Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reborn 1.0 And The State of Linux Audio

Posted by timothy on from the switched-on dept.

Eugenia writes "This is great news for the Linux audio users! Reborn, a clone of the legendary ReBirth, has just been released. It provides software emulation for three of Roland Corporation's most famous electronic musical instruments. Also thrown in are four audio effects, individual mixers, a programmable sequencer and is fully compatible with the ReBirth .rbs song file format. To celebrate this release, OSNews runs an article presenting the most advanced professional, or semi-professional audio applications available today for the Linux platform." Most of the article consists of a list of audio software that can currently run on GNU/Linux systems. It's a pretty good list, but things like Cubase aren't there yet.

83 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. This is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I used it the other day, and the sound quality is exceptional! I highly reccomend this product.

  2. goooooood news. by dTaylorSingletary · · Score: 1
    This is probably the best linux news I've read in a long, long time. About time we started having some neat audio toys for the musicians out there. Now what we need is a programmable midi-capable sample-based VSTi-compatible song organizer. (FreeFruit?)

    d. Taylor Singletary, reality technician
    experimental musician

    --
    d. Taylor Singletary,
    reality technician techra.el
    1. Re:goooooood news. by swordfish666 · · Score: 1

      Even better would be a port of Sonic Foundry's Acid.
      That with ReBorn and you're in like Flyn!!

      BTW got any links to music editing/creating on Linux?
      Cheers

      --
      I like-a do-the cha-cha.
    2. Re:goooooood news. by phaxkolumbo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dave Phillip's linux audio page should cover most of linux audio software. Check it out.

  3. IT for linux ? by Debian_Zealot · · Score: 1

    Hmm, my brother uses IT on DOS, and he says that if I'll get him a program that does the same as IT, for Linux, he'll switch to Linux and never look back. Anyone care to help me recruit another zealot ? Thanks!

    1. Re:IT for linux ? by dTaylorSingletary · · Score: 1
      Don't know of any exact similar programs, but there's always DosEMU, which runs under linux and could quite possibly run IT.

      d. Taylor Singletary, reality technician
      experimental music

      --
      d. Taylor Singletary,
      reality technician techra.el
    2. Re:IT for linux ? by phaxkolumbo · · Score: 2, Informative

      insotracker aims for IT compatibility, and seems to be there already. Try that one.

    3. Re:IT for linux ? by Debian_Zealot · · Score: 1

      Hey, nice !! Thanks a lot!

    4. Re:IT for linux ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      One word: CheeseTracker. It does more, too.

      PS. Whoever came up with the 20-second delay ought to be shot and then beaten up just to be sure.

    5. Re:IT for linux ? by Debian_Zealot · · Score: 1

      Thanks, and I second you on that ridiculous 20 second delay thing.

    6. Re:IT for linux ? by Afrosheen · · Score: 2

      The phrase to remember here is "When it's ready...

      Ah yes, the familiar mantra of coders everywhere.

  4. Jmax? PD? They're not on the list why? by metalhed77 · · Score: 5, Informative

    JMAX and PD (pure data), which are probably the most professional audio solutions for linux are not on the list, I wonder why. They are simply linux ports of previously mac software. Both of these are damn good rivalry to MAX.

    You can get JMAX here:
    http://www.ircam.fr/equipes/temps-reel/jmax /en/ind ex.php3

    PD Here:
    http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/software.html

    --
    Photos.
    1. Re:Jmax? PD? They're not on the list why? by stew77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Programs of this kind are often forgotten in lists of "professional" music software. I guess that's primarily because MAX, PD, SuperCollider or CSound require that you're not only a musician but also a programmer.

  5. Don't expect Steinberg to make the jump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Since Cubase was mentioned, I really doubt that Steinberg will ever shift in the direction of open source OS's in regards to their marquee products (Cubase, Nuendo, Wavelab, etc.) simply because they are moving towards a hardware based solution in the future, following Digidesign.

    Sad, but true.

    1. Re:Don't expect Steinberg to make the jump by horati0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since Cubase was mentioned, I really doubt that Steinberg will ever shift in the direction of open source OS's in regards to their marquee products (Cubase, Nuendo, Wavelab, etc.) simply because they are moving towards a hardware based solution in the future, following Digidesign.

