Slashdot Mirror

Ubuntu makes a distro tuned for multimedia creation..

https://ubuntustudio.org/tour/...

Ubuntu Studio keeps getting better. Especially now that more and more devices work with it.
http://ubuntustudio.org/

I get the same shit when I talk about audio production and video editing, which is something I do with my system. I've asked in all seriousness of self proclaimed Linux experts if there are programs I can get to do this kind of thing and go in to the particulars of what is needed. Predictably I get an initial list of software that was just gotten from a web search, with no consideration of actual use (which I've tried and found woefully problematic and inadequate). After some more back and forth often I get told that I "Shouldn't do that on my primary desktop," I should have something dedicated for A/V production.

You could always start with Ubuntu Studio
A relatively up-to-date (currently offering 12.04LTS and 12.10) fork of Ubuntu using lowlatency kernel, and with an arc of Audio, Video, and Desktop Publishing apps installed out of the gate.
For more, try Google:
"Music Production" + Linux
"Audio Engineering" + Linux
"Video Production" + Linux
Most of the apps listed can be found in package repositories for the major distributions (or at least be compiled from source, if you're so inclined)
Most of the How-Tos are fairly straightforward to even those without a strong background in A/V production.
If you're looking to play around, it's a great start, and if you actually know what you're doing, you can do a lot with it but not necessarily everything that you might be used to doing on another OS (i.e. Gimp v.Photoshop)

The box with XP is an old one, and I would run Linux on it, but I need a box that will run EAC. EAC won't run in Linux...

I have puzzled over this response for about a day, and I still do not understand it. It seems to be from when the world was younger, like maybe ten years ago.

If the limitation is EAC, there is no limitation as it runs under the latest versions of Wine. You would not even need a Windows virtual machine; you could do it all in a basic Linux distro like one of the *buntus. But an even better solution would be to use a native Linux ripper like Audacity (Link is to the Wikipedia article which is an unbiased review of the software).

The only reason to stick with EAC as far as I can tell is the magical belief that if you do not spend big bucks on the software, it cannot be any good. That's a fallacy. It would be much more accurate to say that successful companies that charge big bucks for their software have very good marketing departments.

UbuntuStudio is a spinoff of Ubuntu designed specifically for high demand audio and visual work. It includes a very low latency kernel so that capture from microphones and other analog sources is extremely accurate. Worth looking into.

Like http://ubuntustudio.org/ ?

But no news on Ubuntu Studio yet. Last time (April 29th, 2010), it was released on the same day.

Edubuntu is released today.

I can't comment on whether or not your firewire mixer would work under Ubuntu natively (though you'd be surprised to find that more devices work natively in Linux than Windows) since I have no idea what hardware it is, but I do feel it prudent to make the point that there is actually a version of Ubuntu specifically FOR recording studio work: http://ubuntustudio.org/

Granted, you are already accustomed to doing things your way, and it really wouldn't be advisable to switch simply for the sake of switching. I'm sure there are some features of Audition that you like that may not be offered by an open-source program like Audacity (though from my understanding most of the features desired from this type of software is supplied via VST plugins, which are supported in Audition, Audacity, and most other digital audio workstation software packages)

As an example (though not related to your scenario) of something that works out of the box in Ubuntu and NOT AT ALL in Windows, I plugged a LG VX-9800 cell phone (aka Verizon Communicator), which is not even a smartphone (though it has a qwerty keyboard for texting) into my computer to charge. On Windows, it would just charge (though I could download a driver to let software configure the phone). On Linux, it asked me what cell phone carrier it was using and configured it for internet access (which did, in fact, work). This wasn't even an option on Windows at all.

According to an article on DevX, today Zappa would no doubt be using Linux and Ardour for most of his recording and composition.

...I would wager that Zappa's thirst for this kind of mixing would lead him to the industry standard: Pro Tools. I highly doubt a professional musician would stray from that but if Zappa dumped some cash into Ardour development and increased its support then maybe.

You highly doubt a professional musician would stray from Pro Tools? What about Logic Studio, Digital Performer, SONAR, and the reams of other Digital Audio Workstaitons? Many professionals use these as well, often integrated with Digidesign's high-end TDM hardware. Logic in particular destroys Pro Tools in terms of features and price and many are making the switch. Pro Tools' integration with Digidesign's proprietary hardware has become a handicap in the prosumer price range particularly, as Digidesign's hardware is trounced, in terms of features and sound quality, by other less expensive offerings.

