Professional Audio on Linux? 469
twilightzero asks: "Recently a friend of mine who is chief engineer at a medium size recording studio/radio station has become increasingly unhappy with Windows (and would like to stay away from Macs) and has asked me if there is any sort of professional audio solution for Linux. Has anybody, anywhere ever tried this? Is it possible to buy a pro audio card with Linux drivers and just run Sound Forge in WINE or do you need an entirely native package?" This is one of those questions that just needs to be answered. What Open Source sound packages out there are good enough for even the professionals to use when they need to make their squeaks, squeals, and whistles. Also, what can they use to put their created sounds together into some semblance of music?
As an addendum, coasterfreak asks: "Being an avid Linux user and composer is a bit of a problem right now. I've never run across any decent music creation programs for Linux. I've used Finale and Cakewalk before, but have yet to see them for Linux. I've heard rumors of something coming from the Debain crew, but nothing more than rumors." Can anyone confirm or deny them?
Just as a bit of a helpful hint, how many of you have tried Audacity yet? It looks to be a fairly feature rich sound editor, and it supports mixing tracks, plugin sound effects, and is cross platform, to boot! Maybe this is a decent spring board for those of you looking to start experimenting with sound under Linux, but I'm not quite sure it's ready for professionals yet...this based on the version number of 0.97 rather than any actual experience, so I'd take the word of those who have said they have used it rather than mine. It would be great if Audacity is further along than it looks.
Linuxsound.at (Score:5, Informative)
Have fun!
That's pretty much it, isn't it? (Score:5, Funny)
Nice way to kill a story - provide the entire answer in one small, compact link. You've earned your Karma with barely a
Geez.
It's over folks - nothing left to see here, move along.
Oh well - at least I've got some ammo for this ArsTechnica Battlefront [infopop.net] thread.
Soko
Re:Linuxsound.at (Score:3, Interesting)
The mac is a great choice for professional audio.
(or at least a lot of professionals think so)
Re:Linuxsound.at (Score:2, Informative)
that's what most Linux users have against any software/hardware/OS. (or is that most
Yes, they are probably the best source for professional audio but the cost of an Intel based machine w/Linux is far better than a Mac.
Money is everything. I wonder if the RIAA uses Macs,
Re:Linuxsound.at (Score:2)
Re:Linuxsound.at (Score:2)
For Apple's part, they spent the last five years writing a completely new operating system that doesn't crash, and released it over six months ago. What more do you want from them, to rewrite Pro Tools as well? They did in a way, because Mac OS X includes a complete modern, multichannel audio and MIDI subsystem that supports 32-bit floating point files (infinite headroom, no clipping, easier to process, they are the new standard). Any Mac OS X app can take advantage of these features for free. That stuff is there because the people who need it are using Apple's products, and have been for decades.
As if Windows never crashes
Right now, Mac OS 9 is still the best place to do music and audio, but when the apps flip over to Mac OS X, it's going to be a whole new world for us guys. The great interface, super stability, the best apps, and the new audio and music subsystem and plugin formats. The multitasking and buffered windows and excellent memory management are also going to make for a great improvement.
Re:Linuxsound.at (Score:2)
Re:Linuxsound.at (Score:2)
Why was it a troll? Because it had no useful content and brought up Macs vs PCs. I can think of many reasons to not use a Mac for audio (and to not use a PC). The point is not that one or the other is bad, but that there are valid reasons. Perhaps the person is question has PC hardware and wants to use it. Linux is free, MacOS is cheap but you've got to purchase the Mac to run it on.
As such, the "Not Mac" in the question was valid, and questioning it in such a way was very troll-like. Even if not an intentional troll, it was likely to cause a flame-war for no reason.
Re:Linuxsound.at (Score:2, Informative)
When Avid came out with their AudioVision tool as well as a broadcast quality video editor, this is really what trashed the industry. Instead of needing a $500k-$3M system to do it all, you could now set up a whole post suite in a clost for less than $100k. This was easier to set up, so all the engineers with tons of experience started losing their $50-$100 jobs to less experienced "kids" that were happy to make $15-$25 an hour. The value of experience was thrown out the window.
So next time you hear a radio ad or TV commercial that has loud digital hiss, you know that its because some film-school puke didn't have enough experience to know that a DAT should be copied digtially rather than through the analog inputs. Same with crappy TV commercials that sound like the mic was at the bottom of a trash can while the actor was talking.
Re:Linuxsound.at (Score:2)
When you need to worry is when those same kids can do the job just as well as someone billing five times as much. That's when the expensive guy will be completely out of a job.
Re:Linuxsound.at (Score:2)
Obligitory book link.. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/18864113
Mod parent up. (Score:2)
OT perhaps, but I think this goes without saying for much, if not all of the things Linux aims to do as well, or better than Windows since the entry point still requires too large a learning curve.
Long, ambiguous to parse sentences are my friends.
Macs? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Macs? (Score:2, Interesting)
He may also want to retain some things from Windows but not have enough physical desk space for two machines (a Mac and a Windows box). So he can use Linux and dual-boot the two OSs.
Re:Macs? (Score:2)
Re:Macs? (Score:2)
Latency is a big issue to music and audio people who want to use a computer in their work.
MacCentral: Mac OS X great for pro audio (Score:3, Informative)
Apple betting audio pros will like Mac OS X 10.1 [macworld.com]
Interesting article for those interested in professional audio under a well-supported non-Windows Unix-based OS.
Re:Macs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps... (Score:2, Insightful)
In the industry nobody gives a shit about colors or 'think different' or Steve Jobs or any of that crap. That piece of hardware is just hooked up and is one of many other expensive pieces of gear.
Ya know, it's seems almost like every
I love linux. I love bsd. I love my Ti-Powerbook (ok, 2 home machines that dont run linux). And my experience in many industries has convinced me that linux is not the f***ing answer to everything! Neither is Win32. Neither is Solaris. Neither is Bsd. Neither is Mac. It's all about picking the right tool for the job.
Pro audio studio types (well, mostly everyone I've met) don't give a crap about open source or Linux. Most of the pro audio world runs on macs because either Pro Tools or some other hardware/software combo works and has cranked out many million dollar cd's.