      Steinberg (or any other sequencing software company for that matter) aren't moving to hardware replacements for their products. What they are doing is coming up with some pretty rad hardware to control the software.

      It's an odd thought, controlling a software program with an outboard piece of hardware but if you think about it, it makes sense. As computers get more and more powerful, only the software that records,renders,manipulates,and,masters the audio needs change. Virually replacing an entire studio's worth of gear is a matter of a:\install.exe. Steinberg, Cakewalk, Logic, et al, all know this and will continue to push for a software-based studio.

      --
      The neutrality of this sig is disputed.
    2. Re:Don't expect Steinberg to make the jump by kisielk · · Score: 1

      It's an odd thought, controlling a software program with an outboard piece of hardware but if you think about it, it makes sense.


      Funny, I do this every day with my keyboard and mouse.. but maybe I'm just weird and haven't developed a telepathic link with my computer like the rest of the /. crowd.

    3. Re:Don't expect Steinberg to make the jump by uebernewby · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nope, Steinberg won't do Linux because they feel Linux isn't able to deliver the performance they want. Before you start yapping 'low latency kernel', consider the direction Steinberg's been taking off late, with VST, VST2 and now VST System Link, not to mention their ASIO standard that aims to whack latency down to almost nothing: Steinberg is interested in real-time computing. Linux may be good for a lot of things, but real time virtual studio work isn't one of them.

      BTW, claiming that Steinberg is 'moving towards a hardware based solution in the future' is pure FUD and has no basis in reality whatsoever. Steinberg is, after all, the company, that continually thinks up new standards and protocols for making studio work on a computer a better experience. Oh, and just for the record, no, I don't work for them, nor do I own any of their software as I can't afford it.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    4. Re:Don't expect Steinberg to make the jump by HanzoSan · · Score: 2



      And you think Windows is? Are you a damn fool? have you used Windows XP? Have you looked at statistics?

      You might be right if you mean OSX, but Windows?

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    5. Re:Don't expect Steinberg to make the jump by uebernewby · · Score: 2

      OSX is a particularly crappy performer, unless apps are specifically written to take advantage of it.

      Windows XP may be slow(ish), but it's a damn sight faster for real time computing than Linux (except, possibly, Linux-with-Alan-Cox's-low-latency-kernel). The price you pay for stability, I suppose.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
  6. Oh at last! by acehole · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can finally play 'baby elephant walk' on my linux box with a samba beat in the background.

    oh joy...

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
    1. Re:Oh at last! by NitroPye · · Score: 1

      Or you can get an Oranj Symphonette cd and listen to Baby elephant gunn. A brillant tune combining peter gunn and baby elephant walk :) --NitroPye

    2. Re:Oh at last! by Mark4ST · · Score: 1

      Actuall, this is a pretty kick-ass bit of software. You could release a whole album of sounds using this software alone.

  7. Lousy interface design by theonomist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with ReBirth, and with any clone thereof, is that the user gains nothing from a flashy raster imitation of a 303's physical interface (or that of any real gear), while losing a great deal of usability.

    A physical knob isn't so bad out here in the physical world, but you're manipulating it with your fingers. A mouse pointer is not a pair of fingers. I've played with ReBirth, and while there's some great functionality in there, it's just hell trying to get at it through all those tiny, poorly-labeled knobs. That interface makes sense on a plastic box. It's got real drawbacks, but it is what it is because of simple necessity. It's the best you can do with a thing made out of plastic. Okay, that's fine when plastic is the medium you're stuck with, but you can do considerably better if you're making your interface out of zeroes and ones instead.

    By all means, let us duplicate the functionality of analog gear in software. That's a noble undertaking. But let's not fuck up the GUI with gratuitously flashy nonsense at the expense of clarity and usability. It's a gimmick. The Microsoft Paper Clip is a gimmick.

    If your software is actually meant to be used, gimmicks are bad.

    --
    "Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
    1. Re:Lousy interface design by phaxkolumbo · · Score: 1

      I agree with out somewhow, but what would you suggest instead? I don't think normal GUIs stretch to real time synthesizer usage that well. That's why we use midi fader boxes and midi keyboards instead to get a proper interface to audio software.