But right now, audio recording on Linux isn't the greatest. Pro Tools is often augmented with dedicated hardware ... I am unaware of how you would do this with Ardour. I also have had one hell of a time trying to get a dual core processor with plenty of ram to record in Linux and also play back what you're recording on top of several tracks without delay. In my hobby projects, I have given up on audio recordings in Linux although I must say I was impressed with Ubuntu Studio when I was trying to layer guitar tracks a few years ago. It just seemed that the audio bus could not keep up when recording through my M-Audio USB input box ...

That might be where your problem lies. M-Audio's hardware is worse than Digidesign's (although they are the same company) ! All kidding aside though, M-Audio driver support for Linux is sketchy. My M-Audio Delta 1010LT works beautifully under Linux with the ICE driver. It requires some configuration, but so does setting up a digital audio workstation in OSX or Windows - especially Windows. Also, latency and the like depends on the distro you're using. The reality is that Linux has tons of free audio software, and could easily be used to replace my Logic Pro setup, except for the lack of commercial plugins and sound libraries. As this is fixed, Linux will be more viable.

Like a lot of things in Linux it could have been a configuration error but I spent a lot of time on that. Unfortunately, all musicians are not computer savvy and they certainly do not like messing around with getting software working in the studio.

Good point. Once Linux is packaged well for musicians and audio professionals, I believe it could supersede Windows as the #2 platform for digital audio. Then again, in 10 years, maybe Haiku will be up there as well, with its BeOS underpinnings. For a good example of what Ardour can do/be when combined with proprietary DSP, check out Harrison Mixbus. http://www.harrisonconsoles.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=108&Itemid=42 It is under $100 (or was last time I checked) and features that Harrison sound combined with Ardour's power. It is OSX-only at the moment, but it will be available for Linux eventually. I've already used Mixbus to mix a few projects via Logic; once it is available for Linux it will replace Ardour as my main Linux DAW of choice.

According to an article on DevX, today Zappa would no doubt be using Linux and Ardour for most of his recording and composition.

I do not agree with this statement. There is a lot of doubt in my mind. As I listen to Zappa albums, I constantly find new things mixed into them. Often I tell a friend about a great Zappa song but they haven't the patience to listen through five minutes of weirdness just to get to a great guitar lick intricately backed. Anyhow, I would wager that Zappa's thirst for this kind of mixing would lead him to the industry standard: Pro Tools. I highly doubt a professional musician would stray from that but if Zappa dumped some cash into Ardour development and increased its support then maybe. But right now, audio recording on Linux isn't the greatest. Pro Tools is often augmented with dedicated hardware ... I am unaware of how you would do this with Ardour. I also have had one hell of a time trying to get a dual core processor with plenty of ram to record in Linux and also play back what you're recording on top of several tracks without delay.

In my hobby projects, I have given up on audio recordings in Linux although I must say I was impressed with Ubuntu Studio when I was trying to layer guitar tracks a few years ago. It just seemed that the audio bus could not keep up when recording through my M-Audio USB input box ... like a lot of things in Linux it could have been a configuration error but I spent a lot of time on that. Unfortunately, all musicians are not computer savvy and they certainly do not like messing around with getting software working in the studio.

To that point: I think Ubuntu Studio got it right a long time ago.

I think Ubuntu Studio got it right a long time ago.

Next up for Linux, media production software. What the fuck is up with Hydrogen and Ardour? Can't they get at least one real musician on their design staff?

I want to learn how to use this sort of software. I have read some positive reviews of Ardour, so I'm interested to hear what you don't like about it, and what you do like. What do you usually use, if not Ardour? And whatever you use, does it run okay on WINE?

And, have you looked at Ubuntu Studio?

http://ubuntustudio.org/

steveha

Ubuntu Studio 9.10 comes with an official real time kernel.

f-spot like it's friend tomboy drags tons of "mono" packages, which is of no interest to users and free software in general, maybe scraping this would help saving space for The Gimp ? Besides, f-spot sucks, it's nowhere near Digikam that ships with KDE, and it's not playing in The Gimp category. Most Ubuntu users I know use (non-free) Picasa® or Digikam together with The Gimp.

Well, looks like Ubuntustudio http://ubuntustudio.org/ really serves a purpose...

Or maybe Ubuntu should just ship with "Applications" menu icons that just trigger the "Ubuntu software center" on the corresponding software when clicked, this way the .iso stays light, but user still get a chance to discover the very nice program that The Gimp is.

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, there are several distributions which are specifically designed to give you a good audio creation environment out of the box. Ubuntu Studio is probably the most well-known:

http://ubuntustudio.org/

but there are others. If you want to do audio production, you do not want to be using PA. You want to be using JACK. This may change in future, but that's the situation right now. Ubuntu Studio's documentation on getting going with JACK: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuStudio/JackQuickStart

Go to Dell.com and configure an Alienware M17x.

