directly ask the author(s) for a feature or bug fix and, in
many cases, get not only an answer but the the feature or bug fix back
in a relatively short time (at no cost in most cases). 2) The "company"
can go out of business and the tool won't be unsupported (unless
absolutely no one was using it). Even in that case, if you have some
money, you could probably hire someone to do some work on it.
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
http://www.thecfband.com
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chardonnay in one hand, chocolate in the other, body
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming 'WOO HOO, what a ride'"
11 Dec
11 Dec
2:38 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Hi Jan,
1) the
ability to directly ask the author(s) for a feature or bug fix and ....
Well, i thought of that, too. But that was more a general open-source
issue to me and
not directly connected with making music.
2) The "company"
can go out of business and the tool won't be unsupported (unless
absolutely no one was using it). Even in that case, if you have some
money, you could probably hire someone to do some work on it.
Of course you could but again: I tried to focus on what a musician would
think:
He won't try to proceed with the development of a tool when the project
is shut
down. At least not the musicians i know. They want to produce music as easy
as possible :)
Thanks for your ideas.
Best regards,
Sebastian.
web: linuxaudioblog.sternenhejim.de
3:20 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Sebastian Tschöpel wrote:
Musicians don't care if the maker of their software disappears or not.
If they really like the tool, they'll continue using it. If they decide
to replace it with something else later on, they'll do that.
But the open-source project doesn't necessarily shutdown. Someone else
interested, (and usually there are, I think there are pretty few
moribund open source projects), takes it over and continues, expands, or
even massively improves it. Or just merges it into something better.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
Hi Jan,
But it applies. I'm a musician, at least to a degree. Being able to
directly ask the developer for some feature that I think would be really
cool and just what I need to use - and having a chance of actually
getting it without having to wait wait wait while Big Corporate Company
gets around to implementing it and THEN most likely charges me a big
upgrade fee to get it - makes me quite happy.
1) the
ability to directly ask the author(s) for a feature or bug fix and ....
Well, i thought of that, too. But that was more a general open-source
issue to me and not directly connected with making music. 2) The
"company"
can go out of business and the tool won't be unsupported (unless
absolutely no one was using it). Even in that case, if you have some
money, you could probably hire someone to do some work on it.
Of course you could but again: I tried to focus on what a musician would
think:
He won't try to proceed with the development of a tool when the project
is shut
down. At least not the musicians i know. They want to produce music as easy
as possible :) 
1:54 a.m.
On 10/12/2007, Sebastian Tschöpel <tschoseb(a)tu-cottbus.de> wrote:
The result is a small midterm-report and I would be glad to hear some of
your thoughts.
Not about the article itself but about the questions I had before I
started to use Linux as
audio production base, about the answers you might have found and about
your personal Likes and Dislikes.
Linux audio has certainly come a long way in the last year, but there are
certain
problems that are very frustrating and other limitations that make
it fall completely flat on its face.
Although I have tinkered with it for a while, it is only recently that it
has actually become a viable audio platform for me. The two key factors are
wineasio and the continued improvements in the Windows DAW Reaper. This
means that I no longer have to waste so much time fighting with technology.
In fact it came just in time. I was on the point of giving up on Linux for
audio and was only prevented from doing so by my Windows 2000 installation
committing suicide—it stopped being able to recognise the disk geometry
properly, much as, about 3 years ago, Windows XP 3 times in 2 weeks which,
strangely enough, happened also to be the last two weeks that I voluntarily
used Windows, but I digress.
Like with any mainstream commercial DAW, you can start up Reaper and carry
on working where you left off. This is an absolute essential for
conventional multitrack recording. LASH is supposed to do this, but even if
I could work out what on earth I am supposed to do with it (a documentation
problem at the very least), it isn't yet supported by enough audio
applications to make it useful. Proper and comprehensive session management
is an absolute must.
Rosegarden is a very useful tool in certain circumstances. It could be
brilliant in a school music class (I'm sure there's someone out there who's
already using it in this way), and I myself use it for teaching myself
formal compostional techniques through score writing, but it just doesn't
cut it as a DAW. For instance if there is a way to create volume envelopes
for midi tracks, I have yet to find it. Another problem is that I can't
transpose the midi input so I have to route midi through qmidiroute, which
always takes a minute to set up. Add up all these little and not so little
problems and you start to find that you have a big problem.
None of the sequencers for Linux have groove quantise. Admittedly Reaper
doesn't have it yet either, but it looks like it should turn up in the not
too distant future. For the time being I can do without by concentrating on
recording those of my songs that don't need it, or by doing something
convoluted like opening midi files in some other windows program like style
enhancer, twiddling with them, and importing them back into whatever, but
eventually I will need to use it a lot more. And if Reaper doesn't deliver
soon enough then I will have to switch to OS X that does the job. What
really concerns me as far as open source apps are concerned is that I see no
sign of anyone considering this to be an important issue. If you want to
process a particular audio track in a way that is beyond the capabilities of
your DAW you can do this at any time, but if your timing is not the way you
want it you are stuffed right from square one.
For instance FL Studio exists for no other purpose than to help people
create grooves. Groove quantise is therefore one of its most important
features. Therefore it just isn't true that LMMS can do the kind of job that
FL Studio can do, yet it seems that many people in the Linux audio world
think that it is. There is a lot of this kind of over-optimism within the
Linux audio world and this is dangerous because it can lead to complacency.
Developers need to face up to the stringent demands of their target users
and do their best to meet them. wineasio does this, as does jost, as does
zynaddsubfx. Rosegarden is nothing like Cubase and there is nothing to be
gained by pretending that it is. MuSE is a great project and it has achieved
a lot, but I don't think it is being disrespectful to the developers to say
that it still has a fair way to go yet.
Jack is another area of concern for me. People say a lot of good things
about it, and I have a lot of good things to say about it as well, but it
has some serious problems that don't seem to get mentioned very much.
Basically it is way too fascist. A client that doesn't return its data fast
enough and it is booted off. This usually means that you have to terminate
the client and start again, in which case you will also need to patch it
again. At best you have to manually restart the jack engine the way you can
with hydrogen. And if you hibernate your machine then you have to restart
all your clients—I don't know what happens when you suspend to ram because
suspend to ram doesn't work on my box, as it doesn't on a lot of linux
systems. Given the lack of adequate session management, this causes a lot of
irritation and wastes a lot of time. And sometimes I find that a lot of
distortion creeps into the jack signal and it doesn't go away until I
actually kill some clients. You don't get any of this kind of stuff with
coreaudio; you just don't have to think about it. One of two things needs to
change. Either jack must become more forgiving or client applications must
automatically reestablish their own connection with jack and their routing
to other clients.
On the other hand jack does offer possibilities for routing that exceed
those of any of its competitors, such as rewire or rearoute. What with
wineasio, jackosx, netjack and jackdmp, it should soon be possible to
connect pretty well anything to anything. That is a great achievement. It
means that you can sit in the kitchen area of your supremely elegant loft in
your black polo neck drinking something from your personal espresso machine
and doing stuff on your spanking new macbook. This means that you won't
damage your reputation with all your beautiful and sophisticated
art-mag-reading, non nerdy friends even though, unknown to them, you are
actually farming out a lot of the really heavy dsp to a stack of cheap linux
boxes hidden in the airing cupboard. Apart from implementing netjack in
jackdmp, the last set of hurdles I can see as far as all this goes is
getting jack transport to play nicely with MMC, MTC and coreaudio transport.
Hydrogen is really looking very good, but it is lacking in the midi sync
department, it slows down rather than stuttering when it is overloaded,
which is not good when you need it to keep in sync with something else, and
you can't yet gate your hi-hats. And of course it also lacks groove
quantise.
As far as distros go, I tried to work with ubuntu studio, but I ran into too
many limitations. I got way too many xruns was poor and I found myself
having to compile a lot of audio stuff myself for one reason or another. In
the end I decided to keep the Ubuntu installation for normal work and to
create a separate gentoo installation for the audio stuff. This is now
working well, but it was quite a lengthy, difficult and frustrating process
setting it up. I am aware that there are a lot of music-oriented
distributions out there that I haven't tried, but from what I read, it looks
like they all have their limitations. Again, a good deal of progress has
been made this year, but there is still a lot to be done.
There are also some outstanding driver issues. For instance many functions
are not accessible on my audigy2 card. Perhaps this is not in itself too
important because you'll definitely need to get something more appropriate
if you seriously get into professional recording, but it's important for
people like me who can't yet afford something more specialised. More
generally, the fact that a widely used soundcard is not supported properly
puts a big question mark over whether some more obscure piece of hardware is
supported. This kind of thing causes FUD in potential users.
I should probably let someone else get a word in now.
Robert
--
Robert Persson
ireneshusband(a)gmail.com
2:46 a.m.
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 00:54, Robert Persson wrote:
important features. Therefore it just isn't true
that LMMS can do
the kind of job that FL Studio can do, yet it seems that many
people in the Linux audio world think that it is. There is a lot of
this kind of over-optimism within the Linux audio world and this is
dangerous because it can lead to complacency. Developers need to
Longtime Linux users do sometimes get complacent because they think
some Linux application has reached the state of the art, when
meanwhile the state of the art has moved on. How many years was it
that people were holding up Tux Racer with its 1995 graphics as an
example of how Linux could compete as a gaming OS? (And it was a
great game that didn't deserve to be called something it wasn't.)
How often have you heard "Oh, don't bother trying to get Visio
working under Wine, because Dia is better anyway?"
Telling people that kind of stuff and having them switch to Linux --
which takes probably more effort than a lifelong Unix nerd trying to
switch to Windows -- and be disappointed, is far worse than
saying "Yeah, we have some programs that are sort of like Visio, but
nothing with the same variety of stencils and templates for network
management" and letting them try it with more realistic expectations.
But when it comes to Linux audio in particular, I think things have
been moving faster in the last couple of years, not settling into
complacency.
I have some of the same complaints as you (Rosegarden won't let me
manipulate note data as flexibly as the shovelware Windows 3.1
sequencer that came with my sound card 12 years ago; it takes hours
for me just to get Jack and the ALSA sequencer, my MIDI keyboard and
my desired client programs working together, let alone LASH, and by
then I've run out of time to compose or record, and the next time I
can look forward to going through the exact same ordeal) but I do see
forward progress here every week, if not every day. And a couple
years ago I wouldn't have even dreamed of trying an audio-oriented
live Linux CD, if any of the current ones even existed then. (No
offense intended to whomever was working on Agnula/Demudi/Rehmudi,
but none of them really filled me with much confidence.) While the
whole free-software-CC-licensed-music culture is still a drop in the
bucket, it's a bigger drop.
I was still far more productive musically in Windows 98 or even 95
than I am in Linux, but then, I had a lot more free time in those
days. At least some of it was probably just a matter of familiarity
and staying in practice. There are definitely gaps, and the "many
little programs that you have to connect together" philosophy that
works so well on the command line is utterly baffling to me in the
GUI, but I feel pretty confident that once I make it up the learning
curve I might end up being more productive someday. Even if I have
to write my own .rg batch processor in perl or something.
And yes, after all these years, "suspend to RAM" is still largely
broken. I feel pretty lucky that "suspend to disk" works on my
laptop and have probably become a little complacent about how my
notebook works under Linux versus how it would have worked under XP.
Maybe a lot of people making music with Linux are just making do
because they can't afford the 2 or 3 grand involved in getting a
decent Mac notebook and the commercial software required to make
music at a level beyond GarageBand, but the truth is, much of the
music I've heard here is pretty uncompromising.
Rob
3:43 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Hi Rob,
interesting thought....
Maybe a lot of people making music with Linux are just
making do
because they can't afford the 2 or 3 grand involved in getting a
decent
Mac notebook and the commercial software required to make music at a
level beyond GarageBand, but the truth is, much of the music I've heard
here is pretty uncompromising.
That's an important fact. The "problem/situation/whatever" is, that a
lot of home
recorders/semi-professionals use windows tools for free (no guess, it's
true) though
there aren't free at all. And therefore they compare quasi-free tools.
Best example: photoshop. It's a silly habit. Some friends of mine
compare photoshop with
gimp, saying gimp sucks because it lacks of certain functions but they
forget that
there is a gap of at least 500€ from gimp to photoshop they wouldn't
want to pay if they had to.
That has nothing to do with people who compare tools on a basis where
they posses
or are ready to pay the amout for the commercial application.
Best regards,
Sebastian.
web:linuxaudioblog.sternenhejim.de
7:12 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Le Mardi, 11 Décembre 2007 08:42:56 +0100,
Sebastian Tschöpel <tschoseb(a)tu-cottbus.de> a écrit :
I do not agree with the hardware issues of the article. At least not on
the basic functionalities. As far as I'm concerned I bought, plugged
and played the following items: Alesis Control Pad, and the M-Audio
Prokeys88 and M-Audio Axiom 25 keyboards. Now, there's no software to
use for storing presets on the Axiom 25 (only Windows) but that's OK
since I don't need that function. And the Control Pad came with BFD
drums that so far I cannot use on Linux (haven't looked at it that much
either). I wouldn't call that hardware issues.
The M-Audio 1010LT card did not require either any configuration apart
from installing it in the PC and reading the manual to know what the
bunch of wires means.
I think these hardware components might be very well be popular. And I
wouldn't be surprised that _any_ MIDI keyboard would simply show up in
jack after connecting, without aby other thing to do.
And what about drivers ? Drivers ? I never installed any friggin'
driver in Linux for making music. I easily downloaded using the
friendly graphical interface for KDE kyum the Planet CCRMA applications
I needed for making music and that's it. But drivers ? I'm curious
about what kind of drivers you need under Linux, and to which hardware
they belong. Surely there must be some exoensive stuff out there that
requires drivers...
Tschüß,
Al
7:57 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Hi Al,
your right on that point: Old windows habits but it's not a driver.
I meant "firmware". My bad. In my case, I had some serious headaches
because of the firmware for my M-Audio Oxygen8 --> didn't worked
immediately after I plugged it in.
No firmware, no oxygen8.
there's no software to use for storing presets on
the Axiom 25 (only
Windows) but that's OK
since I don't need that function.
And the Control Pad came with BFD
drums that so far I cannot use on Linux (haven't looked at it that much
either). I wouldn't call that hardware issues.
I would. Of course this problem isn't caused by the hardware itself but
its a hardware issue to me when I can only use "basic functionality" because
there is no software available to do this kind of job. I had the same
problem
with a Wacom Graphire tablet. No expresskeys, only the basic functions.
Some people can live with that but I don't.
The M-Audio 1010LT card did not require either any
configuration apart
from installing it in the PC and reading the manual to know what the
bunch of wires means.
Just as my terratec. By contrast. a friend of mine is close to throw his
computer out the
window since his soundblaster something doesn't want to record anything.
I don't say that you'll experience constant hardware problems, but that
for a less experienced user it could get dissappointing under certain
circumstances.
And I
wouldn't be surprised that _any_ MIDI keyboard would simply show up in
jack after connecting
That is correct for MIDI devices since it is a very old standard. If you
plug them
in via USB it doesn't have to be that easy --> like my Oxygen 8 or a
friend who
uses the E-MU 0404 USB. No chance.
Best regards,
Sebastian.
10:04 a.m.
I don't know about the hardware issues because I've never had any
problems getting hardware to work under Linux. The hardest thing I
dealt with was my M-Audio external usb sound card which took all of an
hour to get sorted. Everything is plug-and-play with Windows? That
must be nice, but audio sounds better in Linux. Latency can be
incredibly low. Forget producing for a second: If you use the
low-latency kernel from CCRMA, it's like hearing your favorite songs
for the first time.
As for "quantizing the groove" -- I don't even know what that means,
but it probably has something to do with the fact that 99 percent of
commercial music sounds just like a clock that plays notes instead of
ticks and tocks. It ticks me off when I hear a song that would be
good if played by an actual human being, but to me it is unbearable
because it's... what? *too* perfect? James Brown didn't need to
quantize his grooves, and he was a hell of a lot groovier than the
punks comin' off the streets today. I'd rather hear Neil Young and
Crazy Horse (or any halfway decent garage band) rock out a sloppy set
than suffer through the saccharine drivel on the radio these days.
And, well, 'tis a poor carpenter who blames his tools. People are
making great music with Linux while in the commercial world engineers
ruin perfectly good songs through over-production. There's got to be
a happy medium where production enhances a song but doesn't turn it
into a clock tick. It's been said before, but the Beatles recorded
Sgt. Peppers on a four-track.
The fact is that Linux audio gives you all the tools you need to
record music and engineer the signals to your liking. In some ways
(low latency) Linux blows commercial products out of the water. In
other ways (GUIs, "quantizing the groove"), maybe it's not there.
Whatever. I like it, and I'm sticking with it until somebody gives me
a good reason to spend thousands of dollars for a nice GUI and the
ability to "quantize the groove."
10:47 a.m.
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 09:04, Charles Linart wrote:
As for "quantizing the groove" -- I
don't even know what that
means, but it probably has something to do with the fact that 99
Just because you're ignorant about a function doesn't mean it's
unimportant. Also, "You don't need that feature, it sucks anyway"
followed by a rant about how successful music sucks, is an evasion,
not a real argument, even if you did know what the hell you were
talking about.
Try Googling next time.
Rob
10:58 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Rob wrote:
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 09:04, Charles Linart
wrote:
Found on a Cakewalk docs site :
*Groove Quantize*
Groove Quantize allows you to change the "feel" of an existing
performance. This is especially handy for spicing up step-entered MIDI
data or performances that need tight, groovin' timing.
The best way to learn how to use Groove Quantize is by experimentation.
Other than the Groove Source itself, the settings that will effect
Groove Quantize the most are the Resolution, Strength Duration, Strength
Time, and Strength Velocity.
So now we all know.
Best,
dp
As for "quantizing the groove" -- I
don't even know what that
means, but it probably has something to do with the fact that 99
Just because you're ignorant about a function doesn't mean it's
unimportant. Also, "You don't need that feature, it sucks anyway"
followed by a rant about how successful music sucks, is an evasion,
not a real argument, even if you did know what the hell you were
talking about.
Try Googling next time.
1:30 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Tue, December 11, 2007 14:58, Dave Phillips wrote:
Found on a Cakewalk docs site :
*Groove Quantize*
Groove Quantize allows you to change the "feel" of an existing
performance. This is especially handy for spicing up step-entered MIDI
data or performances that need tight, groovin' timing. The best way to
learn how to use Groove Quantize is by experimentation. Other than the
Groove Source itself, the settings that will effect Groove Quantize the
most are the Resolution, Strength Duration, Strength Time, and Strength
Velocity.
So now we all know.
yes, i've used cakewalk pro audio "groove-quantize" midi effect once
before. the way i understand it, you first preset an existing midi pattern
as your chosen groove style, or so-called. groove-quantization is then the
process in which an arbitrary midi sequence is quantized or made more or
less similar to that preset style pattern in regard to onsets, velocity,
duration, etc. in short, to have similar "feel".
otoh, there's also another midi effect, called "swing-quantize", being
fundamentally different. here, iirc, the quarters are moved back and
forward to sound like triplets and/or vice-versa.
it is my understanding (and i can be wrong) that most hardware like the
akai mpcs, the roland grooveboxes et al. has it called "groove-quantize"
but in fact is a form of "swing-quantize", at least according to
cakewalk's definition.
cheers
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
3:50 p.m.
New subject: groove quantisation Was : A year of Linux Audio revisited
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:29:56 -0000 (WET)
"Rui Nuno Capela" <rncbc(a)rncbc.org> wrote:
On Tue, December 11, 2007 14:58, Dave Phillips wrote:
I can't help thinking this just replaces one form of mechanisation with
another. Even when recording step-time I have all forms of grid locking
turned *off*. Notes are very rarely actually on the allotted beat.