I'm all for linux changing that. But the only way that that's going to happen is to find out - not assume - how people are using tools and then make better ones. And if they're cheaper, then all the better. That's what drives change.
Not the well so and so is evil and they're just out to lock everyone in, so screw that attitude.
Something I believe in as well... (Score:2)
I believe that every platform has and indeed serves its own purpose. I also believe that if someone says, "Hey, I just don't like Macs, I wanna use a Commodore-64!." Then by all means they can figure out how to use a Commodore-64 to get their job done.
It is a matter of personal preference moreso than what is the best at a job. If he is uncomfortable with Macs, or for socio-political reasons, like myeself, chooses to stay away from Macs. Then that is really his choice.
--
.sig seperator
--
Re:Diversity in computing applications (Score:2)
Why can't a PCI sound card that plugs into a Mac plug into a PC and work with software on either computer?
The hardware is a Mac is no better than good PC hardware, so there's no reason a Mac should be needed.
Perhaps things are done on a Mac now, but that's likely because just because it always was that way. I know many artists who insist on using Mac's but when you watch them it's obvious they do so because they're computer illiterate and use the minimum the need to get around, so they use the same system they used in school. (Of course I know some PC users like this too...)
Anyways, the point is that things may be done on a Mac now, but there's no physical reason why they have to be. What's wrong with looking for a Linux solution and if one doesn't exist, trying to construct it? Eventually it'll be a better platform and cheaper. Or do you not like the idea of bringing powerful tools to the masses? (This isn't an idle question, some developers hate how anyone can download Perl and write a program, instead of having to buy a compiler or download DJGPP, etc. They like keeping the power in the hands of a privelleged few.)
Re:Diversity in computing applications (Score:2)
> stop trying to do it any other way.'
I think the point is that it's a much bigger job than the layman might think for another system to replace the Mac in the audio industry. It's not just the OS, but also the user's knowledge, the diverse and mature and interoperable apps, the consistent hardware and drivers. The styling and low power consumption and heat dissipation are also good benefits. All the other gear in the studio is also hot
I have a friend who still uses a 1985 Mac for MIDI sequencing in his studio. It has been sitting on top of a music keyboard for all these years, pumping out MIDI. There is a lot of history for music and audio on the Mac platform.
Re:Perhaps... (Score:2)
What, like Linus Torvalds? He and Steve Jobs both publicly answered the question, "what's wrong with Microsoft?" by answering, "they have no taste". A "dictator" can be a great asset to a computing platform
As for defending the look of the Aqua GUI and having letter-happy lawyers, I'm inclined to cut a company a little slack when they have been competing with Microsoft for 20 years. Apple is hardly AOL Time Warner, or even Disney. Apple's computers are the most standards-based boxes you will find anywhere, hardware and software both.
It would be cool if the dual-boot Windows/Linux users would give Apple a look before they send in their next payment to Microsoft. If you are happy in Linux full-time, then great (lucky for you!), but it seems hypocritical to me to dual-boot Linux and Windows and disparage Mac OS X.
Based on themes alone? No... (Score:2)
I will choose my OS and desktop of choice for socio-political reasons. If Apple will go after people simply attempting to extend their product. People that are FREELY giving away their time and energy. Then they simply do not deserve my business until they alter that stance.
You also took that sentence out of context. What I am saying is that Apple is being hipocritical about their "Think Diferent" marketing campaign. If they really wanted people to do that, then why stop people from doing what that desktop theme group was doing? Isn't what they were doing, "Thinking Diferent"?
Re:Based on themes alone? No... (Score:2)
> hipocritical about their "Think Diferent" marketing
> campaign. If they really wanted people to do that,
> then why stop people from doing what that desktop
> theme group was doing? Isn't what they were
> doing, "Thinking Diferent"?
Copying something is not "thinking different".
Thousands of people spending five years locked away at Apple so that they can create an OS to compete with Microsoft Windows
Re:Macs? (Score:2)
30% slower than OS 9
In what? This is a nonsense statistic. For audio MacOS X offers real time mode, which will blow past any GUI calculations.
And I think you are more than a little confused about what hardware is avalible on what platform:
All macs and PC's (other than a very few servers that don't even count in this discussion), use a 33Mhz PCI buss. Apple offers 4 64Bit slots in their towers, which are relatively unheard of on the PC side (which uses 32Bit PCI). There is no such thing as 133Mhz PCI.
The memory bus (so-called front-side bus), on the G4 towers is 133Mhz, as it is with many PC's. The 400Mhz that you site is for RamBus, and if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the deficiencies in this technology make it equivalent to the 133Mhz SDRAM that Apple uses (at a fraction of the cost). If you want to, you could site DDR-DRAM which is faster than what Apple uses, and has started to make its why into new PC's.
On the Hard Drive Front, Apple uses ATA100 on desktops, and ATA66 on laptops. No difference there, they are even the same drives. Hardware RAID (SCSI, FireWire, iBic, or ATA) options exist, and MacOS 10.1 offers software RAID for non-booting volumes. Once again, no difference (same solutions in most cases).
Oh.. and ATA is not a 'form factor'. You are thinking of the AT Motherboard, which has nothing to do with Hard Drives, and has nothing you can measure in Mhz.
And you are really gullible if you think that any upgrade is going to be 50% faster. besides, one has to ask, "faster at what"...
Re:Macs? (Score:2)
> #1 is good enough
If he really thinks that, please post his name and the studio he works at so I can make sure not to work with him. I mean, he might as well show up to a session with a pinball machine because he happened to have one around. Or a cash register, or a typewriter.
check out Demudi (Score:5, Insightful)
One of... no... The most powerful, flexible, and extensible sound synthesis programs is Csound [csounds.com].
Pure Data, Jmax (Score:5, Informative)
There is an audio solution for hardcore sound designers, it's called pd or Pure Data.
It's basically an attempt at an open source version of Max/MSP which is a program that is mac only and is used by groups like Autechre, Aphex Twin...
What PD is is a visual object oriented music "programing" language. It lets you build synths, midi controlers, do math, store data, create generative (algorythmic) music, do interactive composition...
here is a good link on PD:
http://wonk.epy.co.at/
Re:Pure Data, Jmax (Score:2, Informative)
Jmax is the same kind of deal, and the GUI is built in Java, so they call it Jmax. it runs on linux and windows.