I did. The difference between the M17x and the 17" MacBook Pro was $75. However it comes with Windows. I switched from Windows because I was sick and tired of my PCs crashing and needing to reinstall Windows. I was not going to spend $3000 only to find out I made another mistake buying Windows again.

Even if you're buying the LCD yourself and including it in the cost of the laptop, the total price will come to around $2500. $500 *less* than the number you're asking for.

BS! It was less than $100. No where near your $500.

Also, you won't find a laptop that runs at 1900x1200 internal resolution,

Okay 1920 not 1900, that's better, look at the MacBook Pro specs. " Supported resolutions : 1920 by 1200 (native)". Even the Alienware offers that, "17-inch WideUXGA 1920x1200 (1200p)". Cut and paste.

And while I realize that it's not running Linux out of the box, you'll find that it's not difficult to reinstall Linux on that system if you like.

But I have to pay the Microsoft tax. Sure I could demand a refund from Alienware, but what's the likelihood I would get it, in a reasonable tyme period? And how much would it be? Probably less than $100 which is less than the upgrade price of Windows 7. And if I installed Ubuntu could I install Photoshop CS4? I plan on installing Ubuntu Studio on my Mac, to tryout CinePaint. But if it does not work out for me I'll want Photoshop. I can install it in Snow Leopard but I don't think I can in Ubuntu. Maybe in another year but not now.

Falcon

You'd be lucky to get that amount of detail out of the film; grain size is going to be an issue, but the optics of the scanner as well.

Ce depend, er that depends. Different films have different grain sizes even discounting film speed or ISO. Fuji Velvia for instance has bigger grain than some film but finer than others. As for my scanner, as I said it can optically scan 6400 dpi, interpolated resolution is 12,800. Still scanning at 4800 dpi still generates a good sized file, especially at 32 never mind 48 bit colour depths. And yes Photoshop can work with those depths, unlike GIMP which only works at 8 bit depths.

But then we're back to the "do you really need to store an image at that size?". See the quality concerns up above and in my previous post. Assume you would, some day, actually print this..

And I dealt with both of these in previous posts. If you want as high a quality as possible you want large files and for print it matters.

Note that this is typically a combined value. E.g. 16bits for red, green, and blue (16+16+16 = 48). 16bits isn't bad, by the way.. 16bits is good.. 16 bits is great! 32bits is even better but not even the film (movie) industry deals with 32bit very often.

I don't know what colour depths movie studios use a lot but CinePaint is used by studios a lot and it works with 32 bit colour depths. Of course the problem that neither of us has mentioned yet is that software and storage isn't the limiting factor when talking about high bit colour channels, the limiting factor are monitors and graphics cards that drive them. A monitor I was thinking I'd like to get, when I could afford it, was the HP DreamColor LP2480zx, however some comments aren't good.

Well that's the thing though, isn't it... if you're going to be using it in the very near future, then you'd have to find a way to get a bigger drive to begin with..

Oh, that's my plan. I want to start working as a photographer and as finances allow I'll upgrade my hardware. And maybe software, but I want to try FOSS programs first. Because buying Photoshop CS3 never mind CS4 would put a strain on my finances, I'm on disability and unemployed, I've been thinking about installing Ubuntu Studio which includes the afore mentioned CinePaint to edit photos. That's what I like about microstock websites, I can start with what I have now then if, with as many others using them a big if, and when I start to make money I can roll the income into better equipment.

if your tool of choice is Photoshop, then setting the quality to highest/100 will do. If you use The GIMP, there's several options there you can use to specify the exact JPEG encoding to have as little loss as possible.

If Film GIMP, CinePaint, doesn't do what I'll want then I'll try to get Photoshop.

Shooting (near-)IR with an 87 filter can be fun, yes, and it's certainly a lot easier and cheaper to do with a point-and-shoot.

I shot 35mm IR film before, but that was a long tyme ago. Having a digicam that has the ability would be easier. The "Make" article I said I read mentioned some cameras that were good for IR photography. I wonder what the photos would look like shooting astrophotography, one of the areas I want to shoot, in IR. I have, though haven't tried it yet, the Meade ETX80 telescope and camera mount for my camera.

Good luck with the developing - E6 shouldn't be an issue but I'd certainly pay attention to people there who have done it before as it -can- be finnicky.. and requires way more patience than I was ever will

I am tempted, once all my apps are patched for Snow Leopard, to partition the hard drive to be able to dual boot Mac OS X and Debian GNU/Linux.