      That being said, some software has nice ideas in the GUI, for example Muon Software's Electron VST softsynth. See the screenshots for the X-Y pad, which i think is a pretty nice idea, not a gimmick.

      Any else good interface ideas for this kind of thing?

    2. Re:Lousy interface design by bgarland · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then get something like this or this.

      Ben

    3. Re:Lousy interface design by SampleMinded · · Score: 1

      You need to realize that a software instrument is a gimmick. Most all modern synths are software based (sample play back. My EMU samplers are basically 386's with 64 megs of ram. So when you buy a real synth you are only purchasing an interface. Unless you have a touch screen monitor, that you keep face up, you can never achive realtime useability with a software synth.

    4. Re:Lousy interface design by stew77 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You might like Ableton Live's interface. Clean, not gimmicks, perfectly understandable.

      (sorry for the link - Ableton.com is frame-based, unfortuately)

    5. Re:Lousy interface design by aitsu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah but the problem is you're still stuck with the keyboard and mouse for real-time manipulation, regarless of what the GUI looks like. At least by looking like the original 303/808/909, it's familiar to the musician. Get an inexpensive external controller like the Keyfax Phatboy.

    6. Re:Lousy interface design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      sorry but your wrong, in the real world we musicians just use a midi controller with knobs to get the effect that you say is lost. yea its not perfect, but it works in many situation. FYI, this post is another great example of someone knowing just enough to put some bullshitty opinion out there that seems credible without cosidering all of the facts.

    7. Re:Lousy interface design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Thanks for pointing that out. I was going to post the same thing, I guess it's a good thing that I read the other posts first. :~) The Oxygen8 controller is quite a piece of hardware, I just got one a few weeks ago and haven't been able to put it down. It really makes programs like ReBirth, Reason, or any other program capable of MIDI control 100x easier to work with. Plus, you don't even need a MIDI cable or interface. USB is all that's needed! It's also relatively cheap (I got mine for USD$140). Essential to anyone using soft-synths!

    8. Re:Lousy interface design by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      When Reborn becomes Open source, anyone can write drivers to use a custom hand-controlled interface, instead of having to rely on a mouse pointer.

      It really would be quite easy to design, actually.

    9. Re:Lousy interface design by krinje · · Score: 1

      Did you notice from the screenshots that ReBorn provides matrix-style pattern editors? That alone improves its useability by quite a lot. Like others have posted, most people use some sort of midi controller to tweak knobs and not a mouse.

      PS, I'm waiting for a Reason clone.

      --
      "He treats objects like women, man!"
      - The Dude, The Big Lebowski
  8. Good news indeed by aufecht · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seeing that these days the only I time I am rebooting into Windows is to run Cubase and various other music apps this is good news. I have been desperately trying to bring my music production over to Linux, in fact I'm picking up my copy of "The Csound Book" today. Over the years I have tried, with varying degrees of success, to run many of the freely available sequencers (Jazz), software synths, etc. Although I have never been a huge fan of ReBirth I have a friend who uses it and sends me ReBirth files once in a while. It will be interesting to see how they function in ReBorn.

    1. Re:Good news indeed by TMB · · Score: 2

      I'm also only using Windows for audio production, but unfortunately software isn't the only problem - at least for me, my audio board has no drivers and isn't likely to ever. Which is unfortunate.

      [TMB]

    2. Re:Good news indeed by pigeon · · Score: 1

      Me too. My audiophile 2496 does work with linux/alsa, but my emagic amt-8 midi interface doesn't. And forget cubase, I would really like to see logic for linux. But that won't happen, since logic will be a Mac OS app only.

    3. Re:Good news indeed by tius · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, my take on this is that if you are pretty much just on the musical side of things then get a Mac and whatever S/W that makes doing it simple and easy.

      If on the other hand you are musical with deep technical tendancies or technical with musical tendancies then go with CSound and build whatever you require around it.

      Personally, I think CSound is one of the greatest pieces of sound S/W available. Now, I'm far more on the technical side and often describe CSound as assembly language for music, so take take that all with a grain of salt. If you want to lay down some chords and rhythm and drum tracks go cakewalk or any sequencer for that matter. If you have sonic imagination that can meld with technical imagination then go with CSound and some of your own programming.