Both pd and jmax can be used on Mac OS X, if you tweak them a bit.
Note that neither pd nor jmax have quite the robust roster of externals/objects that Max/MSP have, but they are open source and pretty functional, from what I understand from people who are hardcore about these things.
Re:Pure Data, Jmax (Score:2, Informative)
happy noise-making!
Re:Pure Data, Jmax (Score:2)
Cycling '74 also have a set of 74 VST Plugins called "Pluggo", that retails for $74. Incredible bargain, and lots of fun
Demudi (Score:5, Informative)
The GNU/Linux operating system is widely known as a robust base for running Internet servers, but has not reached yet a similar audience as a platform of choice for the musician and the multimedia artist. The DeMuDi project targets one reason of this issue, the lack of a GNU/Linux distribution oriented toward music and multimedia.
The Demudi project (for Debian Multimedia Distribution) aims to provide for the musician and artist a GNU/Linux distribution dedicated to music and multimedia that would ease installing and customizing GNU/Linux for their needs. Demudi is not actually a distribution in itself. Taking advantage of the existing Debian distribution, it enhances a Debian distribution by a collection of packages containing music and multimedia applications or development tools. The Debian distribution has been chosen, because it is the only distribution that is developed entirely by volunteers over the Internet, just like a significant part of the GNU system, the Linux kernel and many applications. Additionally, it supports several different hardware architectures.
--------------
Yes, I'm an AC - No, I don't feel like registering!
Rediculous (Score:5, Insightful)
this is a recording studio we are talking about, if they are at all proffesional they dont need to be dealing with the normally non existant support on linux.
so unless the guy is a big linux geek, or the idea of being fired sounds good to him. i say a Power Mac 9600 running Mac OS 8.6 should do the trick.
SWGS
Re:Rediculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Or could be because he doesn't want to work with Macs.
A linux solution may be completely free of new costs, sure there's his time, and time to aquaint the talent with the new software, but that would be incurred regardless. A mac solution would involve hardware and software as well.
He didn't say why this guy was getting tired of Windows, it might not be crashing that's the problem. He may be fed up with licensing in general, and a mac based solution isn't going to get him any further away from that problem.
Re:Rediculous (Score:2, Interesting)
oh don't fall into the "everything linux is free" trap - in the words of jwz:
linux is only free if your time is of no value
if you have to screw around for 20 hours on a linux box to get everything correct, you could have just bought all the software for a mac/win solution. choose your battles wisely..
Re:Rediculous (Score:2, Flamebait)
are there any valid reasons why he'd like to stay away from macs?
Probably the same reasons that many of us stay away from anything from Apple: It's overpriced, and you are locked in to Apple forever. People like to talk about Microsoft's "monopoly" but it's nothing compared to Apple. You are totally at their mercy, and they haven't exactly been merciful in the past.
That's the practical reason, but you can also choose to stay away from them for moral reasons. Apple lives and dies by the lawsuit. At least Microsoft doesn't sue everyone in existence for ridiculous reasons (like "copying" the concept of a computer with a built-in monitor in a bright color).
Or you could dislike them for how they stabbed the clone manufacturers in the back.
Or you could dislike them for flat-out lies in their advertising ("twice as fast").
Ironically, Apple now actually makes a product that I'm semi-interested in, namely OS/X. But I will never, ever EVER give Apple any money. I'm hoping that someone will make an OS/X clone.
Re:Rediculous (Score:2)
Sounds like someone needs to whacked by the clue-by-four
Probably the same reasons that many of us stay away from anything from Apple: It's overpriced, and you are locked in to Apple forever.
You are locked into Apple forever? Does Steve Jobs have a gun pointed at your puny little brain?
On my PowerMac G4/Dual 500 I can run Mac OS 9, Mac OS X, Windows 95, Windows NT, BeOS, Linux PPC and Linux x86 -- makes you wonder if Macs suck and it can run Linux x86, the quality of Linux x86 must really suck. So I guess I am not "locked" into Apple.
If I get tired of owning a Mac (which ain't gonna happen), I can put it on eBay and recover more than 50% of my investment. You are not going to do that with a POS intel box -- no matter who assembles it. As for being overpriced, give me a break. Apple gives awesome deals. The quality and built-in hardware (quad-firewire, dual usb, AGP dual head monitor card, heavy duty power supply, etc) is amazing on a Mac. Most of the time to build a similar PC, you would be having to add on a ton of stuff to match the Mac that PC manufacturers don't normally equip.
That's the practical reason, but you can also choose to stay away from them for moral reasons. Apple lives and dies by the lawsuit
No, twit, Apple lives by its bottom line and its stockholders. This is the sort of gripe I would expect from someone with ZERO interest in capitalism (your Anti-American article link shows your true colors). Apple sues people for stealing their intellectual property just like an author of a GPL app would sue a commercial publisher for stealing their code. If you fail to protect your property in the US court system, you lose your rights to it. The suits your are discussing deal with "Trade Dress". By your thought process, Harley Davidson would not have the right to prevent other motorcycle makers from stealing the sound of their exhaust system. Which they do successfully when challenged. Are you anti-HOG as well?
Or you could dislike them for how they stabbed the clone manufacturers in the back.
Thank God!!! I owned a Mac clone from PowerComputing. The worst POS computer I ever bought in my life. Killing the clones boosted the quality of the Macintosh. Buying a Mac is buying quality. When Jobs killed the clones, he saved Mac OS from running on sub par quality hardware like most x86 machines.
Or you could dislike them for flat-out lies in their advertising ("twice as fast").
Apple has demonstrated at MacWorld this fact time and time again. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "Na-na-na" at the top of your lungs, fine. For fun, try to render and burn a movie to a DVD in real time with your PC. Oh, wait, you can't. Only Macs have that capability.
Ironically, Apple now actually makes a product that I'm semi-interested in, namely OS/X. But I will never, ever EVER give Apple any money. I'm hoping that someone will make an OS/X clone.