Yea I'm running Leopard on my MacBook Pro now, and may install Snow Leopard, and I'm thinking about installing Ubuntu Studio. I already have the harddisk partitioned into 3 partitions, one for OS X, one for Ubuntu Studio, and one for the user home.

Falcon

Whoops, I meant http://www.ubuntustudio.org.

For any really specific job you will need to customise Linux. Yes I know this is beyond the capabilities of most simpletons but if it is done (by someone else perhaps) it will result in far superior performance and results. The ability to customise Linux into either a general purpose or highly specialised OS is the strength of Linux.

And here Ubuntu Studio comes in handy. On a plain vanilla Ubuntu, one can simply apt-get ubuntustudio packages and get every customization done for them. It installs the main applications (audio-wise it's great) and even configures a real-time kernel.

about their relevance in my house.

It's the same in my house, but for different reasons. Almost 3 years ago I got a desktop, well tower, PC with Linux preinstalled. Then a year later I got a MacBook Pro for my new laptop, which I'm thinking about installing Ubuntu on it to set it up as a dualboot computer. Microsoft is practically irrelevant to me now.

Multimedia is just broken on Linux.

Multimedia is why I've thinking of installing Ubuntu Studio on my Mac. It has everything needed for multimedia including audio, graphics, and video.

Falcon

Ubuntu Studio Edition comes with the real time kernel and most editing and sound applications installed. Add the MP3 driver and you are ready to go to work. I use it.
http://ubuntustudio.org/ Get it here.

I think his point is that MacPorts covers 99% of the Linux/Unix workalike software out there.

MacPorts does not support CinePaint.

Sure there is a lot of Linux only stuff - but typically only because the project is still in alpha and hasn't taken off yet.

I heard about MacPorts 5 years ago. If it's not out of alpha it's never be out of beta.

Given that, the drivers for the hardware on the device are not likley to be supported by Linux for some time after it's release...

I have been investigating installing Ubuntu on my Mac for months. Because CinePaint was dropped from Ubuntu I've been thinking of installing Ubuntu Studio, which does include CinePaint, and I have not found one deal breaker. Ubuntu Forums has a number of posts on how to install Ubuntu on Macs such as this one, "Macbook Pro- Santa Rosa", which is what my Mac's version.

Nothing but ego apparently.

Ego has nothing to do with it. I'd rather try the free CinePaint to edit my photographs than spend several hundred dollars I don't have to buy Photoshop.

Falcon

of OS X:

X11
kde
e17
For everything else there's fink and darwin ports.

I've got X11 installed and tried to install CinePaint and Fink but couldn't get either one to run. I could try MacPorts but it doesn't have CinePaint. So I've been thinking of installing Ubuntu Studio.

Falcon

Examples of stuff that still doesn't work on Kubuntu Jaunty:
...
transcoding in Amarok

I'm no expert and am just going on what I've read but have you tried Ubuntu Studio? It uses the RT kernel which should make Amarok run better.

I've been looking into installing Ubuntu on my Mac, unfortunately one reason I first wanted to was because I wanted to use CinePaint however Ubuntu dropped it. Ubuntu Studio still has it though.

Falcon

Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design, so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it, problem? not really. Good hardware is good hardware.

I agree that Apple makes good hardware, and software. However I've been researching on how to install Ubuntu on my MacBook Pro and it's not so simple. Some people have trouble with their keyboards, specific keys such as function keys, or backlighting. Others, with their WiFi, and still others with their net connection.

And the thing is is I wanted to install Ubuntu because I want to use, or try to use, CinePaint. However it was dropped from Ubuntu. While there's a version for OS X I wasn't able to get it working and wasn't able to find out how to googling. Eventually I found out Ubuntu Studio includes CinePaint.

Which brings up a problem many people have with some open source projects. While GIMP is good for average usage or web work. It lacks things pro photographers, which I hope to become, need for print. Such as at least 16 bit colour depths. GIMP has been promising that for more than 10 years. All those years ago the developer of CinePaint, which can work in 32 bits per colour channel, offered his 16 bit work to the GIMP project. But they turned him down so he started his FilmGIMP, now CinePaint, project.

Falcon

Not just requires Leopard - it runs only on Macs with Core 2 (or some Xeon) processors.

Ump, I didn't know that.

That means not only no PPC love, but even the first several Intel Macs are out of luck. Like my wife's 2-year old laptop (only 1 year old or so when they finally released Java 6).

She must of gotten just before Apple released the Core 2 MBP. Perhaps version 2,x. I got mine about 22 months ago, it's a MacBook Pro 3,1.

Perhaps from that link you can tell I have or want to install Ubuntu 9.04 on my MBP. Because it does not include in the install or repositories CinePaint I'm thinking about installing Ubuntu Studio 9.04 which does have CinePaint.