For preference I'll input via a MIDI keyboard, and if the part is
particularly difficult I'll play maybe just 4 bars, then rinse and
repeat. Doing this I've learned to recognise the pattern various
rhythms produce in a matrix editor, which is useful in it's own right.
Unless you're doing some techno stuff I regard any form of quantisation
as an admission of failure.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Found on a Cakewalk docs site :
*Groove Quantize*
Groove Quantize allows you to change the "feel" of an existing
performance. This is especially handy for spicing up step-entered MIDI
data or performances that need tight, groovin' timing. The best way to
learn how to use Groove Quantize is by experimentation. Other than the
Groove Source itself, the settings that will effect Groove Quantize the
most are the Resolution, Strength Duration, Strength Time, and Strength
Velocity.
So now we all know.
yes, i've used cakewalk pro audio "groove-quantize" midi effect once
before. the way i understand it, you first preset an existing midi pattern
as your chosen groove style, or so-called. groove-quantization is then the
process in which an arbitrary midi sequence is quantized or made more or
less similar to that preset style pattern in regard to onsets, velocity,
duration, etc. in short, to have similar "feel".
otoh, there's also another midi effect, called "swing-quantize", being
fundamentally different. here, iirc, the quarters are moved back and
forward to sound like triplets and/or vice-versa.
it is my understanding (and i can be wrong) that most hardware like the
akai mpcs, the roland grooveboxes et al. has it called "groove-quantize"
but in fact is a form of "swing-quantize", at least according to
cakewalk's definition.
cheers
12 Dec
12 Dec
3:41 a.m.
New subject: groove quantisation Was : A year of Linux Audio revisited
Folderol wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:29:56 -0000 (WET)
"Rui Nuno Capela" <rncbc(a)rncbc.org> wrote:
I find it rather interesting that since I've been recording MIDI
keyboard input to sequencers - I have to turn on a metronome and really
really really concentrate to make notes land on the allotted beat. Left
to my own, my rhythms change, what I might have heard (while playing) as
4 8th notes was actually 5 8ths played in the same amount of time, etc.
My classical piano teacher once told me that I had a natural syncopation
to my playing. Took much work to get that under control for classical music!
Then I learned a Chopin composition, and my teacher told me that in some
passages the only time it was important for both hands to be in time
together was that they both reached the end at the same time. ;-)
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
On Tue, December 11, 2007 14:58, Dave Phillips
wrote:
I can't help thinking this just replaces one form of mechanisation with
another. Even when recording step-time I have all forms of grid locking
turned *off*. Notes are very rarely actually on the allotted beat. Found on a Cakewalk docs site :
*Groove Quantize*
Groove Quantize allows you to change the "feel" of an existing
performance. This is especially handy for spicing up step-entered MIDI
data or performances that need tight, groovin' timing. The best way to
learn how to use Groove Quantize is by experimentation. Other than the
Groove Source itself, the settings that will effect Groove Quantize the
most are the Resolution, Strength Duration, Strength Time, and Strength
Velocity.
So now we all know.
yes, i've used cakewalk pro audio "groove-quantize" midi effect
once
before. the way i understand it, you first preset an existing midi pattern
as your chosen groove style, or so-called. groove-quantization is then the
process in which an arbitrary midi sequence is quantized or made more or
less similar to that preset style pattern in regard to onsets, velocity,
duration, etc. in short, to have similar "feel".
otoh, there's also another midi effect, called "swing-quantize", being
fundamentally different. here, iirc, the quarters are moved back and
forward to sound like triplets and/or vice-versa.
it is my understanding (and i can be wrong) that most hardware like the
akai mpcs, the roland grooveboxes et al. has it called "groove-quantize"
but in fact is a form of "swing-quantize", at least according to
cakewalk's definition.
cheers
11 Dec
11 Dec
11:12 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Le Mardi, 11 Décembre 2007 09:58:50 -0500,
Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> a écrit :
Found on a Cakewalk docs site :
*Groove Quantize*
Groove Quantize allows you to change the "feel" of an existing
performance. This is especially handy for spicing up step-entered
MIDI data or performances that need tight, groovin' timing.
The best way to learn how to use Groove Quantize is by
experimentation. Other than the Groove Source itself, the settings
that will effect Groove Quantize the most are the Resolution,
Strength Duration, Strength Time, and Strength Velocity.
So now we all know.
I though it had more to do with fitting notes to a tempo. Like when
something is recorded but could use a bit of help to be tight to the
tempo. Anyways, I'm pretty sure Seq24 does that (not used it
personally).
On the other hand, I once had a Roland drum machine that 'spiced up' a
pattern by introducing variations in tone, tempo and attack. Hydrogen
does that.
BTW, I read your article in Linux Magazine (yes, that magazine with the
full-page mostly Windows 'shareware' advertisement ;-) and perhaps an
interesting way to try 64Studio on a Windows machine is by means of the
VmPlayer 64Studio virtual machine appliance. Some downloading to do,
though. I'd try it, but I don't have enough Windows interest, and the
'Windows people' I know are not into playing/making music.
Cheers,
Al
12 Dec
12 Dec
1:51 a.m.
On 11/12/2007, lanas <lanas(a)securenet.net> wrote:
Le Mardi, 11 Décembre 2007 09:58:50 -0500,
Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> a écrit :
No. Dave is right. What you are referring to, I have just discovered, is
sometimes called "grid quantise".
Here is a good explanation of how groove quantise works in protools:
http://www.audiomidi.com/classroom/protools_corner/ptcorner_63.cfm
For some really fancy midi stuff going way further than groove quantise, you
could take a look at some of Ntonyx's products, such as StyleEnhancer and
StyleMorpher. If Rosegarden could implement some of those features that
would be very useful for composers.
--
Robert Persson
ireneshusband(a)gmail.com
Found on a Cakewalk docs site :
*Groove Quantize*
Groove Quantize allows you to change the "feel" of an existing
performance. This is especially handy for spicing up step-entered
MIDI data or performances that need tight, groovin' timing.
The best way to learn how to use Groove Quantize is by
experimentation. Other than the Groove Source itself, the settings
that will effect Groove Quantize the most are the Resolution,
Strength Duration, Strength Time, and Strength Velocity.
So now we all know.
I though it had more to do with fitting notes to a tempo. Like when
something is recorded but could use a bit of help to be tight to the
tempo. Anyways, I'm pretty sure Seq24 does that (not used it
personally). 
6:42 a.m.
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 05:50, Robert Persson wrote:
Here is a good explanation of how groove quantise
works in protools:
http://www.audiomidi.com/classroom/protools_corner/ptcorner_63.cfm
For some really fancy midi stuff going way further than groove quantise,
you could take a look at some of Ntonyx's products, such as StyleEnhancer
and StyleMorpher. If Rosegarden could implement some of those features that
would be very useful for composers.
Groove quantization is one of the oldest outstanding feature requests in the
Rosegarden tracker, submitted by me in 2002:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=633259&gro…
Unfortunately, as for so many features, this has simply never percolated to
the top of my priority queue, or stack, or whatever my brain uses, and nobody
else has ever shown much interest in coding it. And sadly I only have eight
hands and three heads and there are only 132 hours in the day.
Your remark about the unhelpfulness of comparing Rosegarden with Cubase
arrived on the same day that we removed an introductory note that made that
comparison from the Rosegarden website. Although it's sometimes helpful as a
quick answer to "what the hell is this program with this meaningless name
supposed to be for?", it is certainly problematic, not just as a description
but as a statement of intent. Rosegarden would probably have benefited over
the years from trying less hard to do absolutely everything: attempting
to "be Cubase" is arguably undesirable as well as unachievable.
A related point is that stronger "competition" might also have been
beneficial. If other Linux sequencers were more widely recognised as the
obvious choice for certain sorts of users, we would have felt more free to
focus only on those use cases we were really comfortable with. Being more
popular with users doesn't necessarily gain you a huge number of extra
developers. In this world, as a developer you aren't really in competition
with other applications for user interest, except where it pains you that no
other application is providing a feature at all, or to please your ego. But
it's more important to maintain your own interest by doing the things you
really want to see done.
Sorry, another unhelpful digression in this over-digressed thread.
For what it's worth, Rosegarden does support grid quantize (snapping events to
a grid), swing quantize (displacing the off-beat), and iterative quantize
(pulling events only part of the way to the grid lines), and it can construct
a tempo map from a MIDI segment based on the difference between the actual
beat timings in the segment and the expected timings at the current time
signature (sort of inside-out quantization). But no groove quantize.
Chris
7 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Hello Chris,
And sadly I only have eight
hands and three heads and there are only 132 hours in the day.
At first: lol.
Secondly, I really appreciate your work and I would never complain about
anything
concerning your dedication or how fast some tool gets developed.
Your remark about the unhelpfulness of comparing
Rosegarden with Cubase
arrived on the same day that we removed an introductory note that made that
comparison from the Rosegarden website.
I wanted to pick up that exact sentence as an example and I was glad to
see that you removed it.
Although it's sometimes helpful as a
quick answer to "what the hell is this program with this meaningless name
supposed to be for?"
A quick "an open-source audio/midi sequencer & score editor" would be
enough. In
my oppinion. This way, you don't get in trouble being compared to such a
tool like Cubase,
since this is like comparing apples and oranges.
A related point is that stronger
"competition" might also have been
beneficial. [...] But
it's more important to maintain your own interest by doing the things you
really want to see done.
I cannot say anything about that, but I think this thought is very
interesting.
Thanks for you comment.
7:49 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Chris Cannam wrote:
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 05:50, Robert Persson
wrote:
IMHO this remark gets to the heart of the problem. As a human being we
have limited resources. I personally have to settle with one head, 2
fingers and 24hrs in a day. The fact that humans also have to eat, and
that food is seldom available 'for free' makes that some part of our
resources are allocated to surviving. Oh, and having 'a life' also
consumes an astonishing amount of these resources.
There is no way around the fact that one has to eat, and that that
doesn't go well with writing free software in the 'free beer'
interpretation. Which seems to be the main reason why people turn to
Linux. I've done a quick check on the cheapest offer from Cakewalk
(Project 5) that might have all functionality that came up in this
thread, and it is 100euro here. If all Rosegarden users were to pay
Chris 100euro, I think Rosegarden would have more features than 'Project
5', or maybe even Sonar.
The catch 22 seems to be that we currently attract a lot of 'free beer'
attention. But in order to get really professional software, you need
time, and time = money. So in order for the programs to become more
professional, we need people that are willing to pay for them. Which we
don't seem to have.
You could think of it this way: suppose you have a Linux tool that has
20% of the functionality of an the equivalent Win/Mac tool, you could
argue that it's worth 20% of the money. Now add all tools you use on
Linux and try to estimate this '20%' value of your software collection.
IMHO that's what you would have to be prepared to pay. Of course I know
that this is a rude extrapolation, and that 20% of the functionality
usually doesn't get you anywhere. But to be honest, I think most of the
tools are more near 80% of the 'competing software's functionality.
To give you another idea, from my personal pet project (FFADO):
we are registered on the ohloh site
(http://www.ohloh.net/projects/8040?p=FFADO), and one of the things they
do is scan your code repository and use some industry standard way of
value-ing the code (COCOMO). In the FFADO case they end up with a value
Here is a good explanation of how groove quantise
works in protools:
http://www.audiomidi.com/classroom/protools_corner/ptcorner_63.cfm
For some really fancy midi stuff going way further than groove quantise,
you could take a look at some of Ntonyx's products, such as StyleEnhancer
and StyleMorpher. If Rosegarden could implement some of those features that
would be very useful for composers.
Groove quantization is one of the oldest outstanding feature requests in the
Rosegarden tracker, submitted by me in 2002:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=633259&gro…
Unfortunately, as for so many features, this has simply never percolated to
the top of my priority queue, or stack, or whatever my brain uses, and nobody
else has ever shown much interest in coding it. And sadly I only have eight
hands and three heads and there are only 132 hours in the day. $1.000.000. In other words, if you were to have a
commercial company
develop the code, it would cost you 1M$. But hey, pick me,
I'll do it
'for free'... Rosegarden is also present on ohloh, and is valued more
than $2M.
I admit that these numbers are large extrapolations and have limited
applicability, but they do provide some reference.
The only project that seems to be able to break this circle is Ardour.
I'd say that that is due to the fact that Paul didn't have to worry
about his survival for the time it took to bring Ardour to a critical
level. I.e. a level that was high enough for people to start paying for
Ardour as soon as Paul's self-funding approached it's limits.
For myself I can say that I'm spending an incredible amount of time and
energy into coding open source, and that there is not that much in
return. Well, there is the respect from fellow coders, gratitude from
users, even free hardware (lucky me). But that doesn't pay the bills. So
I have to go out and spend time at 'something that someone actually pays
for'. And hence it takes 3 years to reach the functionality that comes
'out of the box' on another OS. If I would be sure I can earn a decent
living with writing 'free' software, I would seriously consider it. But
alas...
Note that this is not really a reaction to the original blog giving an
overview of the current Linux audio status, but more an attempt at
expressing my view on why this is as it is, and why it's IMHO not very
likely to change soon. It's like the Ableton guy said at LAC07: "I'm
pretty happy with the we-sell-shrinkwrapped-boxed-software model, and I
don't see a reason to change that.". Read: "why would we give it away if
people seem to be willing to pay for it?".
2 cents for discussion,
Pieter Palmers
8:24 a.m.
New subject: Payment In Kind Experiment
Payment In Kind Experiment or Funding Musical Free Software Development
Was: Re: [LAU] A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your
oppinion
New ideas at the bottom, quote for context.
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 06:49:08 Pieter Palmers wrote:
Chris Cannam wrote:
Nice write up.
I have had this or a very similar thought recently in another context. So here
is my first attempt to develop it some for this context.
We have people writing music making software and people using the same
software to make music.
So. What can we do?
1. Every software project that wants to could offer a version for sale that is
basically identical to the one available gratis. Hey, perhaps with an
autographed manual or a certificate of support to hang on the wall, or
perhaps to get your name in a "funders" list in the code.
2. Request for coding help.
3. Request for support in the form of Free Music.
3.a. Please send us music using a Free License that you made using our stuff.
If you don't have any originals of your own, here is where you can find some
to do your own take of and send in. We can include this as a showcase of our
stuff.
3.b. Help us put together a CD of such Free Music that we can sell and let the
proceeds support the project. ***
*** This may just be the key idea. Now we get funding not just from the
limited number of people who use Free Software to make music, but from the
much wider number of people who are willing to buy music.
If anyone wants to discuss these possibilities further, I would be most happy
to do so. A brainstorm in making 3.b. effective would be welcome.
all the best,
drew
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 05:50, Robert
Persson wrote:
IMHO this remark gets to the heart of the problem. As a human being we
have limited resources. I personally have to settle with one head, 2
fingers and 24hrs in a day. The fact that humans also have to eat, and
that food is seldom available 'for free' makes that some part of our
resources are allocated to surviving. Oh, and having 'a life' also
consumes an astonishing amount of these resources.
There is no way around the fact that one has to eat, and that that
doesn't go well with writing free software in the 'free beer'
interpretation. Which seems to be the main reason why people turn to
Linux. I've done a quick check on the cheapest offer from Cakewalk
(Project 5) that might have all functionality that came up in this
thread, and it is 100euro here. If all Rosegarden users were to pay
Chris 100euro, I think Rosegarden would have more features than 'Project
5', or maybe even Sonar.
The catch 22 seems to be that we currently attract a lot of 'free beer'
attention. But in order to get really professional software, you need
time, and time = money. So in order for the programs to become more
professional, we need people that are willing to pay for them. Which we
don't seem to have.
You could think of it this way: suppose you have a Linux tool that has
20% of the functionality of an the equivalent Win/Mac tool, you could
argue that it's worth 20% of the money. Now add all tools you use on
Linux and try to estimate this '20%' value of your software collection.
IMHO that's what you would have to be prepared to pay. Of course I know
that this is a rude extrapolation, and that 20% of the functionality
usually doesn't get you anywhere. But to be honest, I think most of the
tools are more near 80% of the 'competing software's functionality.
To give you another idea, from my personal pet project (FFADO):
we are registered on the ohloh site
(http://www.ohloh.net/projects/8040?p=FFADO), and one of the things they
do is scan your code repository and use some industry standard way of
value-ing the code (COCOMO). In the FFADO case they end up with a value
Here is a good explanation of how groove quantise
works in protools:
http://www.audiomidi.com/classroom/protools_corner/ptcorner_63.cfm
For some really fancy midi stuff going way further than groove quantise,
you could take a look at some of Ntonyx's products, such as
StyleEnhancer and StyleMorpher. If Rosegarden could implement some of
those features that would be very useful for composers.
Groove quantization is one of the oldest outstanding feature requests in
the Rosegarden tracker, submitted by me in 2002:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=633259&gro…
4932&atid=354932
Unfortunately, as for so many features, this has simply never percolated
to the top of my priority queue, or stack, or whatever my brain uses, and
nobody else has ever shown much interest in coding it. And sadly I only
have eight hands and three heads and there are only 132 hours in the day. $1.000.000. In other words, if you were to have a
commercial company
develop the code, it would cost you 1M$. But hey, pick me, I'll do it
'for free'... Rosegarden is also present on ohloh, and is valued more
than $2M.
I admit that these numbers are large extrapolations and have limited
applicability, but they do provide some reference.
The only project that seems to be able to break this circle is Ardour.
I'd say that that is due to the fact that Paul didn't have to worry
about his survival for the time it took to bring Ardour to a critical
level. I.e. a level that was high enough for people to start paying for
Ardour as soon as Paul's self-funding approached it's limits.
For myself I can say that I'm spending an incredible amount of time and
energy into coding open source, and that there is not that much in
return. Well, there is the respect from fellow coders, gratitude from
users, even free hardware (lucky me). But that doesn't pay the bills. So
I have to go out and spend time at 'something that someone actually pays
for'. And hence it takes 3 years to reach the functionality that comes
'out of the box' on another OS. If I would be sure I can earn a decent
living with writing 'free' software, I would seriously consider it. But
alas...
Note that this is not really a reaction to the original blog giving an
overview of the current Linux audio status, but more an attempt at
expressing my view on why this is as it is, and why it's IMHO not very
likely to change soon. It's like the Ableton guy said at LAC07: "I'm
pretty happy with the we-sell-shrinkwrapped-boxed-software model, and I
don't see a reason to change that.". Read: "why would we give it away if
people seem to be willing to pay for it?".
2 cents for discussion,
Pieter Palmers 
11:13 a.m.
New subject: Payment In Kind Experiment
From: drew Roberts <zotz(a)100jamz.com>
Payment In Kind Experiment or Funding Musical Free Software Development
Was: Re: [LAU] A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your
oppinion
New ideas at the bottom, quote for context.
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 06:49:08 Pieter Palmers wrote:
a very interesting idea, drew. indeed, it is probably necessary to leverage resources
outside of the software users, since our user base is so small. a key question, to my
mind, is how to make something like this look desirable for folks at large -- the simple
fact that it has been made using free software doesn't in any way make it music that
anyone might be interested in purchasing.
another thought which i've been entertaining is to direct a certain percentage of any
personal profits made using free software back to the software authours. it seems to me
only reasonable that, if i am making money with these tools, some of that money is a
result of the work of the respective coders. it's difficult to come up with any sort
of rigourous algorithm to assess how much each application contributed to the final
profits, but i think it's time (for me, personally) to implement some fuzzy instance
of that principle, anyway. unfortunately, as alluded to above, even if we ALL did that,
the user base is probably not large enough to fully support the coders.
best.
--
.pltk.
Chris Cannam wrote:
Nice write up.
I have had this or a very similar thought recently in another context. So here
is my first attempt to develop it some for this context.