It's OS X not OS/X -- this is Apple not IBM. I am more than happy for you to stay away from Macintosh and even happier that there will never be an OS X clone. When I buy a computer I want quality. Apple can only assure that by building the product itself. The clone fiasco proved that. So, by all means, keep your head in the sand. Mac users will just point our fingers at you and laugh at your Mac bigotry.
Re:Rediculous (Score:2)
You are locked into Apple forever? Does Steve Jobs have a gun pointed at your puny little brain?
The point is that you are locked in if you don't want to throw away your investment.
I can run [...] Windows 95, Windows NT, BeOS, Linux PPC and Linux x86
Yeah, in a crappy, emulated environment. It's real convenient having to fire up the emulator. Why not just use the apps you want to use on a native hardware?
I can put it on eBay and recover more than 50% of my investment. You are not going to do that with a POS intel box -- no matter who assembles it.
Well, duh, of course you can. That's because it's an artificially tight market. The reason you can't sell used PC hardware is because you can buy better hardware for the same price because of the commoditization of hardware in the PC market. The resale value of Mac hardware is a disadvantage -- that's an indication that the newer stuff is not much better than the older stuff.
This is the sort of gripe I would expect from someone with ZERO interest in capitalism (your Anti-American article link shows your true colors).
LOL! I see you've never seen any posts by me in the past. I am one of huge defenders of Capitalism on Slashdot, not to mention the USA's right to destroy the barbarians (anti-american article!?). Which is why I hate Apple -- they are anti-competition. They are not protecting their "intellectual property", they are protecting their monopoly position. A colored computer is not intellectual property. A gumdrop-shaped button is not intellectual property. The GUI was not intellectual property.
Harley Davidson would not have the right to prevent other motorcycle makers from stealing the sound of their exhaust system. Which they do successfully when challenged. Are you anti-HOG as well?
Actually, I detest Harley Davidsons (too f'ing loud), but that's irrelevent. No, they don't have the right to an "exhaust note". That's simply absurd. And I'm a huge intellectual property advocate. I don't believe in music trading, and I don't believe in software trading. If H/D thinks their engine sound is what their about, then maybe they should think about making motorcycles instead.
When Jobs killed the clones, he saved Mac OS from running on sub par quality hardware like most x86 machines.
What Jobs killed was your freedom to buy what you want. Fine, if you don't like Power Computing's stuff, then don't buy it. But it really takes a Mac Zealot to say that you are better off without the choice.
Apple has demonstrated at MacWorld this fact time and time again.
Apple has demonstrated smoke and mirrors time and again, but funny how when people benchmark real applications, you don't see it. You can find certain things that have been optimized for the Mac, but on average, it's about 20% faster clock-for-clock. Their advertising used the bullshit, ancient "integer Bytemark" that proved absolutely nothing about real world performance. Apple is a pack of liars when it comes to their advertising.
Mac users will just point our fingers at you and laugh at your Mac bigotry.
And the rest of the world will laugh back as you convince each other that you're really better off with only Apple as your sole supplier. Competition is such an overrated concept.
Re:Rediculous (Score:2)
Uh, do I need to even point out that your statement is true for most anything? From your OS to your hardware to your car and house, you're "locked in" if you think of it as an investment.
There are different levels of "locked in". If I buy a software package for the PC, I can buy a different PC from a different manufacturer without having to throw away my software. With Apple you have one place to go -- back to Apple. I can upgrade my processor -- from many different suppliers. I can upgrade my motherboard -- from several different manufacturers. Apple, in the case of the iMac, intentionally made it difficult if not impossible to upgrade. We can't be cannibilizing the sales of our more expensive models, you know.
I'd say you're more locked into a PC because there is no VirtualPPC software to let you test out OS X.
And there is a reason there is no VirtualPPC that is commonly used on the PC. Because there is no software that is Mac-only that creates a reason for VirtualPPC. I love Unix, and would love to have a truly consumer-friendly system that was Unix based. But I have a Linux box that I use all day, in addition to my Win2K box, so it's more curiosity than something I can't do without.
You say that as though they were the only ones. Everyone twists and turns whatever statistics they get their hands on for their own benefit. It happens in the Linux community, too, you know.
Ah yes, the ol' "well, everyone lies" argument. No, everyone DOES NOT flat out lie and mislead like Apple does. Can you find exaggerations by other computer companies? Sure. But not at the level of disinformation that Apple puts out. The Mac has NEVER been twice as fast as a PC for practical purposes. Never. Yet Apple knowingly put that in their ads for the express purposes of misleading people. Show me another computer company -- even Microsoft -- that has ever told such a bald-faced falsehood.
And by the way, you will get no argument from me that many Linux advocates don't live in any kind of reality, either. But that's different from a company taking someone's money in unethical ways.
Re:Rediculous (Score:2)
Even worse, lied about. And I am not a Mac zealot, I am a DEC Alpha zealot.
Re: Rediculous (Score:2)
I'd like to propose a moratorium on the following:
of a question mark
Re:Rediculous (Score:2)
Really, you have to see the point of view of the people who know the music and audio field here. What if this article read like this:
"Recently a friend of mine who is head of Information Technology at a medium size ISP has become increasingly unhappy with Windows (and would like to stay away from UNIX/Linux) and has asked me if there is any sort of professional Web server solution for Macs. Has anybody, anywhere ever tried this? Is it possible to buy a redundant power supply with Mac drivers and just run Internet Information Server in VirtualPC or do you need an entirely native package?"
To this guy, I say: I tried to use Windows to do audio work as well, then after a year of pain I gave up and got a Mac. I swallowed all the pride I had about how I was going to stick it to the man (how I ever thought Apple was the man is beyond me) and cook up a home-brew, cheap as shit Windows-based audio solution in between sessions. I realized that I had been cooking things up in between takes, and during takes, and after takes, and while other people were getting dinner, or whatever else. You have to hold its little hand and even then it can't pump out audio consistently, or with good timing. Consider just giving up on that PC and starting from scratch and doing it right. Of course, this is the worst time to switch to a Mac
I know the above might sound a bit ranty, but I'm telling you, I'm speaking plainly from experience. Windows Everywhere is as much a myth as the dot-com bubble. I really feel like you do someone a disservice when you don't give them the straight shit on Windows or PC's because "everybody uses them" and anyway, you want to "allow them to make their own choice". Of course they can make their own choice, but do them the favor of at least telling them that they're going out on a rope there.