Falcon

I think you should set up a very very nice Mac desktop at your headquarters with a few TBs of storage on it and plenty of DDR3 memory. This machine, you should use for editing and processing your video. I am by no means an artist but it's no secret that is a strength of Macs. For storage and capturing, just bring some notebooks with Linux and TB external drives.

You can try Ubuntu Studio if you're interested in giving Linux a shot in the former departments ... start with some base footage and try some stuff out on a Mac and then Ubuntu studio before you make your final decision.

Really, you should shoot an e-mail to the blender folks if you want to keep this documentary purely open source ... you may be able to entice them for a little free support if they can use you as a shining example of open source in the documentary community. It also might be a frustrating pain the ass if you're used to Mac editing tools like every graduate in the arts seems to be.

I think there's other things like GordianKnot (not sure where this project is at right now) and Avidemux that are worth investigating if they aren't already on Ubuntu Studio.

Good luck! I love documentaries, especially independent ones!

Maybe its been a while since you looked at it, according to their page it looks like debian and ubuntu are supported.

CinePaint has not been in Ubuntu since 8.10 intrepid. Search Ubuntu Studio and it returns no results for CinePaint. If CinePaint is part of it why doesn't it return anything? Now the CinePaint website does have a link to a .deb package but Debian has not supported it for years. According to CinePaint "CinePaint was removed from Debian lenny (testing) because Debian has dropped support for GTK1." The Debian people who worked on CinePaint are no longer there. And the .deb available is experimental.

I did my research to see if Ubuntu would do what I wanted.

Falcon

Maybe its been a while since you looked at it, according to their page it looks like debian and ubuntu are supported.

Your problem is that you seem to have quoted that out of context.

Except I included the part I was replying to, "You can just download and install it." There much more than simply downloading and install it.

You also make one major error in your argument. You have 4 ways to run it.

What 4 ways are there to run it without installing it? Other than the live disk, those you list still require you install it. There is more than one way to install it though. Do you install a 32 bit or 64 bit version? Do you install the desktop, server, or studio version? Do you install the regular or the alternative way? Maybe you'll do a compleat install by erasing the disk, create partitions and keep the current OS. Or maybe you'll install it in a VM with Wubi in the current OS.

3) Let it install, in which case it will give you the choice of doing everything automatically....
Even an average mom and pop can install it with the third method with very little chance of messing it up, even if they have a dual boot set up.

Not if you have uncommon or unusual hardware. Even if you don't it not quite so simple. I hsve a Mac laptop, which are not that uncommon yet if you want the keyboard to work right you have to download and install additional drivers as well as edit a configuration file. Here's a post from someone who had such a problem, "The keyboard backlight on the MacBook 5.1 is not supported as of Jaunty (Ubuntu 9.04) Alpha 5." Now that may of been fixed, but it might not be.

Fact is is I spent a few hours googling on how to install Jaunty Jackalope on my MBP but haven't found anything yet.

Falcon

Because nobody needs customized, niche desktop distros like Ubuntu Studio, amiright?

That's why you immediately install Ubuntu Studio right after installing the base distro. Then it doesn't look so dorky, and you've got all your multimedia needs covered.

sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude install ubuntustudio-desktop ubuntustudio-audio ubuntustudio-audio-plugins ubuntustudio-graphics ubuntustudio-video linux-rt

I would be willing to pay for features like Media Center and stuff like that.

No charge. Keep the change and go buy yourself a new haircut.

Not only that, but I also would love to have decent wireless support with wep and wpa configuration which is easy to use and *gasp* actually works.

It's actually quite easy. If the OS doesn't support it yet, use hardware that does. Let me explain how easy it is.

Pick up any modern access point that supports client mode. Configure it as a client using any secure protocol you wish. Plug the CAT 5 cable into your laptop NIC. Surf. In testing this, I even tried it with a Windows 95 laptop which has no USB (not supported under Windows 95) and a 16 bit cardbus adapter. The laptop has no built in NIC. Using a NE2000 compatible 16 bit PCMCIA card, I was able to connect to a WPA router with Windows 95. It also works with Linux.

Many manufactures are unwilling to release driver specs because the power, frequency and other paramaters are regulated by the FCC or other regulations. 3rd party software may put the device into illegal operation, for example using settings for Japan while in the USA would be illegal and only limited by the version of the driver shipped to the American market.


Oh, and decent audio, open source should really make up its mind and create a good/stable/usable audio stack. Between oss/alsa/pulse/artsd/esd .. you can not make one that works.