We have people writing music making software and people using the same
software to make music.
So. What can we do?
1. Every software project that wants to could offer a version for sale that is
basically identical to the one available gratis. Hey, perhaps with an
autographed manual or a certificate of support to hang on the wall, or
perhaps to get your name in a "funders" list in the code.
2. Request for coding help.
3. Request for support in the form of Free Music.
3.a. Please send us music using a Free License that you made using our stuff.
If you don't have any originals of your own, here is where you can find some
to do your own take of and send in. We can include this as a showcase of our
stuff.
3.b. Help us put together a CD of such Free Music that we can sell and let the
proceeds support the project. ***
*** This may just be the key idea. Now we get funding not just from the
limited number of people who use Free Software to make music, but from the
much wider number of people who are willing to buy music.
If anyone wants to discuss these possibilities further, I would be most happy
to do so. A brainstorm in making 3.b. effective would be welcome. On Wednesday 12 December 2007 05:50, Robert
Persson wrote:
IMHO this remark gets to the heart of the problem. As a human being we
have limited resources. I personally have to settle with one head, 2
fingers and 24hrs in a day. The fact that humans also have to eat, and
that food is seldom available 'for free' makes that some part of our
resources are allocated to surviving. Oh, and having 'a life' also
consumes an astonishing amount of these resources.
There is no way around the fact that one has to eat, and that that
doesn't go well with writing free software in the 'free beer'
interpretation. Which seems to be the main reason why people turn to
Linux. I've done a quick check on the cheapest offer from Cakewalk
(Project 5) that might have all functionality that came up in this
thread, and it is 100euro here. If all Rosegarden users were to pay
Chris 100euro, I think Rosegarden would have more features than 'Project
5', or maybe even Sonar.
The catch 22 seems to be that we currently attract a lot of 'free beer'
attention. But in order to get really professional software, you need
time, and time = money. So in order for the programs to become more
professional, we need people that are willing to pay for them. Which we
don't seem to have.
You could think of it this way: suppose you have a Linux tool that has
20% of the functionality of an the equivalent Win/Mac tool, you could
argue that it's worth 20% of the money. Now add all tools you use on
Linux and try to estimate this '20%' value of your software collection.
IMHO that's what you would have to be prepared to pay. Of course I know
that this is a rude extrapolation, and that 20% of the functionality
usually doesn't get you anywhere. But to be honest, I think most of the
tools are more near 80% of the 'competing software's functionality.
To give you another idea, from my personal pet project (FFADO):
we are registered on the ohloh site
(http://www.ohloh.net/projects/8040?p=FFADO), and one of the things they
do is scan your code repository and use some industry standard way of
value-ing the code (COCOMO). In the FFADO case they end up with a value
Here is a good explanation of how groove quantise
works in protools:
http://www.audiomidi.com/classroom/protools_corner/ptcorner_63.cfm
For some really fancy midi stuff going way further than groove quantise,
you could take a look at some of Ntonyx's products, such as
StyleEnhancer and StyleMorpher. If Rosegarden could implement some of
those features that would be very useful for composers.
Groove quantization is one of the oldest outstanding feature requests in
the Rosegarden tracker, submitted by me in 2002:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=633259&gro…
4932&atid=354932
Unfortunately, as for so many features, this has simply never percolated
to the top of my priority queue, or stack, or whatever my brain uses, and
nobody else has ever shown much interest in coding it. And sadly I only
have eight hands and three heads and there are only 132 hours in the day. $1.000.000. In other words, if you were to have a
commercial company
develop the code, it would cost you 1M$. But hey, pick me, I'll do it
'for free'... Rosegarden is also present on ohloh, and is valued more
than $2M.
I admit that these numbers are large extrapolations and have limited
applicability, but they do provide some reference.
The only project that seems to be able to break this circle is Ardour.
I'd say that that is due to the fact that Paul didn't have to worry
about his survival for the time it took to bring Ardour to a critical
level. I.e. a level that was high enough for people to start paying for
Ardour as soon as Paul's self-funding approached it's limits.
For myself I can say that I'm spending an incredible amount of time and
energy into coding open source, and that there is not that much in
return. Well, there is the respect from fellow coders, gratitude from
users, even free hardware (lucky me). But that doesn't pay the bills. So
I have to go out and spend time at 'something that someone actually pays
for'. And hence it takes 3 years to reach the functionality that comes
'out of the box' on another OS. If I would be sure I can earn a decent
living with writing 'free' software, I would seriously consider it. But
alas...
Note that this is not really a reaction to the original blog giving an
overview of the current Linux audio status, but more an attempt at
expressing my view on why this is as it is, and why it's IMHO not very
likely to change soon. It's like the Ableton guy said at LAC07: "I'm
pretty happy with the we-sell-shrinkwrapped-boxed-software model, and I
don't see a reason to change that.". Read: "why would we give it away if
people seem to be willing to pay for it?".
2 cents for discussion,
Pieter Palmers
4:46 p.m.
New subject: Payment In Kind Experiment
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 10:13:16 plutek-infinity wrote:
Perhaps a little, but certainly not for most and I agree. However, Free Music
made with Free Software might be a bit more interesting.
Good music at a good price that also fits in the above mold might be even more
interesting.
So, assuming we have the music already (haha - I am in serious danger now...)
what are some good ways to "sell" it?
I was looking at CD Baby, yesterday. Somewhat interesting, but they want
physical CDs.
Anyone know how to get music into the itunes store?
Other possibilities:
lulu.com
cafepress.com - seem to sell CDs but I see no way to make one in my account.
Would magnatune be willing to handle music with Free licenses? (Do they
already? - I can't tell now, something is busted with search on their site at
the moment.)
opsound.org - may work. They want CC BY-SA music.
Would Fading Ways be willing to handle Free licenses? (Do they already?)
Other ideas?
From: drew
Roberts <zotz(a)100jamz.com>
Payment In Kind Experiment or Funding Musical Free Software Development
Was: Re: [LAU] A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your
oppinion
New ideas at the bottom, quote for context.
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 06:49:08 Pieter Palmers wrote:
a very interesting idea, drew. indeed, it is probably necessary to leverage
resources outside of the software users, since our user base is so small. a
key question, to my mind, is how to make something like this look desirable
for folks at large -- the simple fact that it has been made using free
software doesn't in any way make it music that anyone might be interested
in purchasing. Chris Cannam wrote:
Nice write up.
I have had this or a very similar thought recently in another context. So
here is my first attempt to develop it some for this context.
We have people writing music making software and people using the same
software to make music.
So. What can we do?
1. Every software project that wants to could offer a version for sale
that is basically identical to the one available gratis. Hey, perhaps
with an autographed manual or a certificate of support to hang on the
wall, or perhaps to get your name in a "funders" list in the code.
2. Request for coding help.
3. Request for support in the form of Free Music.
3.a. Please send us music using a Free License that you made using our
stuff. If you don't have any originals of your own, here is where you can
find some to do your own take of and send in. We can include this as a
showcase of our stuff.
3.b. Help us put together a CD of such Free Music that we can sell and let
the proceeds support the project. ***
*** This may just be the key idea. Now we get funding not just from the
limited number of people who use Free Software to make music, but from the
much wider number of people who are willing to buy music.
If anyone wants to discuss these possibilities further, I would be most
happy to do so. A brainstorm in making 3.b. effective would be welcome. On Wednesday 12 December 2007 05:50, Robert
Persson wrote:
> Here is a good explanation of how groove quantise works in protools:
> http://www.audiomidi.com/classroom/protools_corner/ptcorner_63.cfm
>
> For some really fancy midi stuff going way further than groove
> quantise, you could take a look at some of Ntonyx's products, such as
> StyleEnhancer and StyleMorpher. If Rosegarden could implement some of
> those features that would be very useful for composers.
Groove quantization is one of the oldest outstanding feature requests
in the Rosegarden tracker, submitted by me in 2002:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=633259&gro…
id= 4932&atid=354932
Unfortunately, as for so many features, this has simply never
percolated to the top of my priority queue, or stack, or whatever my
brain uses, and nobody else has ever shown much interest in coding it.
And sadly I only have eight hands and three heads and there are only
132 hours in the day.
IMHO this remark gets to the heart of the problem. As a human being we
have limited resources. I personally have to settle with one head, 2
fingers and 24hrs in a day. The fact that humans also have to eat, and
that food is seldom available 'for free' makes that some part of our
resources are allocated to surviving. Oh, and having 'a life' also
consumes an astonishing amount of these resources.
There is no way around the fact that one has to eat, and that that
doesn't go well with writing free software in the 'free beer'
interpretation. Which seems to be the main reason why people turn to
Linux. I've done a quick check on the cheapest offer from Cakewalk
(Project 5) that might have all functionality that came up in this
thread, and it is 100euro here. If all Rosegarden users were to pay
Chris 100euro, I think Rosegarden would have more features than 'Project
5', or maybe even Sonar.
The catch 22 seems to be that we currently attract a lot of 'free beer'
attention. But in order to get really professional software, you need
time, and time = money. So in order for the programs to become more
professional, we need people that are willing to pay for them. Which we
don't seem to have.
You could think of it this way: suppose you have a Linux tool that has
20% of the functionality of an the equivalent Win/Mac tool, you could
argue that it's worth 20% of the money. Now add all tools you use on
Linux and try to estimate this '20%' value of your software collection.
IMHO that's what you would have to be prepared to pay. Of course I know
that this is a rude extrapolation, and that 20% of the functionality
usually doesn't get you anywhere. But to be honest, I think most of the
tools are more near 80% of the 'competing software's functionality.
To give you another idea, from my personal pet project (FFADO):
we are registered on the ohloh site
(http://www.ohloh.net/projects/8040?p=FFADO), and one of the things they
do is scan your code repository and use some industry standard way of
value-ing the code (COCOMO). In the FFADO case they end up with a value
$1.000.000. In other words, if you were to have a
commercial company
develop the code, it would cost you 1M$. But hey, pick me, I'll do it
'for free'... Rosegarden is also present on ohloh, and is valued more
than $2M.
I admit that these numbers are large extrapolations and have limited
applicability, but they do provide some reference.
The only project that seems to be able to break this circle is Ardour.
I'd say that that is due to the fact that Paul didn't have to worry
about his survival for the time it took to bring Ardour to a critical
level. I.e. a level that was high enough for people to start paying for
Ardour as soon as Paul's self-funding approached it's limits.
For myself I can say that I'm spending an incredible amount of time and
energy into coding open source, and that there is not that much in
return. Well, there is the respect from fellow coders, gratitude from
users, even free hardware (lucky me). But that doesn't pay the bills. So
I have to go out and spend time at 'something that someone actually pays
for'. And hence it takes 3 years to reach the functionality that comes
'out of the box' on another OS. If I would be sure I can earn a decent
living with writing 'free' software, I would seriously consider it. But
alas...
Note that this is not really a reaction to the original blog giving an
overview of the current Linux audio status, but more an attempt at
expressing my view on why this is as it is, and why it's IMHO not very
likely to change soon. It's like the Ableton guy said at LAC07: "I'm
pretty happy with the we-sell-shrinkwrapped-boxed-software model, and I
don't see a reason to change that.". Read: "why would we give it away if
people seem to be willing to pay for it?".
2 cents for discussion,
Pieter Palmers
another thought which i've been entertaining is to direct a certain
percentage of any personal profits made using free software back to the
software authours. it seems to me only reasonable that, if i am making
money with these tools, some of that money is a result of the work of the
respective coders. it's difficult to come up with any sort of rigourous
algorithm to assess how much each application contributed to the final
profits, but i think it's time (for me, personally) to implement some fuzzy
instance of that principle, anyway. unfortunately, as alluded to above,
even if we ALL did that, the user base is probably not large enough to
fully support the coders.
best.
all the best,
drew
5:32 p.m.
New subject: Payment In Kind Experiment
On Dec 12, 2007 9:46 PM, drew Roberts <zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
Anyone know how to get music into the itunes store?
Heh, funny :-)
Other ideas?
www.jamendo.com
__________________
Marc-Olivier Barre,
MarcO'Chapeau.
14 Dec
14 Dec
6:29 a.m.
New subject: Payment In Kind Experiment
>3.a. Please send us music using a Free License that you made using our
> stuff. If you don't have any originals of your own, here is where you can
> find some to do your own take of and send in. We can include this as a
> showcase of our stuff.
>
>3.b. Help us put together a CD of such Free Music that we can sell and let
> the proceeds support the project. ***
>
15 Dec
15 Dec
12:07 p.m.
New subject: Payment In Kind Experiment
On Friday 14 December 2007 05:29 am, you wrote:
Ken,
thanks for the generous offer.
It is not that I want to run such a project. Any else interested in running
it? Should some organization oversee such a project? Other needed questions?
I think it might be useful for such a project, if those of us who make audio,
not down the programs and other "ingredients" going into the finished work.
Then the different audio project maintainers could find audio that their works
helped in making.
> >3.a.
Please send us music using a Free License that you made using our
> > stuff. If you don't have any originals of your own, here is where you
> > can find some to do your own take of and send in. We can include this
> > as a showcase of our stuff.
> >
> >3.b. Help us put together a CD of such Free Music that we can sell and
> > let the proceeds support the project. ***
You are welcome to use any or all of my music at
http://www.restivo.org/blog/ for this purpose.
I can send you lossless WAVpack files in whatever samplerate/bits you want,
just ask.
Do you have this stuff in multi track form?
I'd also be willing to modify any of my work to suit such a project, or
possibly even write something specifically for it.
Let me just say that even though I do not want to run such a project and I
don't think I would be good at running it either, if people like the idea
enough and no one steps up to get the ball rolling, I might be up for that
initial work.
-ken
all the best,
drew
12 Dec
12 Dec
6:20 p.m.
New subject: Payment In Kind Experiment
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 07:24 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
*** This may just be the key idea. Now we get funding not just from the
limited number of people who use Free Software to make music, but from the
much wider number of people who are willing to buy music.
Alas, fundamental error here. The set of people you're talking about is
the set of people who are willing to buy a *particular set of music*.
If there is anyone on the list who has ever sold enough CD's to pay even
a cheap-cost-of-living-nation-resident programmer for one year, please
do tell. Two such developers? I'll be amazed. Three? I'll probably
conclude that you're lying :)
Raising money to pay for s/w development so that programmers can work
fulltime costs a LOT OF MONEY. Even if the programmers are holed up in
Guatamala or Nepal. And if they are in the first world, which at this
point (for all kinds of reasons) most FOSS developers are, it costs even
more than that.
Its really fantastic that the linux audio community has been as
financially supportive of some of its developers (me! i hope others
too), but please lets not kid ourselves. The fundraising that is being
talked about pays for a feature or two. It doesn't pay for programmers
to work full time on stuff, and for professional, complicated programs,
that is, alas, precisely what is needed. Even the kernel gets this,
albeit via a different mechanism.
--p
13 Dec
13 Dec
10:11 a.m.
New subject: Payment In Kind Experiment
From: Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 07:24 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
well sure, paul... but is it not in the very nature of the FOSS "fabric" that
support will be varied and needs to come from many (independantly insufficient) sources,
if it is to have any hope of being (cumulatively) sufficient? so, if we can find some
*particular* group of people who wish to buy our *particular* offering of music, it may be
another functional bit of income.
but, yes, calling it "the key idea" is likely not correct - idon't think
there is such a single entity.
--
.pltk.
*** This may just be the key idea. Now we get funding not just from the
limited number of people who use Free Software to make music, but from the
much wider number of people who are willing to buy music.
Alas, fundamental error here. The set of people you're talking about is
the set of people who are willing to buy a *particular set of music*.
If there is anyone on the list who has ever sold enough CD's to pay even
a cheap-cost-of-living-nation-resident programmer for one year, please
do tell. Two such developers? I'll be amazed. Three? I'll probably
conclude that you're lying :)
Raising money to pay for s/w development so that programmers can work
fulltime costs a LOT OF MONEY. Even if the programmers are holed up in
Guatamala or Nepal. And if they are in the first world, which at this
point (for all kinds of reasons) most FOSS developers are, it costs even
more than that.
Its really fantastic that the linux audio community has been as
financially supportive of some of its developers (me! i hope others
too), but please lets not kid ourselves. The fundraising that is being
talked about pays for a feature or two. It doesn't pay for programmers
to work full time on stuff, and for professional, complicated programs,
that is, alas, precisely what is needed. Even the kernel gets this,
albeit via a different mechanism.
10:33 a.m.
New subject: Payment In Kind Experiment
On Thursday 13 December 2007 09:11, plutek-infinity wrote:
I just went back and re-read my key idea phrase and I can see how it could
very easily be taken in a way I did not intend.
The key is not the particular idea, they key idea is to seek funding outside
of the small group of linux audio users as they exist at the moment.
And I don't mean key even as most important even, now that I think of it...
Perhaps more, the key feature of this idea and one to look into in other ideas
as an expanded revenue pool?
In any case, the language was meant to point out that particular feature of
that idea at a minimum, not to elevate that particular idea above others...
all the best,
drew
From: Paul
Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 07:24 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
well sure, paul... but is it not in the very nature of the FOSS "fabric"
that support will be varied and needs to come from many (independantly
insufficient) sources, if it is to have any hope of being (cumulatively)
sufficient? so, if we can find some *particular* group of people who wish
to buy our *particular* offering of music, it may be another functional bit
of income.
but, yes, calling it "the key idea" is likely not correct - idon't think
there is such a single entity. *** This may just be the key idea. Now we get
funding not just from the
limited number of people who use Free Software to make music, but from
the much wider number of people who are willing to buy music.
Alas, fundamental error here. The set of people you're talking about is
the set of people who are willing to buy a *particular set of music*.
If there is anyone on the list who has ever sold enough CD's to pay even
a cheap-cost-of-living-nation-resident programmer for one year, please
do tell. Two such developers? I'll be amazed. Three? I'll probably
conclude that you're lying :)
Raising money to pay for s/w development so that programmers can work
fulltime costs a LOT OF MONEY. Even if the programmers are holed up in
Guatamala or Nepal. And if they are in the first world, which at this
point (for all kinds of reasons) most FOSS developers are, it costs even
more than that.
Its really fantastic that the linux audio community has been as
financially supportive of some of its developers (me! i hope others
too), but please lets not kid ourselves. The fundraising that is being
talked about pays for a feature or two. It doesn't pay for programmers
to work full time on stuff, and for professional, complicated programs,
that is, alas, precisely what is needed. Even the kernel gets this,
albeit via a different mechanism. 
12 Dec
12 Dec
10:37 a.m.
There is no way around the fact that one has to eat,
and that that
doesn't go well with writing free software in the 'free beer'
interpretation. Which seems to be the main reason why people turn to
Linux. I've done a quick check on the cheapest offer from Cakewalk
(Project 5) that might have all functionality that came up in this
thread, and it is 100euro here. If all Rosegarden users were to pay
Chris 100euro, I think Rosegarden would have more features than 'Project
5', or maybe even Sonar.
I think a more fundamental problem is that people who develop code more
often than not either do not have enough time to come up with a viable
business model, or [no offense] are not the best business people within the
context of values established by the predominantly capitalist society.
Ardour is one of ostensible exceptions (among others). Paul has created a
foundation for something solid and in the process of doing so has never
forgotten the business side of things. And while I do not know how the
project has been doing in the past couple of months, I do recall that he was
able to secure at least a couple funding opportunities along the way, and
more importantly attract contributors, some of whom were apparently drafted
via Google's summer of code program. All these opportunities exist and yes
they are very time consuming, and yes they are in many ways not 100%
guaranteed, and yet if you don't play (whether due to lack of time or skill)
you have 0% chance of winning.