Anyway, a few years ago, I would have said "to each his own", but now, Mac OS X is standing about 10 miles taller than everything else for music and audio. Yamaha's mLAN is in there, next-generation MIDI routing, Downloadable Sounds, 5.1 audio and more channels if you want them, object-oriented drivers that enable you to share hardware in new and interesting ways, routing of 32-bit floating point audio between apps
I don't know of the software side, but (Score:5, Informative)
Their driver support for Windows is okay, but I believe their Linux support may well be binary only. That said, their drivers generally don't suck.
I'm not affiliated with them -- just a happy home user who enjoys using their pro-level cards for cleaner sound output under Windoze.
Re:I don't know of the software side, but (Score:2, Informative)
Try this: (Score:2, Informative)
Even though it uses its own file format (PRAF) you can import
Screen shots and more info can be found on the Protux home page. [sourceforge.net]
Commercial opportunity? (Score:4, Insightful)
"What Open Source sound packages out there are good enough for even the professionals to use when they need to make their squeaks, squeals, and whistles."
I believe the question posed was if there were any quality sound applications for Linux, why focus solely on Open Source?The critical mass isn't possible in Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
For $70 you can purchase Home Studio from Cakewalk (a subset of their SONAR professional package). It supports DirectX plugins (the standard now for adding third party mixes, effects, and instruments.) The amount of plugins available is mind boggling. If a Linux package doesn't support this forget it.
Also, on the hardware side. Is there any support for mixing board interfaces, or multiple in/out cards for when you need to get more than 2 channels in and out at one time?
It would be nice, but It ain't gonna happen soon. There features just aren't there.
Simple Linux Solution (Score:5, Funny)
It's that simple! Enjoy!
Pro support seems to be very limited (Score:2, Informative)
This isn't meant as a flame, or a troll, it's just the truth. It's time to start turning the screws on the big vendors to start making their high-end sound drivers available for Linux, even if they are simply binary drivers only.
Soundcard: M-Audio (Score:4, Informative)
also, on the general requests. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a serious computer music hobbyist.
I currently run Native Instrument's Reaktor, Propellorheads' Reason & Recycle, U & I's Metasynth, and Bias's Peak on an iBook and an older mac.
I would much rather use open source programs for the simple reason that they would be massively cheaper, in addition to generally being in agreement with open source ideaology.
Here is what is needed:
A good multitrack Midi and hard disk audio recording/sequencing program that is actually as powerful as Logic Audio Gold or Cubase VST 5.0. This is absolutely vital. You need a Logic Audio Platnium or Pro Tools killer to get a serious studio to consider switching to open source and away from the Macintosh.
And you need a useful, well implemented plug in architecture for both virtual instruments and effect processors.
Once you've got that, then people just need to write the virtual instruments and effect processors.
Seriously though, the audio stuff running on Macintosh hardware is pretty fabulous, and Mac OS X is extremely suited to audio, able to get latency as low as 1 ms (just like linux.)
real electronic musicians (Score:2)
Sticky tape & Blue tac. At least that's what Aphex Twin and Matmos use.
--In fact, the Aphex Twin, lik a real man, bulds his own analogue keyboards.
Don't use windows emulators (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Don't use windows emulators (Score:2)
Apps have the potential to run just as fast (faster even) on Linux using WINE as they do on "real" Windows. There is no emulation going on, WINE is simply an implementation of Win32 for Linux.
Someone earlier mentioned that DirectX is becoming a standard for audio effects plugins - WINE could be used to run these plugins in much the same manner as mplayer or whatever its called runs Windows video codecs under Linux (x86 only, though).
Re:Don't use windows emulators (Score:2, Insightful)
And in many cases, when it does'nt translate directly, it has to emulate.
Anyway, this nitpicking on the word "emulator" does not matter. Don't call it an emulator if you don't want to. It's still a fact that some parts of Wine run slower than native calls, because of important semantic differences between the two OSs.
Audacity rocks. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also good is Ardour, which in my opinion has a *much* greater chance of becoming the professional workstation tool that we're all looking for - there's a lot of development occurring on it, and it's already made some serious headway:
http://ardour.sourceforge.net/
Personally, I'd advise your friend to look a bit closer at the Mac way right now, and try to put bias aside. Pursue the Linux side too, if you like, but keep a very close eye on the OSX way of life...
Mac OS X is an *excellent* operating system for professional media work, and there are some extremely exciting things on the horizon for OSX - which I can't talk about due to NDA's, alas, but I will say this: getting ready now for the release of some kickass Audio tools on OS X for June/July release next year is probably a *very* wise thing.
The advantage to this, also, is that any OSS Linux apps that are available now, may (fairly easily) be ported to OS X pretty soon
Some helpful places to check out: (Score:5, Informative)
That might be a little pessimistic, but there's some truth to it. However, there is usable software out there, even if it is not done. Broadcast 2000 was aimed at video editing, but was apparently useful for audio as well. Ardor is a hard disk recorder package. There's a lot of stuff out there - heck, just search Google and Sourceforge.
The ALSA project http://www.alsa-project.org/ [alsa-project.org] is an important site if you are looking for pro audio Linux drivers and software.
Now, about the hardware: http://www.linuxdj.com/audio/lad/ [linuxdj.com] is a place to start.
Also check out http://www.boosthardware.com/LAU/Linux_Audio_User
The M-Audio [midiman.net] pro hardware has a lot of good cards [northernsounds.com] - everything from an inexpensive 24 bit / 96 Khz DA
The RME Hammerfall card is also supported under Linux. Other quality hardware (from Echo and other companies) is unfortunately not so well supported.
Personally, I'm planning on getting one of the M-Audio cards just for playing with.
Re:Some helpful places to check out: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, the Linux kernel with ALSA might support many older cards better than the current Windows drivers. Some features for the Soundblaster Live! and a few more high-end cards are still underway, though..
Well.. (Score:2)
Why is this person trying to 'get away' from windows... do the applications he has not work? Sound engineering is an application-specific task.. as long as the apps work, he should be fine.
