24 Jul
2010
24 Jul
'10
9:51 p.m.
I wanted to draw everyone's attention to some plugins from linuxDSP,
which can be found here:
http://www.linuxdsp.co.uk
They are available as LV2 plugins compatible with most recent versions
of Ardour and Qtractor (and other hosts that support the required LV2
extensions) and also as linux VSTs for hosts such as energyXT, renoise
(and also Qtractor when built with the VST headers). They are also
available as standalone JACK client applications.
The most recent releases (the Pro-EQ and Pro-Dynamics) are specifically
intended to add professional quality channel processing to DAWs e.g.
Ardour, and in addition to high quality signal processing also feature
an innovative resizable GUI.
All the LV2 plugins have a GUI that will display the same way in a GTK
host as in a Qt host - which is not always the case with other plugins.
The plugins are not all free, but as one of the few full-time developers
of linux audio software (with over 20 years professional experience of
pro-audio), it is necessary to cover the cost of development and
provision of the software - and I think they are still very reasonably
priced.
Thanks.
Mike
www.linuxdsp.co.uk
25 Jul
25 Jul
11:59 a.m.
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 9:58 PM, linuxdsp <mike(a)linuxdsp.co.uk> wrote:
I wanted to draw everyone's attention to some
plugins from linuxDSP, which
can be found here:
http://www.linuxdsp.co.uk
They are available as LV2 plugins compatible with most recent versions of
Ardour and Qtractor (and other hosts that support the required LV2
extensions) and also as linux VSTs for hosts such as energyXT, renoise (and
also Qtractor when built with the VST headers). They are also available as
standalone JACK client applications.
The most recent releases (the Pro-EQ and Pro-Dynamics) are specifically
intended to add professional quality channel processing to DAWs e.g. Ardour,
and in addition to high quality signal processing also feature an innovative
resizable GUI.
All the LV2 plugins have a GUI that will display the same way in a GTK host
as in a Qt host - which is not always the case with other plugins.
The plugins are not all free, but as one of the few full-time developers of
linux audio software (with over 20 years professional experience of
pro-audio), it is necessary to cover the cost of development and provision
of the software - and I think they are still very reasonably priced.
Thanks.
Mike
www.linuxdsp.co.uk
Hi Mike,
Thanks for these good plugins for Linux.
It looks like you think this is the best way to make some profit out of it,
to not release the source code.
I am wondering, will there be a point when you will release the source code?
And when is that point reached?
For example, do you release the code when you will stop working on and / or
selling these plugins in the future?
\r
2:01 p.m.
On Sunday 25 July 2010 12:59:31 rosea grammostola wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 9:58 PM, linuxdsp
<mike(a)linuxdsp.co.uk> wrote:
Going gpl does not preclude selling finish products. Many musicians will not
want to compile and futz around, just run and enjoy. Going gpl does add a
community of folks who will help support and improve these fine plugins.
I wanted to draw everyone's attention to some
plugins from linuxDSP,
which can be found here:
http://www.linuxdsp.co.uk
******
Hi Mike,
Thanks for these good plugins for Linux.
It looks like you think this is the best way to make some profit out of it,
to not release the source code.
I am wondering, will there be a point when you will release the source
code? And when is that point reached?
For example, do you release the code when you will stop working on and / or
selling these plugins in the future?
2:53 p.m.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:00 AM, David Baron <d_baron(a)012.net.il> wrote:
Going gpl does not preclude selling finish products.
No, it doesn't. But it does create strong downward price pressure. If
there a market for product at price P, then there is a market for it a
price (P-1). Releasing under the GPL allows anyone who buys it at P
can resell at P-1. But if there is a market for it at P-1, then there
is a market for it at price P-2. the GPL allows anyone who buys it at
P-1 (or P) to resell at P-2. and so on, all the way down to P-P = 0.
This has less impact for companies like RedHat, where there is a
strong support market. It also has less impact on companies making s/w
that is a pain in the neck to install, even in pre-compiled form (e.g.
embedded systems) or that has very specific h/w requirements.
But audio plugins don't fit either category. The support needs are
pretty minimal, and the whole point of them is to be (a) easy to
install (b) avoiding any special h/w (this is why h/w dongles make
their use such a pain for some people). They have the additional
problem of *appearing* to be small and presumably simple little chunks
of code, which devalues them in the eyes of a pretty large section of
the user base. Very specialized plugins can have more apparent value,
and users who understand the complexities of creating a really good
digital (say) filter might also value the work.
5:36 p.m.
Which brings us to the point of basically saying that some software
seems to better off if it is proprietary.
Right?
On 7/25/10, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:00 AM, David Baron
<d_baron(a)012.net.il> wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
Going gpl does not preclude selling finish
products.