Coupled with this is another fundamental problem--the tradition of
unfortunate Linux PR priorities. To this day, we waste too much breath on
"it's free" argument. While this certainly gives Linux a special status in
and of itself, not only has this been already well established long ago to
the point people are sick of hearing it, but I also think on audio side of
things more than anywhere else this argument has been abused as "but, this
one goes to 11" trump card. And so something that was virtually impossible
to trump as a *silent* advantage has been rebranded into a loud copout
whenever we face superior technology that is not available on Linux. More
importantly, the loudness of this argument has in some ways caused pursuit
of paid software on Linux like shooting ourselves in foot as such move would
destroy what has become in effect the core argument and consequently make
comparison of our software with commercial giants appropriate after all.
Trying to make a living is a noble cause and if pursuit of such funding will
enable you to dedicate more time/resources to that which you like and
ultimately generate a better and more competitive product, then perhaps this
is not such a bad idea after all. And for those who may not have the time,
resources, or simply skills to pursue funding/sponsorship/patronage, we do
have entities in OSS community who could ostensibly help in the process
provided they have adequate staffing and ultimately community support.
Best wishes,
Ico
1:03 p.m.
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 04:49:08 Pieter Palmers wrote:
Chris Cannam wrote:
Thank you Pieter
I am certainly one who appreciates the contributions of the multitudes of
individuals who have devoted so much to the open source scene. These
contributions are fueling a whole new society, a quiet social revolution. It
is enabling schools and individuals that never could afford the digital
scenario to place before all of their students a shelf of creative regions
never before even imagined. What is available on that creative shelf today?
The developmental tools, Imaging { 2D, 3D, animation, movies }, Audio from
cell phones to ambisonics, Sciences, Engineering, Mathematics, Mapping {
earth, universe, body } and etc. etc. You and people like yourself are making
it possible. People who stumble into this scene are quite unprepared as to
what exactly is it that they think they see. Too frequently the only thing
that they have to compare to is the digital terrain they grew up in. If they
are getting their feet wet in Linux they are first immersed in the Unix
learning curve, though most of the current releases soften that. Being a self
taught Informatics { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatics } person I
remain awed at the whole Linux Open Source phenomena. As for the wanna winers
noise, it is probably an indicator that the introductory orientation
documentation scheme needs to be streamlined. I was hoping that a release
like UbuntuStudio would see the need and implement such a feature.
Thank You
Tom
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 05:50, Robert
Persson wrote:
IMHO this remark gets to the heart of the problem. As a human being we
have limited resources. I personally have to settle with one head, 2
fingers and 24hrs in a day. The fact that humans also have to eat, and
that food is seldom available 'for free' makes that some part of our
resources are allocated to surviving. Oh, and having 'a life' also
consumes an astonishing amount of these resources.
There is no way around the fact that one has to eat, and that that
doesn't go well with writing free software in the 'free beer'
interpretation. Which seems to be the main reason why people turn to
Linux. I've done a quick check on the cheapest offer from Cakewalk
(Project 5) that might have all functionality that came up in this
thread, and it is 100euro here. If all Rosegarden users were to pay
Chris 100euro, I think Rosegarden would have more features than 'Project
5', or maybe even Sonar.
The catch 22 seems to be that we currently attract a lot of 'free beer'
attention. But in order to get really professional software, you need
time, and time = money. So in order for the programs to become more
professional, we need people that are willing to pay for them. Which we
don't seem to have.
You could think of it this way: suppose you have a Linux tool that has
20% of the functionality of an the equivalent Win/Mac tool, you could
argue that it's worth 20% of the money. Now add all tools you use on
Linux and try to estimate this '20%' value of your software collection.
IMHO that's what you would have to be prepared to pay. Of course I know
that this is a rude extrapolation, and that 20% of the functionality
usually doesn't get you anywhere. But to be honest, I think most of the
tools are more near 80% of the 'competing software's functionality.
To give you another idea, from my personal pet project (FFADO):
we are registered on the ohloh site
(http://www.ohloh.net/projects/8040?p=FFADO), and one of the things they
do is scan your code repository and use some industry standard way of
value-ing the code (COCOMO). In the FFADO case they end up with a value
Here is a good explanation of how groove quantise
works in protools:
http://www.audiomidi.com/classroom/protools_corner/ptcorner_63.cfm
For some really fancy midi stuff going way further than groove quantise,
you could take a look at some of Ntonyx's products, such as
StyleEnhancer and StyleMorpher. If Rosegarden could implement some of
those features that would be very useful for composers.
Groove quantization is one of the oldest outstanding feature requests in
the Rosegarden tracker, submitted by me in 2002:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=633259&gro…
4932&atid=354932
Unfortunately, as for so many features, this has simply never percolated
to the top of my priority queue, or stack, or whatever my brain uses, and
nobody else has ever shown much interest in coding it. And sadly I only
have eight hands and three heads and there are only 132 hours in the day. $1.000.000. In other words, if you were to have a
commercial company
develop the code, it would cost you 1M$. But hey, pick me, I'll do it
'for free'... Rosegarden is also present on ohloh, and is valued more
than $2M.
I admit that these numbers are large extrapolations and have limited
applicability, but they do provide some reference.
The only project that seems to be able to break this circle is Ardour.
I'd say that that is due to the fact that Paul didn't have to worry
about his survival for the time it took to bring Ardour to a critical
level. I.e. a level that was high enough for people to start paying for
Ardour as soon as Paul's self-funding approached it's limits.
For myself I can say that I'm spending an incredible amount of time and
energy into coding open source, and that there is not that much in
return. Well, there is the respect from fellow coders, gratitude from
users, even free hardware (lucky me). But that doesn't pay the bills. So
I have to go out and spend time at 'something that someone actually pays
for'. And hence it takes 3 years to reach the functionality that comes
'out of the box' on another OS. If I would be sure I can earn a decent
living with writing 'free' software, I would seriously consider it. But
alas...
Note that this is not really a reaction to the original blog giving an
overview of the current Linux audio status, but more an attempt at
expressing my view on why this is as it is, and why it's IMHO not very
likely to change soon. It's like the Ableton guy said at LAC07: "I'm
pretty happy with the we-sell-shrinkwrapped-boxed-software model, and I
don't see a reason to change that.". Read: "why would we give it away if
people seem to be willing to pay for it?".
2 cents for discussion,
Pieter Palmers
9:42 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 12:49 +0100, Pieter Palmers wrote:
The only project that seems to be able to break this
circle is Ardour.
Lets give some props to Rosegarden here. Chris and the rest of the RG
gang have followed a totally different path in every sense, yet RG seems
to be developing quite well and meeting its design goals pretty well.
They didn't do it with any dotcom funds or other "independent wealth" -
just hard work and devotion. Even so, yes, RG is probably moving a
little less slowly than Ardour and is probably (though not certainly)
receiving less attention from the industry. Its still a great project
and it should not be overlooked when discussing "success stories".
There are others too, that have been 100% successful in terms of their
design goals: Hydrogen, FreqTweak, Freewheeling, Jamin to name just 4.
Again, this developed under very different models than Ardour, so I
think its dangerous to over-generalize here.
--p
13 Dec
13 Dec
2:10 a.m.
On 12/12/2007, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 12:49 +0100, Pieter Palmers wrote:
It has just occurred to me that the fact that my seven-year-old is able to
work with Rosegarden, albeit in a very limited and elementary way, is really
quite significant. I can't imagine him getting very far with Ardour or
Cubase. Rosegarden is indeed a very promising educational tool and maybe
this is the key to securing funding for the project. You may have read
recently how the Republic of Macedonia is in the process of making Linux
desktops available to all its school students. It shouldn't be too hard to
imagine an education ministry somewhere, or perhaps an educational charity
of some sort, looking for affordable ways to teach music, which is badly
neglected in so many school systems.
Would it be feasible to get Rosegarden working with CoreMidi? Or does the
imminent arrival of jackmidi make that a non-problem? Now that the KDE
libraries seem to be working well in Cocoa, would there be much else to stop
Rosegarden working on a Mac? I'm thinking about all the eMacs and MacBooks
my local school board has purchased in recent years. It has bought them in
order that even the most technophobic elementary school teachers should be
able to do what they need to do without having to take painkillers.
Rosegarden is easier to learn than other DAW-type applications. Therefore it
has a better chance than those other applications of appealing to overworked
music teachers in schools.
Robert.
--
Robert Persson
ireneshusband(a)gmail.com
The only project that seems to be able to break
this circle is Ardour.
Lets give some props to Rosegarden here. Chris and the rest of the RG
gang have followed a totally different path in every sense, yet RG seems
to be developing quite well and meeting its design goals pretty well.
They didn't do it with any dotcom funds or other "independent wealth" -
just hard work and devotion. Even so, yes, RG is probably moving a
little less slowly than Ardour and is probably (though not certainly)
receiving less attention from the industry. Its still a great project
and it should not be overlooked when discussing "success stories".
5:53 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Paul Davis wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 12:49 +0100, Pieter Palmers
wrote:
I did not meant to devalue any of the LAD programs. I personally think
we have an incredible set of tools that can provide you with everything
you need. In some cases tt's not as polished as in the commercial world,
which IMHO is not a bad thing by definition. Not having a bunch of
pre-made presets encourages you to learn what you're doing, which in
it's turn can lead to a better ability to implement your musical ideas.
But that's another discussion.
The point I was trying to make is that apparently only one project seems
to be able to create some sort of revenue for it's developer(s). At
least as far as I know the stories (please indulge me). If I'm not wrong
, again please correct me if so, all programs you mention have been
developed either in spare time, or in some sort of research environment.
I think they have a large 'value' and could be able to be
self-supportive. The question is "why aren't they?".
As a though experiment on the side, possible pouring a jar of petrol here...
I wonder what would happen if we would port these applications to the
Windows platform. It's not something new, e.g. Mixxx, Hydrogen, recently
LinuxSampler. Considering the fact that Qt4 GPL is available for
windows, and that jackdmp is also ported to windows one could argue that
technically it's not that hard. The userbase is potentially much larger,
increasing both the potential developers, but more important, increasing
the base for a service based business model.
After all, FruityLoops started out as a pretty simple $20 shareware app
(hydrogen can do more), with a perfectly working crack circulating (I
assume :). But still people paid for it, allowing it to grow into what
it now is.
Another thought is "why is the almost equally closed OSX more accepted
than Windows?"
Note that I'm not advocating anything, I'm simply exercising my creative
thinking here. I'm very interested in the responses...
Greets,
Pieter
The only project that seems to be able to break
this circle is Ardour.
Lets give some props to Rosegarden here. Chris and the rest of the RG
gang have followed a totally different path in every sense, yet RG seems
to be developing quite well and meeting its design goals pretty well.
They didn't do it with any dotcom funds or other "independent wealth" -
just hard work and devotion. Even so, yes, RG is probably moving a
little less slowly than Ardour and is probably (though not certainly)
receiving less attention from the industry. Its still a great project
and it should not be overlooked when discussing "success stories".
There are others too, that have been 100% successful in terms of their
design goals: Hydrogen, FreqTweak, Freewheeling, Jamin to name just 4.
Again, this developed under very different models than Ardour, so I
think its dangerous to over-generalize here.
8:28 a.m.
On Thursday 13 December 2007 04:53:20 Pieter Palmers wrote:
Paul Davis wrote:
I think Rivendell was a funded development project. If I understand things
properly, it was in house but GPL which then got outside developer(s?) who
are "in house" in other houses and now, some of the original people have set
up an outside company to do further development and professional support.
It is a nice app too and the devs seem like nice people.
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 12:49 +0100, Pieter Palmers
wrote:
I did not meant to devalue any of the LAD programs. I personally think
we have an incredible set of tools that can provide you with everything
you need. In some cases tt's not as polished as in the commercial world,
which IMHO is not a bad thing by definition. Not having a bunch of
pre-made presets encourages you to learn what you're doing, which in
it's turn can lead to a better ability to implement your musical ideas.
But that's another discussion.
The point I was trying to make is that apparently only one project seems
to be able to create some sort of revenue for it's developer(s). At
least as far as I know the stories (please indulge me). If I'm not wrong
, again please correct me if so, all programs you mention have been
developed either in spare time, or in some sort of research environment. The only project that seems to be able to break
this circle is Ardour.
Lets give some props to Rosegarden here. Chris and the rest of the RG
gang have followed a totally different path in every sense, yet RG seems
to be developing quite well and meeting its design goals pretty well.
They didn't do it with any dotcom funds or other "independent wealth" -
just hard work and devotion. Even so, yes, RG is probably moving a
little less slowly than Ardour and is probably (though not certainly)
receiving less attention from the industry. Its still a great project
and it should not be overlooked when discussing "success stories".
There are others too, that have been 100% successful in terms of their
design goals: Hydrogen, FreqTweak, Freewheeling, Jamin to name just 4.
Again, this developed under very different models than Ardour, so I
think its dangerous to over-generalize here.
I think they have a large 'value' and could be able to be
self-supportive. The question is "why aren't they?".
Further questions in that vein:
Do they want to be?
If so, how can we help them be?
As a though experiment on the side, possible pouring a jar of petrol
here...
I wonder what would happen if we would port these applications to the
Windows platform.
There are probably valid reasons for and against.
One valid reason against is probably the "killer app" play. If we end up with
one that only works on linux, could it drive linux adoption? I think the
reason we want the numbers is for network effects and specifically for
hardware support.
Another possible valid reason against is taking extra valuable developer time.
A reason for to counteract that last one is if a developer is interested in
the port.
Another valid reason for is writing clean and portable code from the break. (I
am far from expert enough here to know if this one really makes sense.)
It's not something new, e.g. Mixxx, Hydrogen,
recently
LinuxSampler. Considering the fact that Qt4 GPL is available for
windows, and that jackdmp is also ported to windows one could argue that
technically it's not that hard. The userbase is potentially much larger,
increasing both the potential developers, but more important, increasing
the base for a service based business model.
Business model... This goes back to my first question above - Do they want to
be?
Perhaps they would like to be but can't figure out a way to be funded without
being in business and they don't actually want to be in business.
I ran my own one man business for many years but finally shut it down because
I got tired of the "business side" while I still loved the income producing
work I was doing. So I jumped full time into a part time / full time job I
was also working at for many years and now just moonlight once in a while
outside of that.
During the years I was running the business and not likeing parts of it, I was
searching for people in the same boat to pool together and hire a "boss" to
run our business and us on a day to day basis. It never panned out. I still
think the idea had potential but may have been ahead of its time for my
country.
So, does someone want to set up an umbrella business to shelter all fo these
projects who would like an income but don't want to run a business...
After all, FruityLoops started out as a pretty simple
$20 shareware app
(hydrogen can do more), with a perfectly working crack circulating (I
assume :). But still people paid for it, allowing it to grow into what
it now is.
Another thought is "why is the almost equally closed OSX more accepted
than Windows?"
Here's some jet fuel to throw in on top of the petrol...
Because peole see apple as cool and the underdog and because darwin did the
work apple intended?
Actaully, not meant to stir the fire, just pretending. Apple does go way back
with music, graphics, and publishing. The group I work for now owns a
national daily newspaper in my country. They are still primarily a mac shop
due to apple's historic play in this market. It would not surprise me if they
still get "bump" from their history in the music field as well.
Note that I'm not advocating anything, I'm simply exercising my creative
thinking here. I'm very interested in the responses...
Greets,
Pieter
all the best,
drew
8:56 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 07:28 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
There's a much simpler reason from a developer's perspective. OS X is a
unix operating system. There are plenty of business&marketing&freedom
reasons to be upset with Microsoft, but first and foremost for a lot of
coders is the simple truth that their software technology is just really
really awful in almost every way. OS X is not perfect (nothing is), but
assuming you picked a GUI toolkit that runs well on OS X, porting a *nix
program to OS X is generally less than a day's work, sometimes just an
hour or so, and typically without any source code changes at all. This
is hard to accomplish with a Windows port (not impossible, just harder),
and even then the semantic differences in the way some of the underlying
Windows OS services actually work can cause issues for finickety
software.
In addition, for me personally there is the fact that Apple just seems
to get user interface design right the vast majority of the time, and
its inspiring to work on such a platform, despite its proprietariness
and occasional crappiness.
--p
Another
thought is "why is the almost equally closed OSX more accepted
than Windows?"
Here's some jet fuel to throw in on top of the petrol...
Because peole see apple as cool and the underdog and because darwin did the
work apple intended? 
10:41 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 07:28 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
On Thursday 13 December 2007 04:53:20 Pieter Palmers
wrote:
My guess is that most don't. I don't. I know that my software isn't in
any way as significant as the likes of Ardour and Rosegarden so I may
not be very representative, but on the other hand there are lots of
other people writing free audio software who have never done anything on
that scale and probably never will either. I see it as a hobby. If I had
to do it full time I would probably get bored rather quickly.
Also, the "free" as in "no money needed" is a big reason for me to
use
free software, though not the only one. I don't pay for using free
software, and I don't expect anyone to pay me for using mine.
--ll
I think they have a large 'value' and
could be able to be
self-supportive. The question is "why aren't they?".
Further questions in that vein:
Do they want to be?
3:12 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Lars Luthman wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 07:28 -0500, drew Roberts
wrote:
For me it's also
a hobby, and probably will always remain one. Maybe
once I have $10M ( will happen _very_ soon :P ) I can eliminate the
'daytime job' from my time schedule and hence free up some time for my
hobby.
The problem with hobby-projects is that users are really dependent on
the goodwill of the hobbyist. If the hobbyist doesn't feel like
supporting or developing some piece of software anymore, the user is
screwed. That's not very professional (<<< !!inflammable term alert!!).
Some traditional counter-arguments:
* "When a company stops selling/supporting the user is also screwed".
True, but if the 'hobbyist' would have to pay his bills with money from
his users, the 'stop support' decision gets a whole new dimension. If a
company pulls this off too often, they are out of business in no time.
* "The user (or community) has the source and hence development can go
on". How realistic is this? I've been lurking on the hydrogen
development list for quite some time now, and when Allesandro (Comix)
stopped actively developing the complete project stalled. OTOH, I'm also
lurking on the Mixxx list, and in that case some new people have
continued the work.
Conclusion: I don't know the exact merit of this argument. The main
issue regarding 'profesionnality' is that as a user you can't rely on
someone taking over the work. The entry barrier to get into someone
else's code is usually pretty high. Unless it's well-documented. But
since documentation is something most developers don't like...
The whole thing is IMHO an illustration of the catch22 I mentioned
earlier. As long as people can't rely on their software, they can't
(?shouldn't?) use it professionally. It's difficult to rely on
hobby-projects, since the exit barrier is so low.
On Thursday 13 December 2007 04:53:20 Pieter
Palmers wrote:
My guess is that most don't. I don't. I know that my software isn't in
any way as significant as the likes of Ardour and Rosegarden so I may
not be very representative, but on the other hand there are lots of
other people writing free audio software who have never done anything on
that scale and probably never will either. I see it as a hobby. If I had
to do it full time I would probably get bored rather quickly. I think they have a large 'value' and
could be able to be
self-supportive. The question is "why aren't they?".
Further
questions in that vein:
Do they want to be?
Also, the "free" as in "no money needed" is a big reason for me to
use
free software, though not the only one. I don't pay for using free
software, and I don't expect anyone to pay me for using mine.
I don't pay for my software either, at least not in monetary terms. I do
contribute quite some time and code to the 'free software collection'.
An act that I consider to be equivalent to paying. And for those that
can't code, there's plenty of documentation, patch-writing, ... work. I
pity those that can't write, but they should also be contributing
something IMHO. At the 'lowest' level that might even be monetary
contribution. For me, taking without giving is free-riding. Which is the
inevitable side-effect of what we're doing, but still is 'morally' wrong.
To summarize: I don't expect people to pay for my software, but I do
expect them to give something to the community.