Also.. why does he want to stay away from macs? macs, I believe, are the leader in digital sound engineering, no? That's like saying you want to build a huge complex network but want to stay away from Cisco.
Stability, yes... (Score:2)
Yes. (Score:2)
This isn't a huge corporation facing millions of dollars in licensing fees because office and windows need to be upgraded. This is something else entirely.
Plus.. the cost of commerical sound engineering software absolutely dwarfs the cost of windows.
Relevant Linux Journal article (Score:4, Informative)
Linux DJ (Score:4, Interesting)
I have been using Linux to DJ for about a year now at parties and as a resident at a local club. Linux IMHO is vastly superior as a performance oriented tool, due to it's efficiency and stability. Unfortunately on the music creation and creativity side of things, Windows and even the Mac are still quite a bit easier to get into.
My linux Dj configuration is an IBM thinkpad pentium 2 366. It allows me to re-mix music on the fly and send multiple soundstreams out through some external USB Digital Analog Converters. I run the channels into a standard DJ mixer where I can get twiddly with the EQ's and crossfader and the built in Kaoss effects processor. The software is called GDAM, and is available on sourceforge. Props to the geniuses who wrote the app, they have been very helpful with various problems I have had with older versions when it came to compiling. They have even implemented some of my suggestions into their code over the last year. [song searching case insensitive for example]
The whole thing is running on top of X windows, I use Blackbox to keep resource usage low, and in turn I can re-loop and remix up to 4 soundstreams on the lowly Pentium 2 366 without noticeable latency. I keep notes on my set using VI.
Of course i'm available for certain types of events worldwide. Demonstration sets are available at my website, though I imagine it will get slashdotted pretty quick so be gentle with me.
My sets [shutdown.com]
Re:Linux DJ (Score:2)
Re:Linux DJ (Score:2)
whatever happened to that DJ kit availible for BeOS; the one with the time-track encoded vinyl LP, which you could scratch/delay/loop just like a normal record, but whcih was sampled by the software to modify the playing of an mp3 file instead?
Now that BeOS is pushing up the daisys, I was wondering whether it was avilible for other OSs
Professional software - lawsuit 4 U (Score:2)
The GPL is worthless at protecting you in a high cost environment like professional audio. That's why you won't see open source programmers giving out more than simple wave editors and utilities.
Re:Professional software - lawsuit 4 U (Score:2)
Audacity (Score:5, Informative)
While Audacity is nowhere near being a complete replacement for a full set of commercial audio tools, I believe it's one of the best editors available for Linux today and has a lot of potential to be extremely competitive with commercial multitrack audio solutions within the next year or two. Here's what it has going for it:
(For those of you who have tried the current release (0.97) and are having audio I/O problems on Linux, rest assured that the latest version in CVS has much improved audio I/O and should solve all of those problems and more...)
There are three or four active developers of Audacity, and another dozen or so people who contribute code or bug fixes from time to time. We're definitely interested in more help - visit the web site and contact us if you're a C++ whiz (or have some other skill which might be useful for us) and want to join the team!
Re:Audacity (Score:2)
A shameless plug ? I don't think so. I think you're being VERY modest. You have an excellent product. I for one am hoping that you come along enough at some point I can get rid of Windows altogether
Re:Audacity (Score:2)
If you're not using dithered 2-busses yet, run don't walk to check that stuff out- you really need to be covering that base to be pro-level. Even Pro Tools has had to bow to pressure and incorporate a dithered buss in their new mixer, and they have such a big name that they've stagnated horribly.
Talk to me if this sounds interesting- it's definitely about what _you_ think is important. You can suit yourselves, I'm just saying that I'm happy to consult with you for nothing and donate algorithms under the GPL- and consider that, although you guys are clearly much better coders than me, it's possible that there are people out there with a clearer idea of what constitutes a state of the art DAW system. Within the narrow confines of digital gain staging and wordlength reduction practices (and possibly compression and limiting, though I'm damned if I can figure how to implement a realtime lookahead limiter for you guys without sacrificing latency), I'd suggest that I'm the guy you should be talking to. Up to you...
It's still not there yet.. (Score:3, Interesting)
My friend has a studio and a few years ago, i convinced them to dump their protools package (cuz seriously, who wants to be locked in and protools excels at that!) for pc software. over time, we got a decent machine, with full scsi, and started tracking his new project. We used Cool Edit Pro and it started barfing here and there. You can't afford *any* drop outs or variations in a track. otherwise, it's useless.
A few months back, they switched back over to protools on a G4. i think part of their problem was lack of experience tho. they have a 'producer' in now using their equip and he's recorded some major label projects. he likes the setup. so i guess it works. however, it *cost* them quite a bit.
my home studio has a athalon 750, 512mb ram, ata-100 raid 0 40gb hd setup, and - ugh - win98. this is *only* because the company i bought my digi audio card - tascam pci 822 (dont go for that crappy soundblaster stuff, u wanna track 24-bit, at least 44khz, *at least*). that connects into my tascam tmd1000 mixer. this is pretty kick ass for a home/project studio. i actually *read* a lot of stuff for disabling read-ahead cache (bad!) and various other things. At most I've had about 36 tracks of audio goin whithout a hitch. Using Cool Edit Pro as well.
Obviosuly, I'd prefer to use linux, but the drivers and the software are *the* major hitch. I mean, tascam (funny, how there's scam in the middle of their name..) can't even get their shit together to write Win2k drivers (which wld be far more robust than 98). So I think it would be difficult to get the appropriate linux drivers.
I do have faith in Linux tho. Esp since a lot of CG shops are using it more and more. Just needs the software and drivers, thats all. And coming from a analog/mixing board kinda view, the software has to be easy to use. I feel cool edit is pretty straight forwars. I gave up on cakewalk and all those others. I personally don't have much need for midi.
So, remember, if you really care about your proj/home studio, you'll record in at least 24-bit/44khz. And for that u need a beefier card than the crappy sound blasters. And that card will require custom drivers. Kinda a weird cicken and egg syndrome.