No, it doesn't. But it does create strong downward price pressure. If
there a market for product at price P, then there is a market for it a
price (P-1). Releasing under the GPL allows anyone who buys it at P
can resell at P-1. But if there is a market for it at P-1, then there
is a market for it at price P-2. the GPL allows anyone who buys it at
P-1 (or P) to resell at P-2. and so on, all the way down to P-P = 0.
This has less impact for companies like RedHat, where there is a
strong support market. It also has less impact on companies making s/w
that is a pain in the neck to install, even in pre-compiled form (e.g.
embedded systems) or that has very specific h/w requirements.
But audio plugins don't fit either category. The support needs are
pretty minimal, and the whole point of them is to be (a) easy to
install (b) avoiding any special h/w (this is why h/w dongles make
their use such a pain for some people). They have the additional
problem of *appearing* to be small and presumably simple little chunks
of code, which devalues them in the eyes of a pretty large section of
the user base. Very specialized plugins can have more apparent value,
and users who understand the complexities of creating a really good
digital (say) filter might also value the work.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
6:03 p.m.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Which brings us to the point of basically saying that
some software
seems to better off if it is proprietary.
Right?
As you say "software seems better off" if proprietary: No, I don't think
so.
It is however a way to make some income from the sales of the software.
I for myself can say I'm very happy if another coder looks trough my code, I
know there
are plenty of nasty pointer monsters and other meanies around that are out
to get me.
If my code was proprietary the software would be losing out as these
accidents waiting to
happen wouldnt get fixed, they *would* happen.
-Harry
6:12 p.m.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Harry Van Haaren
<harryhaaren(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I for myself can say I'm very happy if another
coder looks trough my code, I
know there
are plenty of nasty pointer monsters and other meanies around that are out
to get me.
If my code was proprietary the software would be losing out as these
accidents waiting to
happen wouldnt get fixed, they *would* happen.
yes, its a certainly good thing to have code review. but code review
(let alone patches) presupposes several things:
* other people with the technical expertise to review the code
* other people with the motivation to review the code
* other people with the time to review the code
the more specialized the code is, the less likely it is that these 3
conditions will be met. audio plugins are very specialized code. its
not impossible that somebody else is going to be able to find issues
with mike's plugins (if they exist), but its not really very likely
either. in such cases, my experience suggests that what is MUCH more
important than open source status is having a suitably sized group of
really skilled testers who know how to test and are willing to do so.
these are almost as hard to find as other developers, and the ardour
community is blessed to have several. good test/bug reports make fixes
easy, and worth doing.
there are other reasons for GPL'ing software, but i don't believe that
this is particular reason ("more eyes make bugs shallow") is a
compelling one for niche software.
--p
6:13 p.m.
On 07/25/10 17:35, Louigi Verona wrote:
Which brings us to the point of basically saying that
some software
seems to better off if it is proprietary.
Right?
No. OSS secures my investment because I am able to make sure it works
myself. I don't have to rely on any single company to supply me with
upgrades, that stops supporting it or tells me that the product doesn't
run with device X (and leaves it that way).
Flo
--
Machines can do the work, so people have time to think.
public key DA43FEF4 x-hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net
9:39 p.m.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 06:13:34PM +0200, Florian Faber wrote:
On 07/25/10 17:35, Louigi Verona wrote:
That's a biggie, particularly in the world of plugins.
The plains are littered with the carcasses of orphaned VST's.
Also, it's possible that a lot of the plugins out there-- particularly closed
VST's-- are just eye candy, and the code actually is horrid. We'll never know,
because we can't read it. You certainly can't tell good code from bad code by
looking at the sick GUI they put on top of it.
-ken
Which brings us to the point of basically saying
that some software
seems to better off if it is proprietary.
Right?
No. OSS secures my investment because I am able to make sure it works
myself. I don't have to rely on any single company to supply me with
upgrades, that stops supporting it or tells me that the product doesn't
run with device X (and leaves it that way).
10:32 p.m.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 12:39:08PM -0700, Ken Restivo wrote:
The plains are littered with the carcasses of orphaned
VST's.
Also, it's possible that a lot of the plugins out there-- particularly closed
VST's-- are just eye candy, and the code actually is horrid. We'll never know,
because we can't read it. You certainly can't tell good code from bad code by
looking at the sick GUI they put on top of it.
There's also a lot of horrid code you *can* read. Apparently
nobody reads it, at most it gets copied blindly to yet another
plugin which then inherits the problems of the one it is based
on.
Ciao,
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.
26 Jul
26 Jul
8:13 a.m.
Perhaps sometimes some VSTs hide bad code behind good GUI. But another
frequent case is that good code is hidden behind good GUI.
The only way to know is to try out, but yet again - in the world of VSTs
there are things to try out. In the free world the amount of plugins
is very small and there are not a lot of things to try out in the first
place.