      BTW, how come most music is so friggin' low in it's entropy?!? huh?!? Creative my *ss. (oops gone onto raning...appologies..etc.)

      Cheers,
      Tius

  9. Audio Software by zero-g · · Score: 1

    Even with the release of this excellent package, there's still a big hole waiting to be filled in the Linux audio community. Wave editing/mixing software is highly lacking. I have yet to find a decent wave editor with an integrated multitrack mixer. Can you say Cool Edit?

    1. Re:Audio Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You're right, there's nothing quite like cool edit for linux audio.

      gnusound is OK, however, not so many features, but it works for simple recording. Up to 32 tracks limit now..

  10. Music samples by eddy · · Score: 1

    The samples are low-quality mp3s. How LAME. Vorbis kicks ass down there.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
    1. Re:Music samples by ActiveSX · · Score: 1

      The samples are low-quality mp3s. How LAME.

      Was that supposed to be some kind of really bad pun?

    2. Re:Music samples by eddy · · Score: 1

      Of puns, there's only one kind.

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
  11. I don't care about Linux audio by kraf · · Score: 1, Troll

    until a programs like Reason or Cooledit is released.

    Of course before there is a market demand for such apps, no serious audio programmer will bother.
    This is not something that a couple geeks can fix, this is pure economics.

    1. Re:I don't care about Linux audio by krinje · · Score: 1

      who modded this to "Troll"? It's a valid point.

      The state of Audio on Linux is pretty poor. None of the big names, (e.g., Steinberg, Emagic, Digidesign) will bother with Linux because the underlying audio architecture is too limiting. With Windows various driver levels (ASIO, WDM, Dx) and now Mac's delicious-looking CoreAudio there's very little need to provide software for Linux.

      In the audio world, for better or worse, is one that doesn't care about getting a decent solution for free. If it sounds better but costs more, people will buy it.

      --
      "He treats objects like women, man!"
      - The Dude, The Big Lebowski
    2. Re:I don't care about Linux audio by Art+Tatum · · Score: 2
      None of the big names, (e.g., Steinberg, Emagic, Digidesign) will bother with Linux because the underlying audio architecture is too limiting.

      Really not sure what you mean: Alsa? Jack (same architecture as CoreAudio, oh, and PortAudio does the same thing BTW)? MusicKit? LADSPA?

    3. Re:I don't care about Linux audio by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
      One point worth making: for some of these guys (DIGI), they ARE the underlying audio architecture. They build the hardware, supply the software, in some cases (DIGI!) lock out third party converter manufacturers (and Digidesign's new converters SUCK compared to what's available)... it's not about interoperability at all. In other cases (SADiE) the computer involved is strictly a turnkey system put together only to host the audio stuff. There's a LOT of turnkey type stuff out there.

      There's also people using completely unsupported stuff (Ensoniq PARIS) because it sounds better than the current 'standard' (DIGI!). The audio world is really ripe for stuff that will genuinely sound better. Unfortunately, it's hard to find.

  12. No source code by stew77 · · Score: 2

    ReBorn comes only as a Intel binary - so much for running it on BSDs or PowerBooks. Too bad, I'd love to see that ported to BeOS or MacOS X.

    1. Re:No source code by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Informative

      quote from the article--"ReBorn will be released as Open Source in the near future once the code is ready. That's the deal - take it or leave it. "

      He probably doesn't want to release the code having it look like shit. If this is going to build this guys rep in the community and/or help him get a job, it should look nice and pretty. If I am not mistaken I have enven read someware that a project should not be opened until the beta at earliest, and there is nothing wrong with finishing everything you want before opening yourself to an onslaught of patches.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  13. Hmm. Down the food chain we go... by Jonny+290 · · Score: 2

    Reborn, a clone of the legendary ReBirth

    So it's a clone of a clone of a box that was originally built to simulate a bass guitar?

    What happens when we get linux clones of the Windows port of this program? Oooh, my head....

    And then somebody will build this into a hardware box, with a little TFT on the front and a few rotary encoders....

    and then somebody will program a software simulation of THAT box....

    --
    Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...
  14. ReBirth? by iLEZ · · Score: 1

    Why not Reason? (http://www.propellerheads.se). Its simply the greatest morph between "cubase-type" programs and "Rebirth type" programs. That surely would make _me_ turn from Windows without looking back.