Re:It's still not there yet.. (Score:2, Interesting)
waiting for Cakewalk Sonar (Score:4, Informative)
My only complaint is that while the software is sturdy, the operating system under it isn't. More than once, Windows has "burped" in the middle of critical recordings. I recently set up a church with RealAudio Producer for Linux for precisely that reason. I didn't want an operating system getting in the way of a 20 minute sermon.
My hope is that Greg H. get's the innovation bug that's made him a hero in the industry, and provide a Linux solution. When that happens, you can kiss Windows goodbye in my own studio.
Pro Audio (Score:3, Informative)
Is it possible to buy a pro audio card with Linux drivers and just run Sound Forge in WINE
Last time I checked, Sound Forge was not something to be used for PRO audio.
Re:Pro Audio (Score:2)
Or are you confusing Sound Forge [sonicfoundry.com], the actual professional mastering / batch-processing / microediting tool that's a complete DX and VST harness; with Sound Forge XP [sonicfoundry.com], the tiny little consumer / multimedia / web version of the same thing that ships with lots of cheapo sound cards?
Or maybe you're making the common leap of logic that 'pro audio' somehow doesn't include advertising production, audio for video, game development, and the thousands of other professional audio fields that aren't 128-track digital multitrack Peter Gabriel studios?
Silly Assumptions (Score:2, Insightful)
On another note, who said that the sound application would have to necessarily be open source? The question asked if there were any Linux audio program - not if there were any that were freely available. Where does the assumption that a program must cost nothing in order to be a viable linux application come from?
Tell your buddy to wake up (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, really, take a look at new Macs ; it's really worth it. And then you won't wonder anymore why musicians swear only by that in magazines.
Re:Tell your buddy to wake up (Score:2)
very few of the major packages for audio on MacOS have been ported to Mac OS X. all new macs
ship with OS X. porting efforts are underway,
but they are not trivial if they want good
performance.
Macs, Slashdotters, This Question (Score:3, Insightful)
The simple answer is probably that the "friend" mentioned here is chief engineer of the self-assembled PC in his basement and can't afford to buy anything that would cost money. Though there's nothing wrong with this plight, I don't understand why we must lie about things to get the information we want.
Anyone not on crack who's a chief engineer at a recording studio would not "avoid macs." They are the absolute standard in virtually all audio and most video production. There are numerous software and hardware solutions at the professional level and if you want to create quality recordings for your artists, then there is but one choice.
Why in God's earth anyone calling themselves a professional audio engineer would try and duct tape together a platform of pre-beta, open source (read: no paid-for, reliable support -- and I'm talking about the applications here, not the operating system)software in an OS that obviously nobody is using for audio production is beyond me. Therefore, I can only come to the conclusion above that there is no real "friend" looking for advice here.
I really would love to see open source, professional quality audio developed for Linux. Unfortunately, anyone who's spent more than a week on Slashdot knows for a fact that this sort of stuff isn't around. Yes, there are a few things for doing amateur digital audio work, but nothing that could drive the hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment any real studio would have.
Audio latency (Score:5, Informative)
There's a paper, Audio Latency Measurements of Desktop Operating Systems [jhu.edu], which might give you some useful information. Mac OS X's CoreAudio provided the most consistant latencies regardless of loads, although a suitably patched Linux 2.4 kernel has better latencies under no-load conditions.
"All of the current desktop operating systems offer excellent latency performance under some conditions, though most of them cannot deliver this performance in all situations. This is a substantial improvement over previous results (Brandt and Dannenberg 1998; Freed, Chaudhary, and Davila 1997), but because of the inconsistency of the results more improvement is necessary before reliable low-latency performance can be expected from desktop operating systems.
"In conclusion, Linux showed the best performance in the tests without load while MacOS X showed the best performance in the tests with load. Windows and MacOS 8 and 9 produced some of the best results when using a professional soundcard with the ASIO API but showed poor performance when using the standard APIs and consumer-grade soundcards."
Re:Audio latency & Linux (Score:2)
you could always ask people who know ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe This: (Score:2)
Sequoia (Score:2)
Yes. it is also sad to see BeOS struggling so hard when it is the perfect choice for much of the multi-media production that goes on.
My audio setup currently consists of two machines running several pieces of software. Suprisingly, I have been running Windows 98 SE in a mission critical environment with no crashes to date. I swear it must be a first. One of our systems get transported to GIGs as a live sample system, with no problems. Don't get me wrong I'm not a hailer of Windows Products; I've been using linux for several years now (albeit I'm still rather bad with much of it's vast abilities). I switched over to Linux exclusively until I needed my own setup and then the choice was clear
For example you can run it on multi-processor systems and assign functions individually to different processors to relieve the weight and allow for more DSP power when needed. Macs require expensive add-on cards like the TC_PowerCore which few people will support. Othe PC audio applications like Magix Samplitude (Magix [magix.com]) have absolutely stunning features like realtime FFT filters, a 1000 track limit and unlimited effects routing.
I dream of the day such things will be availanble on linux, and I'm sure they will. No one wants to pay $3K US for Sequoia. What people do want is to be able to work creatively and that will take time to develop. Unfortunately on both the Mac and PC side they products that gain popularity the most are those which have the highest amount of capital backing for advertising, product placement and "subjective" reviews. We need to stop thinking like we're in the early 90's. Sure Macs are good for audio. Windows is there too at this time. As for Linux.... it is on the way. Penguins can move.
MacOS X Latency (Score:5, Informative)
In tests, audio was sampled at 44.1KHz with 16-bit or 24-bit precision. Apple's machines were the only ones on test that didn't require a soundcard.
The best latency test results for systems without load were as follows (time in milliseconds);
- Mac OS X running on a 400MHz G4: 2.83 ms.
- Soundcraft Desk: 1.81 ms.
- 933MHz Pentium 3 running Linux 2.4.1 with a third party audio software patch: 2.72 ms.
- 933MHz Pentium 3 running Linux: 2.72ms.
Mac OS X performed outstandingly when under system load. It offered the same latency speed as before - 2.83 ms. Previous competitors in the unloaded category dropped out of sight. Its nearest rival (with 4.3ms) was again Linux 2.4.1 OS, this time running on a dual processor Pentium 3 with a pro audio card installed and additional software.