I do not think I have a clear opinion on this. And I would be very
interested for you, devs of audio software, to share your opinions. But
lately,
after having been quite tired by fighting the limitations linux audio has
today for making certain types of music, I've been wondering whether
some software is better off being proprietary. It might not be reviewed
code, but it works. And I don't really want anyone to be able to change
code of, say, FL Studio, because it is a great piece of software already. I
don't remember ever encountering a bug while working in it.
Of course, I personally switched to Linux because of philosophical
principles. And now I find myself confused. Is it possible that some
software
is too complex, needs too tight a development and thus good funding to be
free? And instead needs to be proprietary to get things done?
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
11:43 a.m.
I do not think I have a clear opinion on this. And I
would be very
interested for you, devs of audio software, to share your opinions. But
lately,
after having been quite tired by fighting the limitations linux audio has
today for making certain types of music, I've been wondering whether
some software is better off being proprietary. It might not be reviewed
code, but it works. And I don't really want anyone to be able to change
code of, say, FL Studio, because it is a great piece of software already. I
don't remember ever encountering a bug while working in it.
Of course, I personally switched to Linux because of philosophical
principles. And now I find myself confused. Is it possible that some
software
is too complex, needs too tight a development and thus good funding to be
free? And instead needs to be proprietary to get things done?
Any software, be it opensource or proprietary, needs someone in charge. If I
modify some opensource package for my own use, that's my problem, but if I
want to distribute the modification, I think it needs to go through a
maintainer or moderator, just to keep things under some sort of control.
Proprietary stuff, of course, keeps the whole thing closed tight. One can
attempt to contact the proprietor with suggestions and feature requests. Some
have open ears and minds, others, you bought it, good luck.
Even without myself touching code, I have had loads of features incorporated
into GPLed programs after suggesting to the (main) author. The mindset is
simply different.
28 Jul
28 Jul
1 a.m.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 4:32 PM, fons wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 12:39:08PM -0700, Ken Restivo
wrote:
I think this is weak inference. Many people might still be reading the
code. Only those who don't read are copying the horrid code blindly to
their project.
Orcan
The plains are littered with the carcasses of
orphaned VST's.
Also, it's possible that a lot of the plugins out there-- particularly closed
VST's-- are just eye candy, and the code actually is horrid. We'll never know,
because we can't read it. You certainly can't tell good code from bad code by
looking at the sick GUI they put on top of it.
There's also a lot of horrid code you *can* read. Apparently
nobody reads it, at most it gets copied blindly to yet another
plugin which then inherits the problems of the one it is based
on.
midnight
Am 25.07.2010 17:35, schrieb Louigi Verona:
Which brings us to the point of basically saying that
some software
seems to better off if it is proprietary.
Some software tends to be better and faster developed, if the developers
are paid money to do the work. Enough money to make a living that is.
So if you want to see free software developed as fast and professional
as the (better part of) proprietary software is developed, just raise
some funds to pay people to do the work fulltime...
Right?
On 7/25/10, Paul Davis<paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:00 AM, David
Baron<d_baron(a)012.net.il> wrote:
Going gpl does not preclude selling finish
products.
No, it doesn't. But it does create strong downward price pressure. If
there a market for product at price P, then there is a market for it a
price (P-1). Releasing under the GPL allows anyone who buys it at P
can resell at P-1. But if there is a market for it at P-1, then there
is a market for it at price P-2. the GPL allows anyone who buys it at
P-1 (or P) to resell at P-2. and so on, all the way down to P-P = 0.
This has less impact for companies like RedHat, where there is a
strong support market. It also has less impact on companies making s/w
that is a pain in the neck to install, even in pre-compiled form (e.g.
embedded systems) or that has very specific h/w requirements.
But audio plugins don't fit either category. The support needs are
pretty minimal, and the whole point of them is to be (a) easy to
install (b) avoiding any special h/w (this is why h/w dongles make
their use such a pain for some people). They have the additional
problem of *appearing* to be small and presumably simple little chunks
of code, which devalues them in the eyes of a pretty large section of
the user base. Very specialized plugins can have more apparent value,
and users who understand the complexities of creating a really good
digital (say) filter might also value the work.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
12:01 a.m.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Hartmut Noack <zettberlin(a)linuxuse.de>wrote;wrote:
Am 25.07.2010 17:35, schrieb Louigi Verona:
Which brings us to the point of basically saying that some software
Yeah, I agree.
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
seems to better off if it is proprietary.
Some software tends to be better and faster developed, if the developers
are paid money to do the work. Enough money to make a living that is.
So if you want to see free software developed as fast and professional as
the (better part of) proprietary software is developed, just raise some
funds to pay people to do the work fulltime...
12:39 a.m.
2010/7/27, Hartmut Noack <zettberlin(a)linuxuse.de>de>:
Am 25.07.2010 17:35, schrieb Louigi Verona:
If I am a professional musician and I use a very neat, stable and
really good free software digital filter I would certaly donate to the
project if it does not have enough funds already.