    --
    You cant fight in here, its a war room!
  15. UI Polish is hard to acheive by Paul+Carver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not a musician so I'm not familiar with all the hardware tools. I've been looking at Windows and Linux audio software to get started with. Programs on both platforms are complex, but the user interfaces on the shareware/demoware Windows programs are vastly more polished and visually appealing that the UIs on the open source programs.

    The Windows programs are at least accesible to the beginner musician, while the Linux programs are only an option for an experienced musician. The problem is, most experienced musicians probably already have a substantial investment in Windows software that the Linux software can't match.

    It comes back to the old observation that the open source community has lots of good programmers, but few people who have the talent and time to design an efficient and attractive GUI. (That's not to say there aren't any, just that there aren't nearly enough.)

    The program I've been playing with most (since I'm not able to tackle the serious music creation programs yet) is CoolEdit Pro. It's amazing how much functionality has been packed into such an attractive, efficient, and most importantly easy to use interface. There are Linux apps with some of the same functionality, but the GUIs are years behind and may never catch up.

    1. Re:UI Polish is hard to acheive by krinje · · Score: 1

      Do you know most musicians? I've paid for all my software, thanks, and I could care less if it runs on linux.

      --
      "He treats objects like women, man!"
      - The Dude, The Big Lebowski
    2. Re:UI Polish is hard to acheive by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
      GUI is icing- the Linux community has almost nobody with a clue about coding good-sounding DSP. The state of the art in DSP right now is involved with debates over how to properly process DSD/SACD, whether 40-bit fixed point sounds better than 32-bit floating point, finicky details on the internal audio bussing of mainstream platforms like Pro Tools- you simply cannot jump into this with book learning and plans for this or that Roland rhythmbox simulator or DAW, without being... imagine a guy proposing to build an order fulfillment 'backend' using Visual Basic and you'll get some idea how it looks.

      A lot of the hottest algorithms in this industry are hopelessly proprietary. A lot of the products in this industry are so brutally proprietary that they use copy-protection systems so draconian that big chunks of the market are in open rebellion against it. The market is ready for open source- open source is just not ready for it.

      If you can identify the names 'Waves' and 'T-Racks' and know why one is serious and the other is consumer then you have a head start. If you're familiar with names like Crane Song, all the better. But this is a market that will not be captured by people treating the audio path like a commodity. The '96db should be good enough for anybody' crowd are the competition- open source needs to be pushing the boundaries in terms of sound performance.

      I really hope open source can make inroads on the pro levels. Going after the Guitar Center market is pretty much a complete waste of time and will get OSS solutions lumped with a lot of lousy-sounding crud. It doesn't have to be that way.

      At the very least, maintain internal signal busses at 32 bit float at the least, preferably 64 bit float or >32 bit fixed point, and only drop back to (for instance) 16 bit when necessary, and dither it. In fact, even dropping to 24 bit fixed (for instance, for the internal busses of Pro Tools) dither it... you pay enough attention to details like that and your sound quality will start being more suggestive of the Mercedes and less of the Yugo...

  16. Where is Jazz ? by beru777 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't see Jazz listed...

    There's going to be a lot of work to catch up with software such as Cubase SX or Reaktor...

    Especially I saw no standard for plug-ins, like VST, for example (which already is multiplatform so could probably be ported to Linux, after all it's just API specs). I didn't see any software that gives audio and midi multitrack integration either.

    Another huge problem is going to be the drivers for the many professional audio cards (none of them has drivers for Linux, as far as I know)

    1. Re:Where is Jazz ? by spameggsbaconandspam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      re: the lack of a professional sound card...

      rme actually makes very highly regarded audio interfaces that work on linux, windows and mac. in fact, the card that has linux drivers has the lowest latency of any audio interface available. you can expect 1.5ms. they are 24bit, have great convertors and work with nearly anything out there.

      http://www.rme-audio.com/english/linux/index.htm

  17. Re:Read my lips... by twoslice · · Score: 1

    I know what the thread is about. But anything that makes linux sound better is a step in the right direction...

    Crappy insult. I know that I need a sound card to produce audio. If you want to insult me call me an idiot, moron, butthead or Anonymous Coward, which covers the first three.