The article was authored by:
Karl MacMillan, Michael Droettboom and Ichiro Fujinaga of the Peabody Institute - part of John Hopkins University in the US.
You may also want to look at the following links:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technologies/audio.
http://developer.apple.com/audio/
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0110/05.aud
You may not like the Mac or the MacOS but I would have to say that OS X looks like it has a very, very good chance of holding onto and attracting a large chunk of the audio market.
I am not a Mac/Linux/Windows fanatic, just someone who uses the best tool for the job and to me it appears like in the near future OS X will be the system of choice for audio professionals.
Re:MacOS X Latency (Score:2)
The PDF is at http://gigue.peabody.jhu.edu/~mdboom/latency-icmc
It is noteworthy that I have been unable to view page 3 (the page that actually has the results) of the PDF on every Win box I have tried.
I did notice that the Windows latency that their testing revealed indicated a much higher value than most people experience in reality. I also noticed that some type of multiplatform sound library was used to do the testing. Some of the stuff was curious in that respect. To counter that, however, a coworker knows Karl MacMillan personally and swears that he is a "mad genius" and that the report must be accurate. So...
maru
www.mp3.com/pixal
Apple OS X probably your best choice (Score:2, Informative)
Apple betting audio pros will like Mac OS X 10.1 [macworld.com]
I don't quite understand it all but it seems OS X is built for sound from the ground up.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No real sound cards (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, if you check the list at opensound.com, [opensound.com] you'll see that they support the whole Delta series of cards, with a few limitations; M Audio have even advertised Linux compatibility in their recent print ads.
You'll also find support for the RME Digi/32 series & the Digi/96 series, all very fine cards. Also, they have recently added support for the Hoontech DSP24, which is a 8x8 24-bit card with a companion A/D & D/A converter box, not too unlike the Echo Layla. So, there are options at least on the semi-pro level.
And as for ProTools, the changes in the underlying audio handling in OS X means that, at the moment, ProTools is completely unsupported. It relies on a proprietary interface, and an Apple rep said in the recent EQ Magazine that they have no intention of supporting proprietary hardware interfaces - that will be up to ProTools to do. They probably will, since the bulk of their users are probably on Macs, but it's not native by any means.
Re:No real sound cards (Score:4, Insightful)
* Large numbers of channels
* Support for 96kHz sampling rate
* Support for 24-bit samples
* Manufacturer's web site talks about "audio I/O" and "Multitrack recording" rather than "3D Surround" and "Explosive Bass"
* Price > $300
* Far too many odd-looking connectors
So, are these cards suitable for Linux pro-audio (in which case the problem IS the software after all) or am I totally out of my depth?
Re:No real sound cards (Score:2, Informative)
Now I don't know about you, but RME is better than any of the brands you mentioned (In my opinion of course). And motu doesn't write very good drivers for any platform. But that's beside the point.
The Mac is not going to last forever as the leader of this race. Steinberg Canada has already stated that Windows 2000 is their preferred platform for stability and speed. Not to mention price of course (not the price of windows but the hardware).
I've talked to several Yamaha Techs from Japan who say the same thing.
Now I agree with you that OSX kicks ass in many ways. But Linux on a PC kicks even more ass. The raw speed, the choice of hardware, and the *ahem* choice of OS.
Poor Multimedia (Score:2)
As for audio I have a SbLive! and I have it correctly configured in every way in both windows and linux. Windows audio playback with the same speakers and extremely similar configurations is just far superior. In linux I get noise and distortion and just crappy sound. Even just playing directly off of a CD sounds crappier. I usually end up plugging headphones into the front of my PlexWriter to get better sound.
Re:Poor Multimedia (Score:2)
Oh, you haven't tried MPlayer [sf.net] then. It's an excellent DivX
As for audio I have a SbLive! and I have it correctly configured in every way in both windows and linux. Windows audio playback with the same speakers and extremely similar configurations is just far superior
The Windows audio playback is probably using the advanced futures of the Em10K chipset. Programming info for the DSP is sadly not free, and thus not available to Linux users, hence no advanced sound features. But this isn't Linux's fault.
In linux I get noise and distortion and just crappy sound
Have you tried the ALSA drivers [alsa-project.org] with it? It might give you better quality.
-adnans
Not Using Mac (Score:2, Flamebait)
Pro/Semi-Pro (Score:2, Informative)
I ended up plunking down the cash for a Roland VS-1880 and have never looked back since. They are not cheap, but dedicated hard disk based digital recorders are rock solid. I still use a PC for creating/warping out samples before I load them into a keyboard, and of course, I use them to take my final tracks and rip them to MP3, but I don't think I will ever trust a PC again for digital multitrack audio recording.
Re:what about latency issues? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:TuneTracker - BeOS (Score:2)
The high end multitrack machine RADAR [eqmag.com] runs on BeOS. It's been really impressing people who loathe Pro Tools. Even with professional audio equipment there's levels and levels. On one level, Pro Tools is all wizzy keen and professional, compared to, say, Cool Edit: but you can still get stuff that leaves it in the dust, and at least one of those high-end options (RADAR) runs on BeOS.
Re:Why not Mac? (Score:2)
I frequently find people making statements like "I'm growing to dislike Windows and I don't want to go MAC" based mainly on trying to run software like Cubase or Reason or T-Racks on 5 year old windows/mac boxes and complaining about latency an stability. When it comes right down to it you find that they have 25 tray/init programs running on a computer computer that is lower than speced for the software. Switching from Windows to Mac or vise-versa usually fixes all their problems. But why? Because it always involves buying a new machine with a new OS install. Has nothing to do with the OS itself.
Installs require a little maintenence now and then (Get rid of all those inits!) and sooner or later you will find that your 5 year old machine can't load 20 of the latest software synths and maintain 2ms latency.
All kindz of musicians have great experience with the pro music software/hardware on both windows and mac. Both seem to be equally capable at this point (Except OS/X for the short term anyway). Now if all the current software were ported to Linux and more than one or two card vendors jump over, well then it'll do fine too. But right now, virtually all the hardware/software is for Windows/Mac.
Use the tools that are available! Any "Sound Engineer" that cares more about what OS they're running than what tools (SW/HW) they need is no real "Sound Engineer"