I might seem to be a money-oriented capitalist bastard to some, but
think about this: the open-source concept is actually a very 'communist'
concept (or what is the correct english term). One of the basic ideas
of communism is that everyone contributes to the wealth of the
'community'. Which in turn takes care of it's people. At least, that's
the theory. History seems to learn us that things, or should I say
'people', don't work that way. And, again IMHO, the failure of the
theory is not due to those that give, but due to those that don't give.
You have been reading my contribution towards proving Godwin's law,
Greets,
Pieter
7:57 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 20:12 +0100, Pieter Palmers wrote:
The problem with hobby-projects is that users are
really dependent on
the goodwill of the hobbyist. If the hobbyist doesn't feel like
supporting or developing some piece of software anymore, the user is
screwed. That's not very professional (<<< !!inflammable term alert!!).
(ahem)
Some traditional counter-arguments:
* "When a company stops selling/supporting the user is also screwed".
True, but if the 'hobbyist' would have to pay his bills with money from
his users, the 'stop support' decision gets a whole new dimension. If a
company pulls this off too often, they are out of business in no time.
Or you end up buying an expensive upgrade
* "The user (or community) has the source and
hence development can go
on". How realistic is this? I've been lurking on the hydrogen
development list for quite some time now, and when Allesandro (Comix)
stopped actively developing the complete project stalled. OTOH, I'm also
lurking on the Mixxx list, and in that case some new people have
continued the work.
Well, Sean Bolton stopped developing Xsynth-DSSI, and I took it to some
pretty strange places after that. It's pretty easy to get your head
around.
Gordon
14 Dec
14 Dec
12:32 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 23:57 +0000, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
Well, Sean Bolton stopped developing Xsynth-DSSI, and I took it to some
pretty strange places after that. It's pretty easy to get your head
around.
If you want to be a professional developer you have to get your head
around a lot of other peoples code so working on Linux apps is a very
good way to train with instant positive benefits to the whole
community...
I would rather see more people learn the development process with Linux
Audio Apps and contribute something back to the community than pay money
for new features.
However we should have a way for people to contribute cash to a global
fund if they want and the consortium has been dragging it's feet on this
point for some time. There have been several conversations on this topic
in the past and it is high time some action is taken.
I would love if the consortium was able to provide a yearly award or set
of awards and it would be great to have them presented at the LAC. It's
a small thing that can be done to acknowledge the hard work of the many
people who contribute valuable work to the Linux Audio Community.
Cheers.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
1:01 a.m.
New subject: Community Awards
Hi,
It has been a wish of mine and several others for some time that we have
an awards ceremony on a regular basis to acknowledge the hard work of
the various contributors to Linux Audio Community. It makes sense to me
that it be held at the Annual Linux Audio Conference.
In my opinion the Consortium should take a central role in managing the
awards process but it will be very nice if the whole community could
contribute with votes or resources to help make it go as smoothly as
possible.
In essence we would need to decide on the type of awards that would be
provided. Cash, plaques, trophies, merchandise, sponsorship, devices
etc...
I'm sure that with a little effort by certain members of the consortium
we would be able to get some sponsorship from some Audio companies who
would like the prestige of associating their Company names with the
ceremony and there are also several companies that should feel a certain
level of obligation to contribute as they are actively making money from
Linux Audio. Several sound cards manufacturers spring to mind and a few
other hardware companies too.
It would also be nice if we could have a global fund setup to collect
contributions from the public which can be used to cover basic costs
such as printing or purchasing trophies, plaques, etc...
There are enough of us who have run events that we should be able to
find the resources to make our own awards ceremony a reality.
I'm proposing that we aim to have it included at the next LAC as a proof
of concept. I'm sure that within a few years it could become a very
smoothly operated event.
Cheers.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
3:09 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your opinion
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 23:57 +0000, Gordon JC Pearce
wrote:
Like developers, non-developers have only finite amounts of time to go
around. Perhaps its time for the developer-centric OS community to
broaden its definition of what constitutes "giving something back".
Personally, I think that if some musician makes a great song using
(insert OS audio app of their choice), that should also qualify as
"giving back."
Well, Sean Bolton stopped developing Xsynth-DSSI,
and I took it to some
pretty strange places after that. It's pretty easy to get your head
around.
If you want to be a professional developer you have to get your head
around a lot of other peoples code so working on Linux apps is a very
good way to train with instant positive benefits to the whole
community...
I would rather see more people learn the development process with Linux
Audio Apps and contribute something back to the community than pay money
for new features. However we should have a way for people to contribute
cash to a global
fund if they want and the consortium has been dragging it's feet on this
point for some time. There have been several conversations on this topic
in the past and it is high time some action is taken.
You need some way to do that for people who are (1) not developers, (2)
don't want to be developers, (3) have no training or even the kind of
mind to become a developer, and (4) have to make the choice of whether
they would use their available time doing something they like and know
how to do (making music) or use their time struggling with a task beyond
their training and interests.
One of the items on my (way-too-long) to do list is to "Decide fin sppt
for Lnx & apps - Firefox, etc. Tax deductible?" (direct copy and paste).
Ideas?
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
4:58 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your opinion
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 21:09 -1000, david wrote:
There is no reason that the awards couldn't include Linux Audio
producers as well as Developers.
However we should have a way for people to
contribute cash to a global
fund if they want and the consortium has been dragging it's feet on this
point for some time. There have been several conversations on this topic
in the past and it is high time some action is taken.
You need some way to do that for people who are (1) not developers, (2)
don't want to be developers, (3) have no training or even the kind of
mind to become a developer, and (4) have to make the choice of whether
they would use their available time doing something they like and know
how to do (making music) or use their time struggling with a task beyond
their training and interests.
One of the items on my (way-too-long) to do list is to
"Decide fin sppt
for Lnx & apps - Firefox, etc. Tax deductible?" (direct copy and paste).
Ideas?
If the Consortium became a registered non profit then it would be tax
deductable for US tax payers.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
16 Dec
16 Dec
4:25 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your opinion
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 21:09 -1000, david wrote:
There is no reason that the awards couldn't include Linux Audio
producers as well as Developers.
Both are good ideas.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
However
we should have a way for people to contribute cash to a global
fund if they want and the consortium has been dragging it's feet on this
point for some time. There have been several conversations on this topic
in the past and it is high time some action is taken.
You need some way to do that
for people who are (1) not developers, (2)
don't want to be developers, (3) have no training or even the kind of
mind to become a developer, and (4) have to make the choice of whether
they would use their available time doing something they like and know
how to do (making music) or use their time struggling with a task beyond
their training and interests. One of the items on my (way-too-long) to do list
is to "Decide fin sppt
for Lnx & apps - Firefox, etc. Tax deductible?" (direct copy and paste).
Ideas?
If the Consortium became a registered non profit then it would be tax
deductable for US tax payers.
14 Dec
14 Dec
4:41 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Pieter Palmers wrote:
Lars Luthman wrote:
Actually, in many many ways, Open Source is a product of a great
abundance of programming time, because programmers were being well paid
by their employers and not so overworked that they couldn't pursue their
personal programming activities on their time off.
As the US economy collapses under the combined forces of greed and its
handmaiden (outsourcing), these surplus programming resources will decline.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 07:28 -0500, drew Roberts
wrote:
For me it's also
a hobby, and probably will always remain one. Maybe
once I have $10M ( will happen _very_ soon :P ) I can eliminate the
'daytime job' from my time schedule and hence free up some time for my
hobby.
The problem with hobby-projects is that users are really dependent on
the goodwill of the hobbyist. If the hobbyist doesn't feel like
supporting or developing some piece of software anymore, the user is
screwed. That's not very professional (<<< !!inflammable term alert!!).
Some traditional counter-arguments:
* "When a company stops selling/supporting the user is also screwed".
True, but if the 'hobbyist' would have to pay his bills with money from
his users, the 'stop support' decision gets a whole new dimension. If a
company pulls this off too often, they are out of business in no time.
* "The user (or community) has the source and hence development can go
on". How realistic is this? I've been lurking on the hydrogen
development list for quite some time now, and when Allesandro (Comix)
stopped actively developing the complete project stalled. OTOH, I'm also
lurking on the Mixxx list, and in that case some new people have
continued the work.
Conclusion: I don't know the exact merit of this argument. The main
issue regarding 'profesionnality' is that as a user you can't rely on
someone taking over the work. The entry barrier to get into someone
else's code is usually pretty high. Unless it's well-documented. But
since documentation is something most developers don't like...
The whole thing is IMHO an illustration of the catch22 I mentioned
earlier. As long as people can't rely on their software, they can't
(?shouldn't?) use it professionally. It's difficult to rely on
hobby-projects, since the exit barrier is so low.
On Thursday 13 December 2007 04:53:20 Pieter
Palmers wrote:
My guess is that most don't. I don't. I know that my
software isn't in
any way as significant as the likes of Ardour and Rosegarden so I may
not be very representative, but on the other hand there are lots of
other people writing free audio software who have never done anything on
that scale and probably never will either. I see it as a hobby. If I had
to do it full time I would probably get bored rather quickly. I think they have a large 'value' and
could be able to be
self-supportive. The question is "why aren't they?".
Further
questions in that vein:
Do they want to be? Also, the "free" as in "no money
needed" is a big reason for me to use
free software, though not the only one. I don't pay for using free
software, and I don't expect anyone to pay me for using mine.
I don't pay for my software either, at least not in monetary terms. I do
contribute quite some time and code to the 'free software collection'.
An act that I consider to be equivalent to paying. And for those that
can't code, there's plenty of documentation, patch-writing, ... work. I
pity those that can't write, but they should also be contributing
something IMHO. At the 'lowest' level that might even be monetary
contribution. For me, taking without giving is free-riding. Which is the
inevitable side-effect of what we're doing, but still is 'morally' wrong.
To summarize: I don't expect people to pay for my software, but I do
expect them to give something to the community.
I might seem to be a money-oriented capitalist bastard to some, but
think about this: the open-source concept is actually a very 'communist'
concept (or what is the correct english term). One of the basic ideas
of communism is that everyone contributes to the wealth of the
'community'. Which in turn takes care of it's people. At least, that's
the theory. History seems to learn us that things, or should I say
'people', don't work that way. And, again IMHO, the failure of the
theory is not due to those that give, but due to those that don't give.
13 Dec
13 Dec
2:08 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Pieter Palmers wrote:
Another thought is "why is the almost equally closed OSX more accepted
than Windows?"
Because CoreAudio works, it works very well indeed, and you don't have
to think about it.
To be very honest, even though I do believe in the importance of FOSS,
the main reasons I am trying to use Linux to create music are practical
ones:
1. I've had truly terrible experiences with windows;
2. I can't afford a mac.
In other words, if I had a spanking new mac right now I would spend most
of my time using that and leave linux for when I had a few spare moments.
Looking at my (non-)workflow yesterday, it is clear to me that the most
time-wasting problems I am having are with jack. I start jack, I open
the various clients, I plug them into each other and I start working.
Then jack boots some of its clients off, or even crashes, and I have to
start again.
Time spent setting up jack etc: 90%
Time doing productive work: 10%
The problem is not nearly as bad if I don't have much connected to jack,
which is one of the reasons I find myself using an integrated windows
DAW in wine. But I still need to run some external soft synths, but then
I get these stability problems. Admittedly I am using jack from svn
because some other things which I have needed to build from svn have
jack from svn as a dependency, but things weren't really a whole lot
better even when I was using the official ubuntu deb. Things weren't
getting booted off as much, but horrible distortions would creep in that
would only go away when I disconnected or killed something.
I have no choice but to go the mac route. Whether I then choose to use
jack on that mac is still going to depend not only on whether it is
reliable but also on whether it can endure suspend/hibernate or
suspend/resume cycles. I would still like to be able to farm out some of
the work to cheap linux boxes, but again, that depends on whether jack
is up to the job.
I know this is not something anyone really wants to hear, particularly
since jack is already in the process of being completely redesigned
(jackdmp), but it is the limitations of jack that are the biggest
obstacles to FOSS being adopted in the pro-audio world. Unless jack is
fixed (or extended) so that it can recover from errors (including
letting its latency be adjusted on the fly), not even the fanciest
additional features in the world will make your application suitable for
pro-audio use.
To an extent you can forget about windows. The real challenge for Linux
and FOSS pro-audio is to win the trust and respect of mac users. Macs
are great tools for musicians. Windows gets used because it is cheaper.
Imagine studios with heterogenous mac/linux setups; easy-to-use and
intuitive tools combined with serious budget-priced processing power.
Jack (once its problems have been dealt with) will allow you to route
signals absolutely any way you like. X-forwarding or utilities such as
synergy will enable you to control what you are doing. Open-source
licensing makes it possible to conceive of applications runnign on a mac
distributing their work to linux-based realtime render farms. The only
real advantage of windows is that it can do a bit of everything. There's
no point using it if you can do everything by other means.
Robert
2:46 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 10:08 -0800, Robert Persson wrote:
Looking at my (non-)workflow yesterday, it is clear to
me that the most
time-wasting problems I am having are with jack. I start jack, I open
the various clients, I plug them into each other and I start working.
Then jack boots some of its clients off, or even crashes, and I have to
start again.
Time spent setting up jack etc: 90%
Time doing productive work: 10%
Most people's time spent setting up JACK is because they are on a Linux
distribution that doesn't come configured correctly for using realtime
media applications. On systems that are, running JACK is essentially
trivial unless you insist on using USB audio interfaces which, partly
because of their terrible h/w design and partly because of ALSA's poor
driver support for them (compared to OS X and Windows), tend to be more
problematic.
better even when I was using the official ubuntu deb.
Things weren't
getting booted off as much, but horrible distortions would creep in that
would only go away when I disconnected or killed something.
this is not a known feature of JACK SVN.
I know this is not something anyone really wants to
hear, particularly
since jack is already in the process of being completely redesigned
(jackdmp),
its not in process, and its not strictly a redesign.
but it is the limitations of jack that are the
biggest
obstacles to FOSS being adopted in the pro-audio world.
wierd that. the pro-audio world seems to love JACK.
Unless jack is
fixed (or extended) so that it can recover from errors (including
letting its latency be adjusted on the fly)
i guess you must have missed jack_set_buffer_size(). or perhaps you're
stuck with JACK clients that don't want to handle such things, and JACK
is just being respectful of their limitations. who really knows?
additional features in the world will make your
application suitable for
pro-audio use.
To an extent you can forget about windows.
that must be why all the commercial companies i interact with want
windows versions.
JACK has a number of problems, some of them significant. The things
you've spoken about are not among them.
--p
7:52 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 13:46 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 10:08 -0800, Robert Persson
wrote:
I was a bit confused by that as well. I'm running a vanilla FC6
without any patches and JACK just runs (like the energizer bunny). I do
have a patched kernel with Ingo's RT patches but I hardly ever boot it
because, for the most part, it isn't necessary.
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chardonnay in one hand, chocolate in the other, body
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming 'WOO HOO, what a ride'"
Looking at my (non-)workflow yesterday, it is
clear to me that the most
time-wasting problems I am having are with jack. I start jack, I open
the various clients, I plug them into each other and I start working.
Then jack boots some of its clients off, or even crashes, and I have to
start again.
Time spent setting up jack etc: 90%
Time doing productive work: 10%
Most people's time spent setting up JACK is because they are on a Linux
distribution that doesn't come configured correctly for using realtime
media applications. On systems that are, running JACK is essentially
trivial unless you insist on using USB audio interfaces which, partly
because of their terrible h/w design and partly because of ALSA's poor
driver support for them (compared to OS X and Windows), tend to be more
problematic.
8:06 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Jan Depner wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 13:46 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
don't wanna be a pita, but current jack svn is dropping the towel as
fast as one single client gets it astray -- in fact it really looks like
the other sort of bunnies :o)
yes, that is still an open issue and has been reported on the jack
list(s) several times now. i really wish i could get some time to look
at the source (of the trouble, that is) but, you know, old excuses don't
pay debts ... eheh
byee
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 10:08 -0800, Robert Persson
wrote:
I was a bit confused by that as well. I'm running a vanilla FC6
without any patches and JACK just runs (like the energizer bunny). I do
have a patched kernel with Ingo's RT patches but I hardly ever boot it
because, for the most part, it isn't necessary.
Looking at my (non-)workflow yesterday, it is
clear to me that the most
time-wasting problems I am having are with jack. I start jack, I open
the various clients, I plug them into each other and I start working.
Then jack boots some of its clients off, or even crashes, and I have to
start again.
Time spent setting up jack etc: 90%
Time doing productive work: 10%
Most people's time spent setting up
JACK is because they are on a Linux
distribution that doesn't come configured correctly for using realtime
media applications. On systems that are, running JACK is essentially
trivial unless you insist on using USB audio interfaces which, partly
because of their terrible h/w design and partly because of ALSA's poor
driver support for them (compared to OS X and Windows), tend to be more
problematic.
11:28 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 17:40 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 13:46 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
me too. even with a usb device.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 10:08 -0800, Robert Persson
wrote:
I was a bit confused by that as well. I'm running a vanilla FC6
without any patches and JACK just runs (like the energizer bunny). I do
have a patched kernel with Ingo's RT patches but I hardly ever boot it
because, for the most part, it isn't necessary.
Looking at my (non-)workflow yesterday, it is
clear to me that the most
time-wasting problems I am having are with jack. I start jack, I open
the various clients, I plug them into each other and I start working.
Then jack boots some of its clients off, or even crashes, and I have to
start again.
Time spent setting up jack etc: 90%
Time doing productive work: 10%
Most people's time spent setting up JACK is because they are on a Linux
distribution that doesn't come configured correctly for using realtime
media applications. On systems that are, running JACK is essentially
trivial unless you insist on using USB audio interfaces which, partly
because of their terrible h/w design and partly because of ALSA's poor
driver support for them (compared to OS X and Windows), tend to be more
problematic.
14 Dec
14 Dec
6:51 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 05:40:47PM -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 13:46 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 10:08 -0800, Robert Persson wrote:
> > Looking at my (non-)workflow yesterday, it is clear to me that the most
> > time-wasting problems I am having are with jack. I start jack, I open
> > the various clients, I plug them into each other and I start working.
> > Then jack boots some of its clients off, or even crashes, and I have to
> > start again.
> >
> > Time spent setting up jack etc: 90%
> > Time doing productive work: 10%
>
> Most people's time spent setting up JACK is because they are on a Linux
> distribution that doesn't come configured correctly for using realtime
> media applications. On systems that are, running JACK is essentially
> trivial unless you insist on using USB audio interfaces which, partly
> because of their terrible h/w design and partly because of ALSA's poor
> driver support for them (compared to OS X and Windows), tend to be more
> problematic.
>
This is a common pattern, a common complaint, but I think it is just the result of a
different approach.
I've been using Linux for 8 years now. I've had a completely 100% Linux life for 6
years now.
With Linux (and BSD, and Solaris too, in my experience), the pain-in-the-ass and anguish
is UP FRONT. It takes forever to get a system set up right. But, once you get it going,
you just forget about it. It becomes an appliance. It just RUNS, on and on, for years and
years and years, with only the minor maintenance required (backups, apt-get upgrade,
occasional hardware swaps, etc.).
Also, due to the endless customization possible with scripting together small unix
programs, a Linux system just kind of evolves to fit you and your needs, like a
comfortable chair contouring to your body.
Whereas, with MSFT "products", it's easy to get them set up, but you have to
fit yourself around them, and then you have to deal with pain-in-the-ass issues
constantly. And expensive forced upgrades, etc.
That said, distro's like Ubuntu and 64Studio are making the installation easier and
starting to give people the best of both worlds.