    --

    From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
  18. Mirror (tgz i386 only) by sketchup · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To reduce the server load for those guys, the tar.gz is als available here: reborn-i386-1_0.tar.gz Tom

  19. Re:State Of Slashdot Censorship by reduced · · Score: 1

    GIMP?

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. ...Boom Tschack. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    silly moderator....

  22. I don't see counterparts for.... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
    IMHO, the best and most easy-to-use audio software is by Sonic Foundry. Acid 2.0 runs great on a Pentium 200 w/ 64meg of ram and Acid 3.0 is just amazing on a p4 1.8.

    SF offers a 'free' ver of acid that will do 8 tracks (don't forget Protools Free, which also gives you 8 tracks (or 32 if you know where to look) Sadly, SF doesn't port to mac or linux, and Be died before they got to far with that port.

    Acid is a multitracking loop-based recorder that also supports video. It has come a long way since ver 1, in ease of use and power. If there were linux or beos versions of Acid and Sound Forge, I would make the switch.

    Don't respond with, "If you want it, code it up, you lazy bitch!"
    Im a musician, not a programmer. I don't ask programmers to write a chorus, so don't ask me to write a program.

  23. freebirth and gold chains by mr_burns · · Score: 3, Informative

    freebirth (http://www.bitmechanic.com/projects/freebirth/) was co-written by a coder/musician. pretty sweet, does some things that rebirth can't. You can hear it in use if you listen to Gold Chains: (http://www.epitonic.com/artists/goldchains.html). He's that co-author guy. Anyway, check freebirth out. F'in sweet.

    --
    "Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
    1. Re:freebirth and gold chains by Onan+The+Librarian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice to see someone recognizes that a lot of what's gone into Reborn (which is very nice indeed) has already been done in Freebirth. I should also mention the Ultramaster RS101, another excellent rhythmbox-synthesizer for Linux. Check it out at http://www.ultramaster.com/rs101/index.html. Btw, Freebirth, while still available, really needs some work on its functionality, so it could make a good project for an interested Linux audio hacker...

  24. Hmm, Their site got Slashdotted by Null+PTR+for+Lunch · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know of any mirrors where i can grab a copy? I'd love to have a tracker program under Linux!

  25. Simulating a bass: Rezfilter or Karplus-Strong by yerricde · · Score: 5, Informative

    So it's a clone of a clone of a box that was originally built to simulate a bass guitar?

    The TB303 simulated a bass guitar by sweeping a resonant filter over a sawtooth wave.

    Since then, better guitar synthesis methods have come to light, specifically the Karplus-Strong plucked string modeling algorithm. To implement KS, feed a click into a delay line for each string that's plucked. Set the length of the delay line proportional to the length of the string, determined by finger position. Then filter the output of the delay line (make sure to use a FIR filter so that you won't get too much harmonic distortion from phase shift nonlinearity), send it to the amp, and feed it back into the delay line.

    If you have Cool Edit or a similar audio editor, you can do this with the "Echo" delay effect. Generate a short burst of noise. Then pull up Echo and set the echo period to 1000 divided by the frequency in Hz of the note, the echo feedback to between 95% and 99.5%, and the filters to all maximum except the highest frequency one. Tweak the Echo parameters until you have a sample you like, then paste it into your tracker.

    Why wasn't KS used in the 303? Analog synthesizer parts were much cheaper at the time than the 16 KB or so of memory KS takes.

    So why is 303 style synthesis still used? Easy. Changing the filter's center frequency while playing a repeating bass pattern gives the stereotypical "acid house" bass effect. That's what Rebirth and clones are for.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Simulating a bass: Rezfilter or Karplus-Strong by Jonny+290 · · Score: 2

      Excellent post. I'm going to have to go home and try that. I've just recently delved into granular synthesis as well, and it's doing my head in right proper.