Correction.. Try the one that does work great. Look up Ubuntu Studio. I use it for a low latency multi-track recorder instead of a high latency Windows version.

http://ubuntustudio.org/

As always, use proper sound hardware. On the cheap (under $50), the Behringer UAC series is plug and play for a reasonable quality USB sound interface. SB anything has serious hardware limitations if you are trying for recording at various bitrates and resolutions. Read the forums. before buying audio hardware. Firewire is also not a good linux choice at this time.

Audacity with a good mixer board and the USB adapter gives CD or DAT quality recordings. We use it for demo and practice CDs.
Windows requires long buffers so playback while recording is a problem. Ubuntu Studio uses low latency so layered multi-track recording is easy. Record the rhythm track, lay down the lead guitar track, then the keyboard track and bass guitar, and finish with the lead vocal. Now it's ready for the post production mix and adding the wet tracks with reverb, chorus, etc.

Audacity is easy to learn.

Has anyone here experience with this one? I'd like to give it a try.

Ubuntu Studio is "a multimedia creation flavor of Ubuntu." It includes applications for audio and video creation and for graphic work. It also has the Linux kernel optimized for low latency.

http://ubuntustudio.org/
Download (not accessible at the moment):
http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntustudio/releases/hardy/release
Torrent mirror:
MD5: http://mma.users.ubuntustudio.org/Hardy-Torrents/MD5SUMS
i386: http://mma.users.ubuntustudio.org/Hardy-Torrents/ubuntustudio-8.04-alternate-i386.iso.torrent
AMD64: http://mma.users.ubuntustudio.org/Hardy-Torrents/ubuntustudio-8.04-alternate-amd64.iso.torrent

Has anyone here experience with this one? I'd like to give it a try.

Ubuntu Studio is "a multimedia creation flavor of Ubuntu." It includes applications for audio and video creation and for graphic work. It also has the Linux kernel optimized for low latency.

http://ubuntustudio.org/
Download (not accessible at the moment):
http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntustudio/releases/hardy/release
Torrent mirror:
MD5: http://mma.users.ubuntustudio.org/Hardy-Torrents/MD5SUMS
i386: http://mma.users.ubuntustudio.org/Hardy-Torrents/ubuntustudio-8.04-alternate-i386.iso.torrent
AMD64: http://mma.users.ubuntustudio.org/Hardy-Torrents/ubuntustudio-8.04-alternate-amd64.iso.torrent

Has anyone here experience with this one? I'd like to give it a try.

Ubuntu Studio is "a multimedia creation flavor of Ubuntu." It includes applications for audio and video creation and for graphic work. It also has the Linux kernel optimized for low latency.

http://ubuntustudio.org/
Download (not accessible at the moment):
http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntustudio/releases/hardy/release
Torrent mirror:
MD5: http://mma.users.ubuntustudio.org/Hardy-Torrents/MD5SUMS
i386: http://mma.users.ubuntustudio.org/Hardy-Torrents/ubuntustudio-8.04-alternate-i386.iso.torrent
AMD64: http://mma.users.ubuntustudio.org/Hardy-Torrents/ubuntustudio-8.04-alternate-amd64.iso.torrent

Has anyone here experience with this one? I'd like to give it a try.

Ubuntu Studio is "a multimedia creation flavor of Ubuntu." It includes applications for audio and video creation and for graphic work. It also has the Linux kernel optimized for low latency.

http://ubuntustudio.org/
Download (not accessible at the moment):
http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntustudio/releases/hardy/release
Torrent mirror:
MD5: http://mma.users.ubuntustudio.org/Hardy-Torrents/MD5SUMS
i386: http://mma.users.ubuntustudio.org/Hardy-Torrents/ubuntustudio-8.04-alternate-i386.iso.torrent
AMD64: http://mma.users.ubuntustudio.org/Hardy-Torrents/ubuntustudio-8.04-alternate-amd64.iso.torrent

I do recording under Linux, and I like Ardour, et al better than I like anything else I've ever used. I haven't owned a Mac, though, and I've SEEN some stuff on Mac that I'd like to use. That being said, the Linux solutions lack a great deal of polish that most people would require, such as graphical plugins (which I think are on their way with LADSPA2; LADSPA being the equivalent to VST). The only thing keeping Ardour from being as flexible as these other applications, IMO, is MIDI support, which is also on its way.

Again, I really like the feel of Ardour over Protools or Nuendo3, but asking someone to go from Reason, a virtual rack (that actually LOOKS like a rack), to Pd, a sound processing application into which you can program anything (but only has visual representation of signal flow, IIRC), is a tough argument to make.