I predict that, soon, either 64Studio, Musix, UbuntuStudio, or the like, will make this
whole issue go away. We'll never hear anyonee whining about how long it takes to set
up JACK, because there'll be a friendly gooey wizard that'll do it for them
(jackdmp, please, not jackd-- multicores are becoming the norm), and it'll Just Work
(tm) within minutes.
-ken
1:57 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Paul Davis wrote:
JACK has a number of problems, some of them significant. The things
you've spoken about are not among them.
While I take the point that my understanding of what is going wrong when
I run jack is incomplete, what you have just told me is effectively: The
problems you claim to be experiencing are not happening. This kind of
thing is not a good basis for communication between developers and users.
I guess you must have missed jack_set_buffer_size().
or perhaps you're
stuck with JACK clients that don't want to handle such things, and JACK
is just being respectful of their limitations. who really knows?
Now that you have explained it I understand that jack will indeed allow
clients to change the buffer size on the fly. But please remember that I
am an end user, not a programmer, and that I am very unlikely to be
familiar with anything containing underscores and ending with empty
brackets. It's not just one or two jack clients that don't allow you to
change the buffer size. After googling it seems that ardour (which I
haven't used for a while) may allow you to do it, but none of the other
jack clients that I know do – not even qjackctl. It also seems, judging
by recent posts, that a few people on this list don't know about this
feature either.
I'm sorry if you thought I was being thoughtless posting what I did. I
know that jack has great potential and that it already allows you to do
some fantastic things. I want linux audio to succeed. If something is
making it impossible even for me to work with it then it will certainly
be a big barrier for someone who cares less about free software. That's
why I believe I should speak up. Jack not working properly is one such
obstacle for me. Unfortunately I also have to say that being told to
RTFM is another. This kind of attitude to end users is deeply damaging.
Any project that drifts into that way of thinking will fail. Please
don't go that route!
Best
Robert
3:46 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Robert Persson wrote:
what you have just told me is effectively: The
problems you claim to be experiencing are not happening.
Maybe he's sugesting the problem could lie with the clients?
There are a some great sounding apps out there, that are not working
very well with jack. Unfortunately zynaddsubfx is one of them :-(
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
http://atte.dk | http://myspace.com/attejensen
http://anagrammer.dk | http://modlys.dk
9:07 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 21:57 -0800, Robert Persson wrote:
Paul Davis wrote:
No, the problem here is that you comments are midway between a technical
user and a completely new user. You have opinions about the nature of
the user interface, specific features you think the system should have,
and ideas about what matters with respect to its adoption for specific
kinds of work, but at the same time, you want to plead "i am not a
programmer" etc. Rather than simply observe behaviour and say "this
doesn't work for me" or "this breaks the following workflow", you
chose
to get into the details of "this is how to fix jack". your assumption is
that since you know what appears to be broken, you also know what needs
to be fixed. this might seem like an obvious corollary, but i can assure
you that afters years of writing software, it simply isn't true.
I don't think, as you claimed, that you are being thoughtless in posting
what you did. But I am also not being disrespectful in my response.
So, lets go over it again:
1) the problem with JACK configuration is, to the best of my
knowledge, ALWAYS caused by either incorrect system configuration (i.e.
no authorization for the user to user realtime scheduling or memory
locking, in turn caused by incorrect setup or the wrong version of PAM
or its equivalent) OR by the use of specific hardware that requires
different defaults than the ones JACK picks on its own. Problems in the
first category are NOT solvable by JACK - they can only be solved by
distributions (or users if they want to try it). Problems in the second
category: well, here is where JACK could maybe do a better job and
automatically pick a better set of defaults. However, at this point this
is hard to do - there is no simple way for us to identify which hardware
requires different values. So, once again, this is a problem that
doesn't lie entirely within JACK's domain. It is also not clear to us
that
2) latency configuration - when JACK was designed, we understood that
for a number of applications, responding to changes in the buffer size
would be difficult. we also understood (perhaps incorrectly) that most
users did not need to do this. as time has gone by, and people have
grown comfortable with JACK and/or a new set of users with different
workflow requirements, a different perspective has crept in. JACK has
the technical ability to alter the buffer size on the fly, and most
clients will handle it. However, most *control* applications do not
provide a way to do so. Is this an error in JACK? If you see JACK as a
finished ecosystem that should just work for the user, then sure. If you
see JACK as a technology that can be used in a number of different ways,
and allows different control apps to be created for it, then not really.
JACK has a number of problems, some of them significant. The things
you've spoken about are not among them.
While I take the point that my understanding of what is going wrong when
I run jack is incomplete, what you have just told me is effectively: The
problems you claim to be experiencing are not happening. This kind of
thing is not a good basis for communication between developers and users. I'm sorry if you thought I was being thoughtless
posting what I did. I
know that jack has great potential and that it already allows you to do
some fantastic things. I want linux audio to succeed.
me too. but this can't happen in the way that a lot of people expect.
there is no dictator of linux audio. this is no like apple, where they
could say "CoreAudio is the API you will all use, now get busy". linux
audio, perhaps for better and perhaps for worse, is a ragtag collection
of individuals, APIs, technologies etc. its not some uniform, unified,
cohesive system, which is simultaneously its biggest strength and its
biggest weakness.
If something is
making it impossible even for me to work with it then it will certainly
be a big barrier for someone who cares less about free software. That's
why I believe I should speak up. Jack not working properly is one such
obstacle for me.
That's correct. But blaming JACK for not working properly is an obstacle
for us. JACK developers do not control the full context in which a user
uses JACK. If we did, JACK would Just Work (TM) for everyone. But we
don't, and its a problem for us when every single day on IRC i hear from
users like you who expect JACK to work, find it does not, and blame
JACK.
Unfortunately I also have to say that being told to
RTFM is another.
If only there really was a manual to FR.
15 Dec
15 Dec
1:42 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Paul Davis wrote:
1) the problem with JACK configuration is, to the best of my
knowledge, ALWAYS caused by either incorrect system configuration (i.e.
no authorization for the user to user realtime scheduling or memory
locking, in turn caused by incorrect setup or the wrong version of PAM
or its equivalent) OR by the use of specific hardware that requires
different defaults than the ones JACK picks on its own. Problems in the
first category are NOT solvable by JACK - they can only be solved by
distributions (or users if they want to try it). Problems in the second
category: well, here is where JACK could maybe do a better job and
automatically pick a better set of defaults. However, at this point this
is hard to do - there is no simple way for us to identify which hardware
requires different values. So, once again, this is a problem that
doesn't lie entirely within JACK's domain. It is also not clear to us
that
On my system, as well as the problem of clients being disconnected, jack
itself crashes a lot. I did not notice this problem until I started
using the SVN version. Jackd definitely gets realtime priority, albeit
using realtime-lsm (I didn't get very far with PAM). From what you have
said, this means that I must have a problem with configuration for the
hardware. I have an Audigy 2. Are there any weird settings I need to use
for this card to get jack running smoothly?
Robert
4:20 a.m.
On Dec 15, 2007 12:42 AM, Robert Persson <ireneshusband(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On my system, as well as the problem of clients being
disconnected, jack
itself crashes a lot. I did not notice this problem until I started
using the SVN version. Jackd definitely gets realtime priority, albeit
using realtime-lsm (I didn't get very far with PAM). From what you have
said, this means that I must have a problem with configuration for the
hardware. I have an Audigy 2. Are there any weird settings I need to use
for this card to get jack running smoothly?
That's exactly what I would expect from an arbitrary SVN checkout. Of
course, it would be a great help to the developers if you could get
core dumps from these crashes (do "ulimit -c unlimited" then launch
JACK from a terminal).
Why can't you use the last stable release?
Lee
8:12 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Lee Revell wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 12:42 AM, Robert Persson
<ireneshusband(a)gmail.com> wrote:
afaict, if Robert is using jack svn, most probably jackd is hanging and
gets killed by its own jack_watchdog. having a core dump might not help
much in that situation i'm afraid.
the problem still resides in jackd (bad) behavior to get stuck when it
tries to kick-out some client due to a probable timeout or even non-zero
process callback return value. haven't i told you before that it
suffices for a client process() callback to return a non-zero value to
let jackd crash itself? and there's a lot of jacks apps out there which
are still returning non-zero as a legal value, for self-shutdown for
instance. just let one of those get in or out from the jack graph and
kiss goodbye to your rock solid and stable jackd, bwaahahah :o)
this is happenning on jack svn for quite some time now (>= 0.105.x),
almost since early Spring'07 :)
cheers
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
On my system, as well as the problem of clients
being disconnected, jack
itself crashes a lot. I did not notice this problem until I started
using the SVN version. Jackd definitely gets realtime priority, albeit
using realtime-lsm (I didn't get very far with PAM). From what you have
said, this means that I must have a problem with configuration for the
hardware. I have an Audigy 2. Are there any weird settings I need to use
for this card to get jack running smoothly?
That's exactly what I would expect from an arbitrary SVN checkout. Of
course, it would be a great help to the developers if you could get
core dumps from these crashes (do "ulimit -c unlimited" then launch
JACK from a terminal).
11:27 a.m.
New subject: subject lines
Greetings,
Just a quick note to say that if I were searching the list archives for
more information on why jackd is bailing I'm sure I'd be instantly
attracted to the topic of "A year of Linux Audio revisited".
*NOT!*
Please, folks, change the subject when you're this far off topic. The
valuable information here is effectively buried without a clear pointer
to it, and the current subject line is not a helpful pointer re: Jack woes.
Best,
dp
noon
New subject: bad jack behavior (was: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion)
Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
As per Dave's advice I've changed the topic.
I posted a fix for this issue to the jack devel mailing list, and I'm
waiting for feedback. It solves these issues for me, so I guess you
could say that it's going to be fixed RSN. After positive feedback it
will be committed.
Greets,
Pieter
PS: apparently persistent subtle complaining on high-exposure lists does
pay of on the long run :). Thx to Rui for constantly raising the
priority of this issue. ;)
On Dec 15, 2007 12:42 AM, Robert Persson
<ireneshusband(a)gmail.com> wrote:
afaict, if Robert is using jack svn, most probably jackd is hanging and
gets killed by its own jack_watchdog. having a core dump might not help
much in that situation i'm afraid.
the problem still resides in jackd (bad) behavior to get stuck when it
tries to kick-out some client due to a probable timeout or even non-zero
process callback return value. haven't i told you before that it
suffices for a client process() callback to return a non-zero value to
let jackd crash itself? and there's a lot of jacks apps out there which
are still returning non-zero as a legal value, for self-shutdown for
instance. just let one of those get in or out from the jack graph and
kiss goodbye to your rock solid and stable jackd, bwaahahah :o)
this is happenning on jack svn for quite some time now (>= 0.105.x),
almost since early Spring'07 :) On my system, as well as the problem of clients
being disconnected, jack
itself crashes a lot. I did not notice this problem until I started
using the SVN version. Jackd definitely gets realtime priority, albeit
using realtime-lsm (I didn't get very far with PAM). From what you have
said, this means that I must have a problem with configuration for the
hardware. I have an Audigy 2. Are there any weird settings I need to use
for this card to get jack running smoothly?
That's exactly what I would expect
from an arbitrary SVN checkout. Of
course, it would be a great help to the developers if you could get
core dumps from these crashes (do "ulimit -c unlimited" then launch
JACK from a terminal).
5:23 p.m.
New subject: bad jack behavior
Pieter Palmers wrote:
Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
i've tested the patch and it does seem to solve the process callback
return value issue, in most scenarios that i've briefly tested. didn't
found any side effects.
however, it still fails with the very same behavior when the alsa
playback device is dmix based. but that might just be yet another can of
worms ;)
the patch looks good and i do testify for a recommendation.
Pieter, you're my hero ;)
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
the problem still resides in jackd (bad) behavior to get stuck when it
tries to kick-out some client due to a probable timeout or even non-zero
process callback return value. haven't i told you before that it
suffices for a client process() callback to return a non-zero value to
let jackd crash itself? and there's a lot of jacks apps out there which
are still returning non-zero as a legal value, for self-shutdown for
instance. just let one of those get in or out from the jack graph and
kiss goodbye to your rock solid and stable jackd, bwaahahah :o)
this is happenning on jack svn for quite some time now (>= 0.105.x),
almost since early Spring'07 :)
As per Dave's advice I've changed the topic.
I posted a fix for this issue to the jack devel mailing list, and I'm
waiting for feedback. It solves these issues for me, so I guess you
could say that it's going to be fixed RSN. After positive feedback it
will be committed.
Greets,
Pieter
PS: apparently persistent subtle complaining on high-exposure lists does
pay of on the long run :). Thx to Rui for constantly raising the
priority of this issue. ;)
16 Dec
16 Dec
4:01 p.m.
New subject: centralised bug management? (was: bad jack behavior)
Pieter Palmers wrote:
PS: apparently persistent subtle complaining on
high-exposure lists does
pay of on the long run :). Thx to Rui for constantly raising the
priority of this issue. ;)
I am well aware that this might be a completely impracticable
suggestion, but as I don't know this for certain, I offer it anyway:
One thing I find very useful when I am using ubuntu is the centralised
bug management. This means that whenever I encounter a bug I can simply
click on a link to launchpad.net from my browser's toolbar bookmarks and
make my report. This may then sit around for months on end, it may get
dealt with by canonical if it is a packaging issue or something like
that, or it may get forwarded upstream to the developers. This means
that I can contribute to the project without spending too long away from
my work trying to sign up for yet another bugzilla or mailing list.
Because of this arrangement I have been able to report an awful lot of
bugs I might otherwise have ignored, a good few of which have been fixed
as a result of my reports.
I fully understand that Canonical is a completely different kind of
setup to the linux audio community, with a very different business
model, paid employees and some good sources of funding. All the same,
might it be possible to institute something comparable with regard to
linux pro-audio, or would that be way more trouble than it's worth? One
advantage of this might be that bugs could be assigned a priority
relative to the linux audio project as a whole. Another might be that
similar bugs affecting more than one project (such as poor integration
with jack) could be dealt with together.
If there is something to be said for this suggestion, might
launchpad.net be a suitable host?
Robert
3:24 p.m.
New subject: Jack bad behaviour (was A year of Linux Audio revisited...)
Lee Revell wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 12:42 AM, Robert Persson
<ireneshusband(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A number of other apps from svn have jack svn as a dependency. This
means, for instance, that if I want mute groups in hydrogen, which is
something I need for what I am trying to do, I have no option but jack svn.
I tried to use jackdmp instead, but I couldn't get qjackctl to recognise
it. I considered rolling back to a stable version of jack, but as I had
had trouble with earlier versions as well, I wasn't sure I would be much
better off. I might yet reconsider, but then again it sounds like people
are working hard at putting things right so it might be better simply to
be patient a while longer.
But yes, I shall certainly try to get some core dumps next time I do
some tootling.
Many thanks
Robert
On my system, as well as the problem of clients
being disconnected, jack
itself crashes a lot. I did not notice this problem until I started
using the SVN version. Jackd definitely gets realtime priority, albeit
using realtime-lsm (I didn't get very far with PAM). From what you have
said, this means that I must have a problem with configuration for the
hardware. I have an Audigy 2. Are there any weird settings I need to use
for this card to get jack running smoothly?
That's exactly what I would expect from an arbitrary SVN checkout. Of
course, it would be a great help to the developers if you could get
core dumps from these crashes (do "ulimit -c unlimited" then launch
JACK from a terminal).
Why can't you use the last stable release?
Lee
14 Dec
14 Dec
8:19 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:08:36AM -0800, Robert Persson wrote:
Time spent setting up jack etc: 90%
Time doing productive work: 10%
The problem is not nearly as bad if I don't have much connected to jack,
which is one of the reasons I find myself using an integrated windows
DAW in wine. But I still need to run some external soft synths, but then
I get these stability problems.
Which are probably not due to jack. Either your system is not
set up correctly, or some of your apps don't behave as good
jack apps.
Yesterday I set up a system using (all at the same time)
- 64 channels in/out (MADI), period size 256
- two ambisonic decoders, driving 32 channels,
- five instances of Ardour, all playing tens of channels,
- four instances of Jconv doing multichannel reverb convolutions,
- other bits and pieces.
I don't know the total number of jack ports and
connections, but it must have been near 500.
All this worked during more than 8 hours, without
any glitch and zero xruns. As I knew it would - this
was a demo for a *very* *big* customer and I could
not afford anything going wrong.
System: out-of-the-box F7 + CCRMA system, without any
special tuning.
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
Lascia la spina, cogli la rosa.
16 Dec
16 Dec
8:34 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Pieter Palmers <pieterp(a)joow.be> writes:
pay the bills
I can't find any donation entry on your site, as so many project
sites. I also haven't asked before, because I still don't own a 1394
device.
I now donate to fsf, ardour, crystalspace and wikimedia; ardour and
gnu every month, even on a student "salary";).
It makes me feel good to support projects financially, but most
projects don't put up a donation entry. It should be part of our
culture to support free software projects.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
sip:b0ef@ e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
10:19 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Esben Stien wrote:
Pieter Palmers <pieterp(a)joow.be> writes:
You are correct, there is no donation button. The topic didn't rise yet.
As long as you don't accept donations, you have the freedom to always
walk away. Which is of course part of the problem.
I know that I will still have some time to work on this for the next
year. But after that it might be that my professional life interferes.
So then I have two options: either cut down on the Linux Audio stuff, or
cut on 'work'. And to be very honest, the way things are at the moment,
I don't want to be depending on Linux Audio for my (and probably by
then, my family's) living.
In summary, the option to have no obligations does have it's advantages.
But this is the exact reasoning that prevents Linux audio from getting
anywhere. Mea culpa.
pay the bills
I can't find any donation entry on your site, as so many project
sites. I also haven't asked before, because I still don't own a 1394
device.
I now donate to fsf, ardour, crystalspace and wikimedia; ardour and
gnu every month, even on a student "salary";).
It makes me feel good to support projects financially, but most
projects don't put up a donation entry. It should be part of our
culture to support free software projects.
I completely agree.
Maybe we should consider some sort of 'no strings attached' donation
agreement. Or maybe something like 'the software you get for free, but
if you want support please donate'? This last one might be a good
side-effect in our specific case: one of the biggest reasons why vendors
hesitate to support us is that they fear that their customer support is
going to have to deal with Linux users. Which they don't want since they
don't have any experience. So 'outsourcing' the support might be an
option. One way or another companies can't seem to grasp why people do
these things for free.
Greets,
Pieter
10:40 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:18:45 +0100
Pieter Palmers <pieterp(a)joow.be> wrote:
Esben Stien wrote:
I would like to make the point that, if you include sufficient
documentation then someone else has a chance of taking up where you
leave off.
I've seen one or two pieces of 'abandonware' that might have been
small enough for me to do a little work on, but couldn't even start as
I didn't have a clue *why* some things were done.
I know it's the most hated part of any project, but I really wish
people would write down a reasonable overview including what decisions
made been made and why, such as:
I used method foo instead of bar because although it's not as pretty it
handles crap input better.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Pieter Palmers <pieterp(a)joow.be> writes:
You are correct, there is no donation button. The topic didn't rise yet.
As long as you don't accept donations, you have the freedom to always
walk away. Which is of course part of the problem. pay the bills
I can't find any donation entry on your site, as so many project
sites. I also haven't asked before, because I still don't own a 1394
device.
11:27 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Pieter Palmers <pieterp(a)joow.be> writes:
Maybe we should consider some sort of 'no strings
attached' donation
agreement.
That's the whole purpose of donating, in my opinion.
Or maybe something like 'the software you get for
free, but if you
want support please donate'?