      I think that the reason people are resistant to give up their finicky hardware 303's for software is that they have quirks and flaws in the audio that give it its character. The acid craze was not due solely to the fact that it had a sweepable filter, but the fact that they designed it wrong and it overdrives the filter when you've got the resonance up a fair bit. Nice good old discrete component distortion. :)

      You'd think that they could do a 303 clone with all the quirks and stuff programmed in, given the power of most computers today. A 500 mhz P3 should handle it nicely. I run Reason 1.0.1 on an Athlon 1.1 alongside Cubase 5.1, and I have to work HARD to get that rig over 70 percent CPU unless I'm putting some really ridiculous shit in a track. :)

      --
      Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...
    2. Re:Simulating a bass: Rezfilter or Karplus-Strong by yerricde · · Score: 1

      The acid craze was not due solely to the fact that it had a sweepable filter, but the fact that they designed it wrong and it overdrives the filter when you've got the resonance up a fair bit.

      Can I simulate that to a decent level with an arctangent distortion function applied to the output of the filter? Or is it more complicated than that?

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
  26. Re:Well, then by MrHanky · · Score: 1

    OK, I'll put it on Gnutella. The file is called reborn-i386-1_0.tar.gz, and md5 is f13c45dc2db335ceb64c0148b8bc251f. Wonder if anywone finds it... :-)

  27. Re:Good news, but... by Onan+The+Librarian · · Score: 1

    Another cogent response ! And thanks for the pointer to linuxsound.at ! The site is also available at http://linux-sound.org. Btw, other worthy projects include Werner Schweer's MusE MIDI sequencer (http://muse.seh.de) and the recently updated Rosegarden (http://www.all-day-breakfast.com/rosegarden/). Not yet Cubase, but we're slowly getting there...

  28. Cubase by Dominic_Mazzoni · · Score: 2

    Most of the article consists of a list of audio software that can currently run on GNU/Linux systems. It's a pretty good list, but things like Cubase aren't there yet.

    Yeah, it really is too bad that there isn't anything like Cubase for Linux. I miss getting that instant blue screen of death every time I tried to record from SPDIF-in during the wrong phase of the moon. Or the fact that it would crash and you'd lose all of your work if you gave it a wav file that was mistakenly named ".aif". And its anti-piracy authentication method which forced me to find the original disk every time it got confused - wow, that brings back memories.

    We need Cubase for Linux about as badly as we need a native port of SirCam.

  29. Nice, but still a toy by patrick+lang · · Score: 1

    I was 100% M$ free for the last year and a half, then I got back into music production. My former linux workstation is now a Windows XP Pro machine, and most likely I'll be moving to a Mac within the next year for additional stability. Why?

    Linux does not have what we need for pro audio.

    1) NO GOOD SOUND API's. Cups is moving in the right direction, but nothing matches ASIO on windows or mac for sample-accurate synchronization across multiple input and output devices. If I wanted to, could use a SBLive, Echo Mia, and RME Hammerfall all at the same time, and have every one synced down to the sample. Software programs have the ability to set parameters like buffer sizes, sample rates, etc with no hassle.

    2) Inconsistent platform. We do not have a uniform development platform. Each distro ships a different version of GCC with its own inconsistencies, different GLIBC, same issue, and so on down to GTK or QT, XFree86, etc. With a product like Cubase taking at least 6 months to port, no doubt the platform will keep changing underneath them. What solution would they have other than supporting ONE distro only or shipping their own?

    3) Lack of hardware support. Yes, vendors like my personal favorite, Echo, aren't releasing enough specs to the community for a free driver. But on the other hand, the community isn't providing them a stable platform to develop on, see #2.

    4) Lack of unchanging commercial plugin standards. VST works. The API doesn't have a million tiny revisions, and any VST plugin works great on anything from Logic to Fruity Loops to the latest Cubase SX. The API was published WHEN IT WAS FINISHED, and NOT CHANGED.

    1. Re:Nice, but still a toy by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Informative
      1) NO GOOD SOUND API's. Cups is moving in the right direction, but nothing matches ASIO on windows or mac for sample-accurate synchronization across multiple input and output devices

      I think you are confused. CUPS is a printer API, it has nothing to do with sound. In fact, there is no need for an ASIO equivalent as Linux with the kernel pre-empt and low latency patches has far lower latency normally than Windows even with ASIO. I don't know if they are sample accurate, but I know you can get extremely low audio latencies with this sort of setup.

      2) Inconsistent platform. We do not have a uniform development platform. Each distro ships a different version of GCC with its own inconsistencies, different GLIBC, same issue, and so on down to GTK or QT, XFree86, etc. With a product like Cubase taking at least 6 months to port, no doubt the platform will keep changing underneath them. What solution would they have other than supporting ONE distro only or shipping their own?