In any case, the decision between Windows and Linux as a recording environment is a no-brainer for ME. The audio subsystem in Windows is shit, Vista is shit, and Microsoft wants me to call and ask permission to upgrade my box. So *I* agree with you. But asking someone else whose brain works differently to make the leap may not be reasonable.

As for visual apps, I think the same applies, despite the amount of applications such as the GIMP, Cinelerra, etc. I would recommend trying Linux. If you have a Mac, Ardour has a native OS X installer, so try it out. Also, to check out the rest of these apps, try Fink (no 10.5 support). And if you decide to make the leap, UbuntuStudio is a great place to start for the uninitiated. It comes with a real-time kernel and system adjustments and a billion multimedia creation apps.

ubuntu studio is your friend!

I thought this may interest you, I know it's an old post. But my boss showed me this just today, Ubuntu Studio It's the answer to your audio/video editing problems. It will be a learning curve, but that's not unusual for any professional tool, as I haven't found one that 'My Grandmother' could use... :P

From the Site:

Our aim is to assemble suites of applications aimed at creative people. Suites including the best open-source applications available.
For instance, Ardour 2 - A multitrack recorder/editor geared toward people familiar with Pro-Tools.

Graphic design and modeling applications including The GIMP, Inkscape and Blender. Along with plugins like dcraw to help with RAW camera files and wacom-tools for people with Wacom drawing tablets.

PiTiVi, Kino, Cinepaint are included for video creation. We hope to provide a creative environment to people as well as give a spotlight to some amazing open-source applications.

Let the creativity fly...

Thank god DRM is here to protect me from the work I need to do. Wasn't apple supposed to me the machine for media professionals?


Have you tried Ubuntu Studio? http://ubuntustudio.org/

That's what I now use for digital audio work.

For some reason, a lot of PC manufacturers don't give the consumer an option for a pre-loaded OS.

This is true. In the past (DOS days) people would ask me regarding computer purchase selections. What I said then is just as true today. Find out what programs you need to run and then find the hardware which is capabile of running it.

Many people wanting to do multimedia, photography, video production, etc are needing something with realtime hardware support. Those people are moving to hardware and OS that support the required applications. Vista is not a real time OS and is unsuitable for many capture devices. Alternatives to fill the gap often include Apple and some Linux distributions such as Ubuntu Studio.

Nothing kills a live session more than a request for an Adobe PDF viewer update request in the middle of a session. I got this one during a live presentation while playing a DVD. The DVD on the projector simply stopped. Going to the laptop, we discovered that despite the fact were in the field with no internet connection, Adobe needed our permission to get an update. The fact a PDF viewer has permission to stop the show by having Windows Vista stop it to ask permission for an update without a net connection convinced me that Vista is unsuitable for presentation and digital audio workstation applications.

My Digital Audio Workstation is now Ubuntu Studio based with low latency and no interruptions of a live recording session. Some people prefer an Apple soulution.

Audacity is OSS and cross platform. It works fine on Windows, Mac, and Linux.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

Many capture devices have serious latency and breakup problems in Vista. Audacity works in Vista, but capturing sound should be done on another platform.

Many popular USB capture devices simply are not supported on Vista because of the non-real time nature of the OS. Here are a few popular interfaces without Vista support;
Roland http://www.rolandus.com/products/productdetails.aspx?ObjectId=743&ParentId=114
http://www.roland.com/products/en/UA-101/specs.html
Beringer http://img3.musiciansfriend.com/dbase/pdf/man/m_702540.pdf

I found some of the Yamaha mixers with built-in USB interfaces list Vista, but the manual was quick to point out problems are caused if it has too little memory, has a slower processor, or several other items that can cause problems with multi-track recordings.

For real-time capture, I prefer to use a hardware priority OS. I have used this instead of Vista for Digital Music Studio work.
http://ubuntustudio.org/

But on Linux you've typically got some difficulty finding commercial software.

Assuming that by "commercial", you mean "proprietary", this is a feature, not a bug. Your free software package repository is a very effective crap filter. I'm in no hurry to revisit the dark days of the early nineties, searching for, downloading and installing software only to find out it's crippleware, or a time-limited demo. Freeware is typically the product of a lone coder who doesn't know how to play well with others, and is therefore limited to little utilities which develop very slowly, if at all. And I don't see the sense in spending hundreds of dollars on a shrink-wrapped box of software that does a bazillion things I'm not interested in just to crop and scale photos, burn a CD, or format some text for the printed page.

Before anybody chimes in to say I'm in the elitist, holier-than-thou minority on this, why don't proprietary software companies promote the features of their products that free software can by definition never deliver:

• "You don't and can't know what it's really doing!"
• "If it's broken we're the only ones who can fix it!"
• "Assumes you're a criminal!"