What is important is not turning linux software into closed software.
Maybe for diferent types of software diferent strategies for funding
would be more adequate. I'm not sure what would be for audio plugins
and multimedia software in general.
A very neat and amazing digital filter can be a really hard work as
paul davis stated here. But one beatiful thing about free software,
and what it shares with science, is that it considers algorithms and
software ideas as knowledge, and knowledge should be shared. A really
amazing digital filter released as free software will benefith society
as a whole in the long run since its technical achivment will have a
greater potential to feed others great works that will also be free.
Which brings us to the point of basically saying
that some software
seems to better off if it is proprietary.
Some software tends to be better and faster developed, if the developers
are paid money to do the work. Enough money to make a living that is.
So if you want to see free software developed as fast and professional
as the (better part of) proprietary software is developed, just raise
some funds to pay people to do the work fulltime...
12:44 a.m.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 07:39:29PM -0300, Bernardo Barros wrote:
A very neat and amazing digital filter can be a really
hard work as
paul davis stated here.
And what would make a filter 'very neat and amazing',
taking into account that 99% of all recorded music worth
listening to was recorded using rather simple 1st and at
most 2nd order analog filters ?
Ciao,
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.
6:31 a.m.
Am Dienstag, den 27.07.2010, 19:39 -0300 schrieb Bernardo Barros:
But one beatiful thing about free software,
and what it shares with science, is that it considers algorithms and
software ideas as knowledge, and knowledge should be shared. A really
amazing digital filter released as free software will benefith society
as a whole in the long run since its technical achivment will have a
greater potential to feed others great works that will also be free.
+1
Indeed that's the point for all open source software, that's the reason
for me, for example, to work on open source software. Create and
maintain a knowledge base were all how like, could benefit from.
7:30 a.m.
If I am a professional musician and I use a very neat, stable and
really good free software digital filter I would certaly donate to the
project if it does not have enough funds already.
What is important is not turning linux software into closed software.
Maybe for diferent types of software diferent strategies for funding
would be more adequate. I'm not sure what would be for audio plugins
and multimedia software in general.
What you say is right in general, but for some reason there are not a lot of
good plugins out there. And what filter are you talking about anyway?
"Different funding strategies" is vague. I think that Linux would have lots
and
lots of cool stable apps if those "funding strategies" were obvious. But
they
are not.
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
4:37 p.m.
2010/7/28, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>om>:
"Different funding strategies" is vague. I
think that Linux would have lots
and
lots of cool stable apps if those "funding strategies" were obvious. But
they
are not.
They aren't indeed. Linux kernel is doing well with really big
companies supporting it. Multimedia applications still did not find
the best way, but they will. Donations from professionals and
universities doing research between arts and computer science would be
two options. All I said was to keep closed software away from
gnu/linux. (But I think proprietary under free OS is better then
proprietary software under proprietary OS, I don't know).
8:29 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Bernardo Barros
<bernardobarros2(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
2010/7/28, Louigi Verona
<louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>om>:
Who knows. Proprietary under free OS might be better indeed than under
proprietary OS. I am just wondering lately whether open source model of
development and/or environment of free and voluntary developers is at all
capable of delivering robust, stable and professional level apps. I am not
saying
that it is not possible in question, but I am wondering whether it is
possible on
a regular basis, since such apps are needed in many fields. And many things
on
GNU/Linux are either difficult or impossible to do today.
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
"Different funding strategies" is
vague. I think that Linux would have
lots
and
lots of cool stable apps if those "funding strategies" were obvious. But
they
are not.
They aren't indeed. Linux kernel is doing well with really big
companies supporting it. Multimedia applications still did not find
the best way, but they will. Donations from professionals and
universities doing research between arts and computer science would be
two options. All I said was to keep closed software away from
gnu/linux. (But I think proprietary under free OS is better then
proprietary software under proprietary OS, I don't know).
27 Jul
27 Jul
1:54 p.m.
linuxdsp wrote:
I wanted to draw everyone's attention to some
plugins from linuxDSP,
which can be found here:
http://www.linuxdsp.co.uk
And very fine plugins they are, well worth the modest prices.
Mike, I'd like to see an option where I could purchase and upgrade all
your plugins in a single bundle. At this point I'm confused whether my
current crop is up to date, plus I have to look up the keywords for each
plug when I want to update. Just a practical suggestion from an
otherwise happy user. :)
Best,
dp
5235
days inactive
5239
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
21 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
Bernardo Barros -
Dave Phillips -
David Baron -
Florian Faber -
fons＠kokkinizita.net -
Harry Van Haaren -
Hartmut Noack -
hermann -
Ken Restivo -
linuxdsp -
Louigi Verona -
Orcan Ogetbil -
Paul Davis -
rosea grammostola