That doesn't fly well, I think. I donate because I want you to do what
you do best, being an enthusiast and doing what you want to do, which
is unbeatable. We all need money to buy cherry coke and smoke and pay
all the bills, so if I can help you do that and you can continue doing
what you do best and loving every minute of it, then something great
will come out of it.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
sip:b0ef@ e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
11:38 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Esben Stien <b0ef(a)esben-stien.name> writes:
I now donate to fsf, ardour, crystalspace and
wikimedia
..and democracy_now;)
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
sip:b0ef@ e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
13 Dec
13 Dec
2:31 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 10:44:45AM +0000, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 05:50, Robert Persson
wrote:
FWIW, I turn up the "Humanize Timing" and "Humanie Velocity" knobs in
Hydrogen a lot, and that gets me all of the "groove" I need, other than what I
can supply through my own imperfect playing.
Hydrogen is Free Software, so the code it uses to perform these features is available for
anyone that wants to cut and paste it into another sequencer, such as Rosegarden or what
have you. I haven't looked at it, but I'll bet it's just calls to rand().
-ken
Here is a good explanation of how groove quantise
works in protools:
http://www.audiomidi.com/classroom/protools_corner/ptcorner_63.cfm
For some really fancy midi stuff going way further than groove quantise,
you could take a look at some of Ntonyx's products, such as StyleEnhancer
and StyleMorpher. If Rosegarden could implement some of those features that
would be very useful for composers.
Groove quantization is one of the oldest outstanding feature requests in the
Rosegarden tracker, submitted by me in 2002:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=633259&gro…
Unfortunately, as for so many features, this has simply never percolated to
the top of my priority queue, or stack, or whatever my brain uses, and nobody
else has ever shown much interest in coding it. And sadly I only have eight
hands and three heads and there are only 132 hours in the day.
Your remark about the unhelpfulness of comparing Rosegarden with Cubase
arrived on the same day that we removed an introductory note that made that
comparison from the Rosegarden website. Although it's sometimes helpful as a
quick answer to "what the hell is this program with this meaningless name
supposed to be for?", it is certainly problematic, not just as a description
but as a statement of intent. Rosegarden would probably have benefited over
the years from trying less hard to do absolutely everything: attempting
to "be Cubase" is arguably undesirable as well as unachievable.
A related point is that stronger "competition" might also have been
beneficial. If other Linux sequencers were more widely recognised as the
obvious choice for certain sorts of users, we would have felt more free to
focus only on those use cases we were really comfortable with. Being more
popular with users doesn't necessarily gain you a huge number of extra
developers. In this world, as a developer you aren't really in competition
with other applications for user interest, except where it pains you that no
other application is providing a feature at all, or to please your ego. But
it's more important to maintain your own interest by doing the things you
really want to see done.
Sorry, another unhelpful digression in this over-digressed thread.
For what it's worth, Rosegarden does support grid quantize (snapping events to
a grid), swing quantize (displacing the off-beat), and iterative quantize
(pulling events only part of the way to the grid lines), and it can construct
a tempo map from a MIDI segment based on the difference between the actual
beat timings in the segment and the expected timings at the current time
signature (sort of inside-out quantization). But no groove quantize.
11 Dec
11 Dec
11:07 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Am Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2007 schrieb Rob:
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 09:04, Charles Linart
wrote:
But actually the beatles are more successfull than these new casted bands that
change name/members/style/quantization every year.
And all the "quantizing by groove" is a nice academic project (think about
neuronal networks and such to recreate the groove of some fancy drummer) but
in reality there is nothing better than jamming with real persons with real
groove with real sloppiness. Except maybe when doing techno (=eletronic music
with a beat != electronic experimental music) but who needs a special, not
handcoded artificial groove in techno anyway?
Arnold
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
administrator to do so...
As for "quantizing the groove" -- I
don't even know what that
means, but it probably has something to do with the fact that 99
Just because
you're ignorant about a function doesn't mean it's
unimportant. Also, "You don't need that feature, it sucks anyway"
followed by a rant about how successful music sucks, is an evasion,
not a real argument, even if you did know what the hell you were
talking about.
11:12 a.m.
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 15:06:26 Arnold Krille wrote:
real groove with real sloppiness. Except maybe when
doing techno
(=eletronic music with a beat != electronic experimental music) but who
needs a special, not handcoded artificial groove in techno anyway?
But that's exactly why the Akai MPC-60 was so popular - you hear its distinct
clip-clop shuffle quantise all over early hip-hop records.
Gordon
1:14 p.m.
Just because you're ignorant about a function
doesn't mean it's
unimportant. Also, "You don't need that feature, it sucks anyway"
followed by a rant about how successful music sucks, is an evasion,
not a real argument, even if you did know what the hell you were
talking about.
Successful music? What's that? You mean commercial music? By my
definition of success (sounding good) it is a complete and total
failure in most cases. Now hear out my "argument":
Music is a human experience, and mechanizing it to the extent that
it's mechanized today in commercial studios dehumanizes it; therefore,
commercial music sucks. You may disagree, but maybe my ears are just
better attuned than yours to the clocklike monotony of what you call
"successful" music.
Many good songs are completely ruined by overproduction. The best
artists out there are still doing it live-to-tape, and Linux is just
fine for that sort of thing. Even electronic music (not my thing, but
for what it's worth...) made with Linux sounds pretty damn competent
to me. You should listen to some of the stuff people post to this
list from time to time. It's dang good.
As for "quantizing the groove," open-source programs have many, many
ways of doing that based on the description from the Cakewalk website,
even if they don't have a cool marketing slogan for it. Maybe we
should call it "phreaking the matrix" in the OSS audio world.
3:49 p.m.
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 12:14, Charles Linart wrote:
Many good songs are completely ruined by
overproduction.
In your opinion, of course. My own opinion is that production and
arrangement are more important to the impact of a piece than the
skill of its players, with composition being the most important of
all. You'll say I'm wrong, and you will be wrong.
But neither of our opinions matter to people who are looking at Linux
audio tools and finding them lacking. Saying "That feature that I've
never heard of sucks, and if you use it, your style of music sucks"
doesn't come off as an indictment of commercialism so much as it
resembles sour grapes.
If you're happy with Linux audio being as limited as a glorified tape
recorder, that's fine, but some of us have higher ambitions.
Rob
5:24 p.m.
you can try all you want to 'fix it in the mix' but you can't polish a
turd. If you can't play, no engineering on the planet will save you.
In your opinion, of course. My own opinion is that production and
arrangement are more important to the impact of a
piece than the
skill of its players, with composition being the most important of
all. You'll say I'm wrong, and you will be wrong.
watch a high school shakespeare rendition sometime.
But neither of our opinions matter to people who are
looking at Linux
audio tools and finding them lacking. Saying "That feature that I've
never heard of sucks, and if you use it, your style of music sucks"
doesn't come off as an indictment of commercialism so much as it
resembles sour grapes.
if you have to step input your music and rely on groove quant to make it
sound
'real' you are speaking from a massive musical disadvantage. We've been
making music
for tens of thousands of years, it seems to me you're the one blaming your
tools.
If you're happy with Linux audio being as limited as a glorified tape
recorder, that's fine, but some of us have higher ambitions.
again, if you can't record music with a 'record' and 'stop' button.
Nothing
can really help you.
Can linux replace a windows or OSX rig that a schmuck can load up, slap some
loops on, use factory presets on
their softsynths and press a magic button to fix their amateurish keyboard
noodlings?
no
can linux be used to make music? yes
-bradley newton haug
Rob
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
5:28 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 22:24 +0100, bradley newton haug wrote:
again, if you can't record music with a
'record' and 'stop' button.
Nothing can really help you.
That's silly. Lots of modern music would be impossible to play with
"real" instruments, and I doubt that the people with the skills to make
that kind of music are exactly the same people who are good at playing
traditional live instruments.
--ll
5:41 p.m.
I wasn't speaking against non traditional instruments.
On Dec 11, 2007 10:27 PM, Lars Luthman <lars.luthman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 22:24 +0100, bradley newton haug
wrote:
again, if you can't record music with a
'record' and 'stop' button.
Nothing can really help you.
That's silly. Lots of modern music would be impossible to play with
"real" instruments, and I doubt that the people with the skills to make
that kind of music are exactly the same people who are good at playing
traditional live instruments.
--ll
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
5:36 p.m.
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 16:24:15 bradley newton haug wrote:
you can try all you want to 'fix it in the
mix' but you can't polish a
turd. If you can't play, no engineering on the planet will save you.
In your opinion, of course. My own opinion is that production and
Not so, better musicians can help.
Hey, basically, at this point, musically, I might be able to write some
lyrics. That's about it. If I am lucky. On a good day.
But I have ideas in my head with no good way to get them out.
Can't get a tune out of my head vocally. Can't play, though I keep trying in a
low key way to learn. Any natural gifts I have seem to be in other areas.
So, if I can find tools to help me get my ideas out of me and into a form
where others who can play and sing can more easily run with them, I think
those tools might just be welcome.
Granted, the recordings of any music I might make that way may leave a lot to
be desired, but I don't see why they could not serve as the germ for
something better.
arrangement are more important to the impact of a
piece than the
skill of its players, with composition being the most important of
all. You'll say I'm wrong, and you will be wrong.
watch a high school shakespeare rendition sometime.
But neither of our opinions matter to people who
are looking at Linux
audio tools and finding them lacking. Saying "That feature that I've
never heard of sucks, and if you use it, your style of music sucks"
doesn't come off as an indictment of commercialism so much as it
resembles sour grapes.
if you have to step input your music and rely on groove quant to make it
sound
'real' you are speaking from a massive musical disadvantage. We've been
making music
for tens of thousands of years, it seems to me you're the one blaming your
tools.
If you're happy with Linux audio being as
limited as a glorified tape
recorder, that's fine, but some of us have higher ambitions.
again, if you can't record music with a 'record' and 'stop' button.
Nothing can really help you.
Can linux replace a windows or OSX rig that a schmuck can load up, slap
some loops on, use factory presets on
their softsynths and press a magic button to fix their amateurish keyboard
noodlings?
no
I dream of something that I could sing known songs to and that could
then "calibrate" to my poor voice (I can't carry a tune) and then adjust the
pitch to match the known notes.... Then, look for patterns in how I am off
and learn my failings... Then, listen to new, unknown, tunes and adjust those
according to the learned patterns. And then notate the melody. Then I could
listen to that and see if it is what is in my head, let me adjust it on
screen. Then sing again and match the now known melody...
Not a bad dream. Perhaps some day... Or perhaps some day something may click
inside my head and I might learn to sing.
can linux be used to make music? yes
-bradley newton haug
> Rob
all the best,
drew
12 Dec
12 Dec
4:02 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
drew Roberts wrote:
I dream of something that I could sing known songs to
and that could
then "calibrate" to my poor voice (I can't carry a tune) and then adjust
the
pitch to match the known notes.... Then, look for patterns in how I am off
and learn my failings... Then, listen to new, unknown, tunes and adjust those
according to the learned patterns. And then notate the melody. Then I could
listen to that and see if it is what is in my head, let me adjust it on
screen. Then sing again and match the now known melody...
There may be voice training software like that around somewhere, at
least in teaching people to sing along with a known melody.
Not a bad dream. Perhaps some day... Or perhaps some
day something may click
inside my head and I might learn to sing.
Interesting thing I remembered. When Neal Diamond started, he couldn't
read or write music at all. For anything. He didn't know music theory or
harmony or anything. Yet he created almost every part of his early
songs. How? He would sing what he wanted it (let's say a guitar bass
line) to sound like, and go back and forth with the bassist until it
sounded the way he wanted. Then he'd to the same thing for every other
instrument he wanted in the arrangement. (Of course, he is a rather
skilled singer.) He only knew how he wanted it to sound.
Several years later, possibly as much as ten years, he finally learned
to read and write music, learned harmony theory, etc. IMHO, *he stopped
sounding like himself* and started sounding like the way everyone else
wrote songs. But of course he was a big commercial success by then and
he no longer had any reason to sound unique.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
11 Dec
11 Dec
5:50 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Please! This is really very rude. It also contains many statements that
would be hotly contested by academics in such fields as art history and
performance theory. It is probably high time you acquainted yourself
with the work of the Portsmouth Sinfonia
<http://www.portsmouthsinfonia.com/media/sundaytimes.html>.
As for school theatre productions, I can safely say that my son's grade
1 class play was far more fascinating and conceptually intriguing than
most of the professional theatre I have had to endure in recent years.
I've been asking myself how grown-ups might be able to generate the same
kind of distracted spacedoutness. Maybe it's completely impossible. Pity.
bradley newton haug wrote:
you can try all you want to 'fix it in the mix' but you can't polish a
turd. If you can't play, no engineering on the planet will save you.
In your opinion, of course. My own opinion is that production and
arrangement are more important to the impact of a piece than the
skill of its players, with composition being the most important of
all. You'll say I'm wrong, and you will be wrong.
watch a high school shakespeare rendition sometime.
But neither of our opinions matter to people who are looking at Linux
audio tools and finding them lacking. Saying "That feature that I've
never heard of sucks, and if you use it, your style of music sucks"
doesn't come off as an indictment of commercialism so much as it
resembles sour grapes.
if you have to step input your music and rely on groove quant to make
it sound
'real' you are speaking from a massive musical disadvantage. We've
been making music
for tens of thousands of years, it seems to me you're the one blaming
your tools.
If you're happy with Linux audio being as limited as a glorified tape
recorder, that's fine, but some of us have higher ambitions.
again, if you can't record music with a 'record' and 'stop' button.
Nothing can really help you.
Can linux replace a windows or OSX rig that a schmuck can load up,
slap some loops on, use factory presets on
their softsynths and press a magic button to fix their amateurish
keyboard noodlings?
no
can linux be used to make music? yes
-bradley newton haug
6:19 p.m.
Contest them then. Hand-waving, general statements and some bizzare
paragraph about your son does nothing to support your stance.
On Dec 11, 2007 10:50 PM, Robert Persson <ireneshusband(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Please! This is really very rude. It also contains
many statements that
would be hotly contested by academics in such fields as art history and
performance theory. It is probably high time you acquainted yourself with
the work of the Portsmouth
Sinfonia<http://www.portsmouthsinfonia.com/media/sundaytimes.html>
.
As for school theatre productions, I can safely say that my son's grade 1
class play was far more fascinating and conceptually intriguing than most of
the professional theatre I have had to endure in recent years. I've been
asking myself how grown-ups might be able to generate the same kind of
distracted spacedoutness. Maybe it's completely impossible. Pity.
bradley newton haug wrote:
you can try all you want to 'fix it in the mix' but you can't polish a
turd. If you can't play, no engineering on the planet will save you.
In your opinion, of course. My own opinion is that production and
arrangement are more important to the impact of a
piece than the
skill of its players, with composition being the most important of
all. You'll say I'm wrong, and you will be wrong.
watch a high school shakespeare rendition sometime.
But neither of our opinions matter to people who
are looking at Linux
audio tools and finding them lacking. Saying "That feature that I've
never heard of sucks, and if you use it, your style of music sucks"
doesn't come off as an indictment of commercialism so much as it
resembles sour grapes.
if you have to step input your music and rely on groove quant to make it
sound
'real' you are speaking from a massive musical disadvantage. We've been
making music
for tens of thousands of years, it seems to me you're the one blaming your
tools.
If you're happy with Linux audio being as limited as a glorified tape
recorder, that's fine, but some of us have higher ambitions.
again, if you can't record music with a 'record' and 'stop' button.
Nothing can really help you.
Can linux replace a windows or OSX rig that a schmuck can load up, slap
some loops on, use factory presets on
their softsynths and press a magic button to fix their amateurish keyboard
noodlings?
no
can linux be used to make music? yes
-bradley newton haug
6:33 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
bradley newton haug wrote:
Contest them then. Hand-waving, general statements
and some bizzare
paragraph about your son does nothing to support your stance.
The point I am making is please stop posting stuff to this list implying
that other list members are untalented idiots and that their music is shit.
6:56 p.m.
I said nothing of the sort, Freud probably would, but that's not really my
field.
On Dec 11, 2007 11:33 PM, Robert Persson <ireneshusband(a)gmail.com> wrote:
bradley newton haug wrote:
Contest them then. Hand-waving, general
statements and some bizzare
paragraph about your son does nothing to support your stance.
The point I am making is please stop posting stuff to this list implying
that other list members are untalented idiots and that their music is
shit.
7:19 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
bradley newton haug wrote:
I said nothing of the sort, Freud probably would, but
that's not
really my field.
On Dec 11, 2007 11:33 PM, Robert Persson <ireneshusband(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ireneshusband@gmail.com>> wrote:
The point I am making is please stop posting stuff to this list
implying
that other list members are untalented idiots and that their music
is shit.
Well, as I have said elsewhere, my own skills as a musician are very
limited and so I have to rely on sequencers to realise my ideas.
Therefore according to you I indulge in amateurish keyboard noodling and
am incapable of producing any music of worth. So yes, you have insulted
my work. It is also pretty obvious that you Rob <lau(a)kudla.org> feels
that you have insulted his work. Nor is it exactly a secret that a lot
of other people on this list use step sequencers of one sort or another,
which means that you have insulted their work too. Please just get on
with you need to do, ask for advice if you need it, provide constructive
advice when you have it, and encourage other people to do whatever it is
they do, even if it isn't really your cup of tea. Trashing each other's
work gets none of us anywhere.
7:59 p.m.
oh cripes..
Going out of your way to find ways to be offended and play the underdog
doesn't help anyone either.
my statements stand unamended for the sake of accuracy in this thread.
Linux is just fine for professional audio.
On Dec 12, 2007 12:19 AM, Robert Persson <ireneshusband(a)gmail.com> wrote:
bradley newton haug wrote:
I said nothing of the sort, Freud probably would,
but that's not
really my field.
On Dec 11, 2007 11:33 PM, Robert Persson <ireneshusband(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ireneshusband@gmail.com>> wrote:
The point I am making is please stop posting stuff to this list
implying
that other list members are untalented idiots and that their music
is shit.
Well, as I have said elsewhere, my own skills as a musician are very
limited and so I have to rely on sequencers to realise my ideas.
Therefore according to you I indulge in amateurish keyboard noodling and
am incapable of producing any music of worth. So yes, you have insulted
my work. It is also pretty obvious that you Rob <lau(a)kudla.org> feels
that you have insulted his work. Nor is it exactly a secret that a lot
of other people on this list use step sequencers of one sort or another,
which means that you have insulted their work too. Please just get on
with you need to do, ask for advice if you need it, provide constructive
advice when you have it, and encourage other people to do whatever it is
they do, even if it isn't really your cup of tea. Trashing each other's
work gets none of us anywhere.
8:37 p.m.
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 18:19, Robert Persson wrote:
It is also pretty obvious that you Rob
<lau(a)kudla.org> feels that you have insulted his work.
I actually haven't responded to Mr. Haug, and on a list comprised
chiefly of electronic musicians, I feel no need to.
Rob
8:43 p.m.
Convenient, as you're the one I was addressing.
I have no idea where this 'electronic' distinction comes from. I'm a
keyboardist.
On Dec 11, 2007 4:31 PM, Rob <lau(a)kudla.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 18:19, Robert Persson
wrote:
It is also pretty obvious that you Rob
<lau(a)kudla.org> feels that you have insulted his work.
I actually haven't responded to Mr. Haug, and on a list comprised
chiefly of electronic musicians, I feel no need to.
Rob
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
8:54 p.m.
New subject: Personal abuse
This has gone way too far. Does this list have a moderator? This is a
blatant personal insult to another list member. It needs to be made
absolutely clear that this kind of conduct is not acceptable.
Robert
bradley newton haug wrote:
Convenient, as you're the one I was addressing.
On Dec 11, 2007 4:31 PM, Rob < lau(a)kudla.org <mailto:lau@kudla.org>>
wrote:
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 18:19, Robert Persson wrote:
It is also pretty obvious that you Rob
<lau(a)kudla.org <mailto:lau@kudla.org>> feels that you have
insulted his work.