...because nobody wants those features, but most people who get their software from shrink-wrapped boxes in Wal-Mart don't know that you can get useful software under any other terms. Yes there are some features of some proprietary products that aren't implemented in a free software equivalent yet. There are also plenty of features in free software that are lacking in the leading proprietary products, plus you don't get screwed by EULAs, spyware, DRM, WGA, etc.

If you need Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Office or Halo 3 for Linux you're just plain out of luck.

As far as I know, you can't get Halo 3 for Macs or Windows PCs (Xbox 360 only, according to Wikipedia). If you think you need Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Office I would urge you to re-evaluate your needs.

And I really wish I could get BBEdit or TextMate on my PC.

If they were free software, somebody would have ported them by now.

If anything, it's surprising that the OS X market share has grown so little (assuming these figures are reasonably accurate) given the leverage that Apple's overwhelming dominance in little gadgets brings.

If you want a reason for the unimpressive growth in GNU/Linux-based OSes (if you can call doubling in under two years, according to TFA, unimpressive), I'd go for plain inertia. I've been using Debian on my desktop for a decade, but I readily concede I'm a niche user. It's only really been in the last couple of years (Anno Ubuntu) that free desktop OSes, and accompanying free applications, have been sufficient for the 80% to live happily with. Given that the majority of Windows users still don't want to leave their six-year old operating system for the year-old latest version of the same system, it's hardly surprising that migration to completely different systems that don't have a phone or MP3 player to use as a foot in the door will be sluggish for some time.

Things are starting to move though. I got a call out of the blue yesterday from a musician who was sick of depending on cracked versions on Cubase and whatnot, and wanted my help installing Ubuntu Studio. I've been getting similar requests with increasing frequency, to the point where the time spent knocking back requests to do paid work is interfering with my paid work (web development). A couple of years ago I considered doing free software desktop support professionally and concluded the time was not yet right to make it an economically viable proposition. 2008 might be the time to reconsider that decision.

The main thing that I love is the video. It is much easier, for me, than Linux video. I can actually see the Mythbusters' videos on the web. I know that Linux can do video, it just isn't as easy (at least with openSUSE and/or Fedora, haven't tried Ubuntu).

Professional audio? Don't even bother. ESounD, ARTS, JACKD, now PulseAudio seems to be the big name in useless sound daemons...but that doesn't mean everyone will standardize on it. As if we needed yet another sound daemon anyway. If the Linux kernel is supposedly so "flexible" that it can be used in any range of devices from computers to cell phones, then why is it that 18 years or more later after the first release, there -still- isn't an easy way to do very low-latency, high quality audio recording on Linux? Linux distributions could _EASILY_ supplant a lot of the Windows based environments for professional audio if the kernel was up to the task. And for those out there who think that Audacity and Ardour are adequate replacements for ProTools...wake up.

I don't know about the rest of your points, but I can definitely argue this one.

If you're looking for "easy" low latency audio recording, I'd think Ubuntu Studio or 64Studio or a host of other alternatives would give you easy access to a preinstalled low-latency kernel and all the audio/video tools you need to make your own high-grade recordings.

Just because Pro-Tools is the piece of software which is handed out with most pieces of pro audio equipment doesn't mean there's no support for them.... My studio has been powered by ardour and JACK for the last few years, and I've been watching more and more people pick up this software. (See the forums and donations flooding into PBD on the ardour page for evidence of this.) Whereas I may have agreed with you a few years ago, saying that "ardour isn't a replacement for protools", I don't think that really holds water anymore. If you really have knowledge of some feature that you want in ardour so badly, go and put your money where your mouth is. I'm sure Paul would appreciate the support, and you'd get the features you want. </shameless plug>

(As an additional anecdote, one of my friends was going to school for audio engineering and mixing in Florida, and mentioned that the school he was going to actually *encouraged* use of Ardour and friends down there ... )

Also, please don't bring audacity into a pro audio discussion. There are plenty of better tools for handling audio than audacity unless you're doing cutting or other simple tasks -- it's more of a "Cool Edit Pro" replacement than anything.

All I want to do in read about Ubuntu Studio, see what software is included, so I can decide if it will replace my aging Mac with Adobe CS. I can't afford a direct replacement at the moment.

And I Google "Ubuntu Studio" to find the official site and I'm greeted with some less-than-clever gibberish that means nothing to anyone who isn't already an Open Source geek. A tinyurl link, some dumb mumbling about Google cache.

You people can't even run a web site.

Have you looked into Ubuntu Studio? That would be what you are looking for, I believe.