I actually haven't responded to Mr. Haug, and on a list comprised
chiefly of electronic musicians, I feel no need to.
Rob
8:58 p.m.
New subject: Personal abuse
please point out to me, aside from your swearing, and his claiming ignorance
where I have insulted anyone.
his statement is where I joined the thread, he was the one I was addressing.
On Dec 11, 2007 4:54 PM, Robert Persson <ireneshusband(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This has gone way too far. Does this list have a
moderator? This is a
blatant personal insult to another list member. It needs to be made
absolutely clear that this kind of conduct is not acceptable.
Robert
bradley newton haug wrote:
Convenient, as you're the one I was
addressing.
On Dec 11, 2007 4:31 PM, Rob < lau(a)kudla.org <mailto:lau@kudla.org>>
wrote:
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 18:19, Robert Persson wrote:
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
It is also pretty obvious that you Rob
<lau(a)kudla.org <mailto:lau@kudla.org>> feels that you have
insulted his work.
I actually haven't responded to Mr. Haug, and on a list comprised
chiefly of electronic musicians, I feel no need to.
Rob
9:05 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
What do they say? Don't feed the trolls?
bradley newton haug wrote:
Convenient, as you're the one I was addressing.
I have no idea where this 'electronic' distinction comes from. I'm a
keyboardist.
On Dec 11, 2007 4:31 PM, Rob < lau(a)kudla.org <mailto:lau@kudla.org>> wrote:
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 18:19, Robert Persson wrote:
It is also pretty obvious that you Rob
<lau(a)kudla.org <mailto:lau@kudla.org>> feels that you have
insulted his work.
I actually haven't responded to Mr. Haug, and on a list comprised
chiefly of electronic musicians, I feel no need to.
Rob
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
<mailto:Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
5:54 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Hi,
Thank you all for your answers.
i'm glad that such a discussion has been motivated.
Can linux replace a windows or OSX rig that a schmuck
can load up, slap
some loops on, use factory presets on their softsynths and press a magic button to fix
their amateurish
keyboard noodlings?
Up to some point I would agree as far as I said....
"Learning encouragement – [...] to give you an example: On windows I
tend to use one of the thousand presets a synthesizer X provided instead
of trying to build something from scratch. "
.... but modern software for producing music has nothing to do with some
dudes
clicking through presets.
I don't know if you know bands like the german electronic-duo
funkstörung or some bands on warp/ninja tune records.
they are great musicians, i'm sure they play classic instruments but the
music is nothing
you can produce with normal instruments. It is completely electronic
music based on modifying
samples, a lot of effects etc. I think it's a bit narrow-minded to
reduce musician on those
who use classic instruments.
the computer can be an instrument, too. http://www.myspace.com/funkstorung
a turntable, as well.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friend…
(john wayne on acid)
bobby mcferrin doesn't need no instruments at all to be a musician.
the possibilities are unlimited. in my oppinion, a classical instrument
is not the criteria for a musician.
6 p.m.
at what point did I say that anything about classical vs 'modern'.
On Dec 11, 2007 10:54 PM, Sebastian Tschöpel <tschoseb(a)tu-cottbus.de> wrote:
Hi,
Thank you all for your answers.
i'm glad that such a discussion has been motivated.
Can linux replace a windows or OSX rig that a
schmuck can load up, slap
some loops on, use factory presets on their softsynths and press a magic
button to
fix their amateurish
keyboard noodlings?
Up to some point I would agree as far as I said....
"Learning encouragement – [...] to give you an example: On windows I
tend to use one of the thousand presets a synthesizer X provided instead
of trying to build something from scratch. "
.... but modern software for producing music has nothing to do with some
dudes
clicking through presets.
I don't know if you know bands like the german electronic-duo
funkstörung or some bands on warp/ninja tune records.
they are great musicians, i'm sure they play classic instruments but the
music is nothing
you can produce with normal instruments. It is completely electronic
music based on modifying
samples, a lot of effects etc. I think it's a bit narrow-minded to
reduce musician on those
who use classic instruments.
the computer can be an instrument, too.
http://www.myspace.com/funkstorung
a turntable, as well.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friend…
(john wayne on acid)
bobby mcferrin doesn't need no instruments at all to be a musician.
the possibilities are unlimited. in my oppinion, a classical instrument
is not the criteria for a musician.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
6:30 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Ola,
bradley newton haug wrote:
at what point did I say that anything about classical
vs 'modern'.
First you said....
"We've been making music for tens of thousands of years, it seems to me
you're the one blaming your tools."
... that might be correct. but when you proceeded with....
"again, if you can't record music with a 'record' and 'stop'
button.
Nothing can really help you. "
... it came in my mind: what kind of music you cannot record with a
'record' and 'stop' button and
that has to be all kinds of music that are based on something else than
"real" instruments.
examples: a lot of sample-based music like electronica or early hip hop
stuff. you have to sample,
cut the samples, load them into some kind of a memory to play them via
drumpads or a keyboard.
and you need tools to do that.
and every kind of music that is not based on "real" instruments
(incuding the voice or even two
sticks some apes slammed on the ground ten thousands of years ago) is -
as far as i didn't forget anything -
based on software or at least some kind of an digital circuit and
therefore something we don't
have for very long.....
That's why I assumed you meant a problem of modern music when suddenly
people can
make "music" who couldn't produce anything with just a play/stop tape
recorder (or similar)
Whatever..... one thing is a fact - at least for me: There are a lot of
musicians outthere who
are using tools to create sounds or music - equal if they are able to
play an instrument to record
music by pressing stop and play - by clicking and rotating pixel, never
with a need for a real instrument.
4:33 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Charles Linart wrote:
> Just because you're ignorant about a function
doesn't mean it's
> unimportant. Also, "You don't need that feature, it sucks anyway"
> followed by a rant about how successful music sucks, is an evasion,
> not a real argument, even if you did know what the hell you were
> talking about.
>
>
Obviously I agree with the point Rob is making here, but it's
important
not to let that get mixed up with personal attacks.
Successful music? What's that? You mean commercial music? By my
definition of success (sounding good) it is a complete and total
failure in most cases. Now hear out my "argument":
Music is a human experience, and mechanizing it to the extent that
it's mechanized today in commercial studios dehumanizes it; therefore,
commercial music sucks. You may disagree, but maybe my ears are just
better attuned than yours to the clocklike monotony of what you call
"successful" music.
But that is not a good argument for ignoring features that many people
want. In effect you are saying that everyone should make music the way
you do it. No wonder Rob feels so offended. I used to know someone who
had opted to learn the flute at school in the early seventies. When he
told his flute teacher at his first lesson that he wanted to be able to
play like Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull, the teacher fired him. Since then
music has become more eclectic, less class-ridden and less judgemental,
and that is certainly a good thing. Certainly a lot of commercial music
is pretty dull, but amongst all the dross within any particular genre
there are always some gems, if only you are willing to look for them.
And please don't tell me what kind of ears I have.
Many good songs are completely ruined by
overproduction. The best
artists out there are still doing it live-to-tape, and Linux is just
fine for that sort of thing.
If the best artists are doing it live to tape, why are
you using a
computer? Of course if your needs do not include sequencers then you are
very well catered for by Ardour (and will be even better catered for
once VST support is implemented). And certainly overproduction has
ruined many potentially great projects. However I would not agree that
all the best artists are doing it live to tape. Many ground-breaking
artists, from Edgard Varèse and Conlon Nancarrow to Tangerine Dream and
DAF, have assumed radically different ways of working for reasons that
are creatively and conceptually sound (although I freely admit that
Tangerine Dream has also used sequencers to produce some dreadful
schmaltz). Speaking for myself, I want groove quantise partly for
conceptual reasons—pastiche is an important aspect of my work—but mainly
because my "skills" as a musician are completely inadequate for
implementing the ideas I have. So please let's ditch the judgements
about other people's abilities and tastes. And let's ditch the flaming.
As for "quantizing the groove," open-source
programs have many, many
ways of doing that based on the description from the Cakewalk website,
even if they don't have a cool marketing slogan for it. Maybe we
should call it "phreaking the matrix" in the OSS audio world.
Please tell me more. I've been looking for these tools and I haven't
been able to find them. I will gladly give them a try if they are fairly
simple to use and integrate reasonably well with my work flow. As for
the term "groove quantise", it has attained fairly wide acceptance. It's
use is not limited to Cakewalk users.
Robert
11:33 a.m.
Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2007 Charles Linart:
incredibly low. Forget producing for a second: If you
use the
low-latency kernel from CCRMA, it's like hearing your favorite songs
for the first time.
That kernel must have good karma then. Guess I'll quantize on that for a
minute and then maybe throw out those great sounding hard-disks of mine to
get me a kernel in the groove ...
What on earth are you saying, Charles :?
Wolfgang
10:58 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Le Mardi, 11 Décembre 2007 09:04:05 -0500,
"Charles Linart" <clinart(a)gmail.com> a écrit :
punks comin' off the streets today. I'd
rather hear Neil Young and
Crazy Horse (or any halfway decent garage band) rock out a sloppy set
than suffer through the saccharine drivel on the radio these days.
Yep. Even the 'robotic' Neil Young on 'Trans' sounded good.
"Sample & Hold" - Live in Berlin
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vzf50r6jsVY
Cheers,
Al
10:51 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Le Mardi, 11 Décembre 2007 12:57:45 +0100,
Sebastian Tschöpel <tschoseb(a)tu-cottbus.de> a écrit :
> there's no software to use for storing presets
on the Axiom 25
> (only Windows) but that's OK
> since I don't need that function.
> And the Control Pad came with BFD
> drums that so far I cannot use on Linux (haven't looked at it that
> much either). I wouldn't call that hardware issues.
I would. Of course this problem isn't caused by
the hardware itself
but its a hardware issue to me when I can only use "basic
functionality" because there is no software available to do this kind
of job. I had the same problem
with a Wacom Graphire tablet. No expresskeys, only the basic
functions.
Some people can live with that but I don't.
I guess somewhere you are right. But then it also depends on the
context. I bought the Axiom 25 keyboard for just that, a keyboard, and
I was not even expecting that the knobs and various buttons would
work. I bought it only for the keyboard (and the little drum pads
which work nicely). Now, it can be that I could use the knobs for
something, maybe whit Ardour, but I haven't spent time on that. Now,
it could very well be that these knobs work plug & play with Windows
MIDI software.
From my point of view it is very clear that M-Audio does not support
Linux. What can you expect from a company that does not support
Linux ? This is not Linux's shortcomings. This has clearly nothing to
do with Linux. I've chosen Linux very knowingly and I do not expect it
to be like Windows.
In fact, that's two months now that the English version of Linux
Magazin has a full-page advert about a mostly Windows 'shareware'
magazine and it makes me want to not renew my subscription. Not only
it is mostly Windows, but it is about shareware, which is a sad parody
of Open Source's organized way of developing code.
That's it, I'm not renewing my subscription ! ;-)
Just as my terratec. By contrast. a friend of mine is
close to throw
his computer out the
window since his soundblaster something doesn't want to record
anything. I don't say that you'll experience constant hardware
problems, but that for a less experienced user it could get
dissappointing under certain circumstances.
I've seen a lot of Windows users like that too. Not need to use Linux
to face problems !
That is correct for MIDI devices since it is a very
old standard. If
you plug them
in via USB it doesn't have to be that easy --> like my Oxygen 8 or a
friend who
uses the E-MU 0404 USB. No chance.
Well, the M-Audio Axiom 25 and Prokeys88, as well as Alesis' Control
Pad all plug through USB and they all work since the first plugin, so
to speak. Too bad you had firmware problems with the Oxygen keyb.
Maybe I was lucky at the store when I picked up an Axiom instead of an
Oxygen.
Gruß,
Al
12 Dec
12 Dec
4:12 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Hello,
@Al
From my point of view it is very clear that M-Audio
does not support
Linux. What can you expect from a company that does not support
Linux ? This is not Linux's shortcomings. This has clearly nothing to
do with Linux.
That is correct. If i've been misunderstood: The article was somehow
pointed to
beginners and I just wanted to be honest, that they should live with the
fact they
could have problems with hardware designed for windows - when they
decide to
switch the os.
I think we agree in that point.
I've seen a lot of Windows users like that too.
Not need to use Linux
to face problems !
Well, that leads to the "computer-problems are just 60 cm away from the
screen." - thing :)
Correct.
@Dave
Thank you very much for your kind words :)
"Do you have any links to work you've produced with Linux audio tools ?
(Sorry if this question's been asked already.)"
No it hasn't. The last time I recorded music myself was during my
"Windows-era". Then I started to work on / write
new music or recorded elsewhere and in the mean-time I migrated to Linux
- and the real life etc. you know the deal :) .
Now since it works I am going to record the stuff I have written but
unfortunately I cannot show you anything
that satisfies me, yet. Sorry.
To give you an impression what I personally want to do with linux, thats
the last song I recorded on my windows completely on my own:
http://www.sternenhejim.de/share/sternenhejim.ogg
But I heard your (old?) stuff ;)
I really like your voice. Its sounds very professional and cool -
especially on "John The Revelator" - though I would
like to hear the difference to a recording with a good microphone (maybe
a tube) with some more proximity effect (or more base).
Some of the tunes are a bit too Midi'ish to me (Talkin' 'bout the
Weather) and on "it's over" (though it's engineered best and
the additional voice sounds great) I found it a bit strange to have a
rhythmguitar completely on the right and the lead on the
left but thats just a detail. The singer/songwriter-kind-of-tunes are
pretty pretty cool and the songwriting itself, as well.
Best regards,
Sebastian.
11 Dec
11 Dec
3:29 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Robert Persson wrote:
Rosegarden is a very useful tool in certain
circumstances. It could be
brilliant in a school music class (I'm sure there's someone out there
who's already using it in this way), and I myself use it for teaching
myself formal compostional techniques through score writing, but it just
doesn't cut it as a DAW. For instance if there is a way to create volume
envelopes for midi tracks, I have yet to find it. Another problem is
that I can't transpose the midi input so I have to route midi through
qmidiroute, which always takes a minute to set up.
Hmmm, in Rosegarden 1.5.1, under track parameters for any particular
track, there's a section called "Create segments with". When I expand
it, I find an assortment of options, including one called "Transpose"
that lets me transpose up or down. Is that what you're looking for? I
haven't fiddled with it, since I'm willing to transpose after recording
keyboard input if I need to.
Add up all these
little and not so little problems and you start to find that you have a
big problem.
In my opinion, Rosegarden (and other sequencer software) isn't meant to
be a DAW. I do mostly composition work, and leave the actual sound
making up to real instruments. So I have no use for DAW-type features.
I've heard that Audacity and Ardour are DAW applications, haven't tried
either of them yet.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
3:31 a.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Hello Robert,
thank you for your comprehensive and interesting reply.
Although I have tinkered with it for a while, it is
only recently that
it has actually become a viable audio platform for me. The two key
factors are wineasio and the continued improvements in the Windows DAW
Reaper.
Have you ever tried ardour? I know it isn't MIDI-capable (yet!) but to
me it is a
great DAW. As far as i know, Reaper isn't a linux-application at all, right?
Like with any mainstream commercial DAW, you can start
up Reaper and
carry on working where you left off. This is an absolute essential for
conventional multitrack recording.
That is something Ardour can provide. At least you could easily pick the
last
session in the start-up menu and off you go. Are there certain problems
you've discovered
by using Ardour? If you tried it.
Proper and comprehensive session management is an
absolute must.
Agreed.
Therefore it just isn't true that LMMS can do the
kind of job
that FL Studio can do, yet it seems that many people in the Linux audio
world think that it is.
That is correct. As for Rosegarden. I think it's not appropriate to
compare tools with
similar windows application especially if the handling is not (yet)
anything compared
to the windows tools. I also see no sense in it. As long as you do,
people will always
tend to use the "original".
Jack is another area of concern for me. [...] Either
jack must
become more forgiving or client applications must automatically
reestablish their own connection with jack and their routing to other
clients.
Well, I guess I have to agree. These are some problems I also had to
experience,
especially the xruns/crack-noises when you connect certain clients.
Another problem is: When you try to change the buffer size of the soundcard
you have to restart jack (what goes with disconnecting/closing all
clients).
On windows you could do that during production. This
is important to switch between recording (low latency, small buffer) to
mixing with
lots of effect (latency uninteresting, more ressources for effects).
And of course it also lacks groove quantise.
Thanks for pointing that out. This could be a problem to me very soon.
There are also some outstanding driver issues.
Okay. To me that is by far the biggest problem and as i said, i don't
think musician
or (semi-) professional producers would ever touch a linux machine as
long as this
problem exists. Even if it's something the linux-developers aren't
responsible for.
I should probably let someone else get a word in now.
I would be glad to hear some more (other) oppinions, as well.
Best regards,
Sebastian.
web: linuxaudioblog.sternenhejim.de
1:56 p.m.
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 00:30:57 Sebastian Tschöpel wrote:
Hello Robert,
thank you for your comprehensive and interesting reply.
> Although I have tinkered with it for a while, it is only recently that
> it has actually become a viable audio platform for me. The two key
--------------------------> clipped <------------------------------------
I would be glad to hear some more (other) oppinions, as well.
Best regards,
Sebastian.
What are the "Pro's" saying and doing? I guess the term "pro" is
someone who
makes money with what they produce, or is it the standards they adhere to? I
personally prefer the "high standard" definition. The history of musicianship
from all points on the globe is filled with the simple fact that musicians
probably spend more hours on tuning, tinkering, improvising than on playing.
To me it makes perfect sense that the "digital device", the new noise maker,
be fully in the hands of the musician to continue their historical tuning,
tinkering and improvising. And of course there are those musicians who leave
the tuning to someone else. Open source certainly seems to fit the time
honored profile whereas the locked proprietary code does not.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb04/articles/mirrorimage.htm an article on
a { $ } professional studio switching to Linux.
http://www.prorec.com/ Note: at the time of this posting their sever seems
to be down. This is a site dedicated to { $ } professional audio. They have a
very pro Linux article.
http://www.kokkinizita.net/linuxaudio/ A site where the audio envelope is
being pushed, with open source.
A content Linux \ Open Source person.
Tom
9:30 p.m.
New subject: A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion
Sebastian Tschöpel wrote:
I started to work with audio software on Linux about
one year ago and wrote down
my experiences in a small weblog. Since I managed to get things on the way,
I thought it would be time to sum up the experiences I made in the past year.
The result is a small midterm-report and I would be glad to hear some of your thoughts.
Not about the article itself but about the questions I had before I started to use Linux
as
audio production base, about the answers you might have found and about your personal
Likes and Dislikes.
Link:
http://www.sternenhejim.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&i…
Hi Sebastian,
I enjoyed reading your article, I'm glad to hear that you've made real
progess with making music under Linux, and I agree with most of your
commentary (which I thought was thoughtful and well-balanced).
Do you have any links to work you've produced with Linux audio tools ?
(Sorry if this question's been asked already.)
Best,
dp
6189
days inactive
6195
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
101 comments
30 participants
participants (30)
-
Arnold Krille -
Atte André Jensen -
Bill White -
bradley newton haug -
Charles Linart -
Chris Cannam -
Dave Phillips -
david -
drew Roberts -
Esben Stien -
Folderol -
Fons Adriaensen -
Gordon JC Pearce -
Ivica Ico Bukvic -
Jan Depner -
Ken Restivo -
lanas -
Lars Luthman -
Lee Revell -
Marc-Olivier Barre -
Patrick Shirkey -
Paul Davis -
Pieter Palmers -
plutek-infinity -
Rob -
Robert Persson -
Rui Nuno Capela -
Sebastian Tschöpel -
thomas fisher -
Wolfgang Woehl