      I don't understand you. Currently Linux is going through a switch of the C++ ABI. If your audio app is written in C++ then you will need to provide 2 binaries for the duration of the switchover. They do not require porting, just a recompile. The widget toolkits only break compatability every few years, and you can always use compatability libs as they can be installed side by side. Moonlight for instance uses its own version of Qt 2.2. X has been backwards compatible for over 10 years. They can do what all the other Linux companies do, and write their software to be distro neutral. It's not hard, the biggest challenge is the installer.

      3) Lack of hardware support. Yes, vendors like my personal favorite, Echo, aren't releasing enough specs to the community for a free driver. But on the other hand, the community isn't providing them a stable platform to develop on, see #2.

      NVidia manage it. There are even drivers now for WinModems (which use proprietary drivers). It's more work to support all kernel versions, and I agree that Linus should stop breaking compatability, however it is perfectly possible to write drivers that will compile on any kernel version. If Echo don't release the specs, or write their own drivers then yes you are locked in to Windows. Congratulations.

      4) Lack of unchanging commercial plugin standards. VST works. The API doesn't have a million tiny revisions, and any VST plugin works great on anything from Logic to Fruity Loops to the latest Cubase SX. The API was published WHEN IT WAS FINISHED, and NOT CHANGED.

      VST plugins are the standard because of the popularity of Cubase. This is hardly the fault of Linux - if one sequencer gets more popular than the rest then I'm sure we'll see something similar. How often the plugin API changes is entirely up to the developer: remember that APIs change more frequently on Linux because most stuff is open source, so changing the API to get a better system is less painful than on a closed source system.

  30. Now that Apple owns Emagic... by thnmnt · · Score: 1

    now that apple has purchased germany's emagic, the makers of the logic series of midi / audio sequencers - i'm sure we'll see an OSX port of LA platinum - their flagship product in the not-too-distant future. Originally an Atari program, Logic found a home on Macs and had an arguably decent port to windows. With the apple buyout the windows version is history (this fall). Who knows, maybe some enterprising coder will be able to port the BSD/Power PC version to a workable Intel/Linux version?

    I agree with all those users who think cubase is a dog with fleas....sonic foundry on the other hand -- pretty much rules.

    --
    Go read some bible: nubible.com
    1. Re:Now that Apple owns Emagic... by aitsu · · Score: 1

      What of the persistent rumours that OSX will be available for x86? We may never see it as open-source Linux code but it might reappear as a commercial Un*x product. Incidentally, Emagic developed a version of Logic 4.0 for BeOS 4 but scrapped it because of Be's precarious situation at the time. It means the GCC code is there already.

  31. Now if we can get something like Reason by HanzoSan · · Score: 2



    With Reason and Fruityloops, or clones of these programs, linux will be on its way as a musicians choice OS.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  32. legal issues by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hope that they got permission from roland to mimmick their hardware, I know someone who wrote a 909 emulator once and was forced to remove it because he did not have permission from roland to copy their design.

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
  33. Not powerful enough... by httpamphibio.us · · Score: 1

    Rebirth/Reborn is for the very lowest end of electronic music creation. How about a Linux version of Max/MSP? Cycling '74 is supposedly releasing the Windows version in October, but they've said a Linux version is simply unlikely.

    Max/MSP is the kind of stuff that geeks really get into, it's basically a programming language for sound... somebody make a Linux clone of this!

    --
    sig.
    1. Re:Not powerful enough... by robdeadtech · · Score: 1

      pd IS Max/MSP for Linux. Written by the same guy Miller S Puckette (MSP)... enjoy! http://www-crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/software.html

      --
      Heil Sig! -Rob
  34. ISA sound cards. by rapidweather · · Score: 1

    None of my ISA sound cards work in Linux. When they do work in Windows 98, however, the results can be poor if the manufacturers drivers are not used. I got ahold of an old Packard Bell, couldn't boot it due to an expired Dallas clock-chip, but the sound card is very nice in another box, using the Packard Bell sound installation. This is windows 3.1 stuff. Redhat or Mandrake won't touch it.

    --
    Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
  35. realtime useability by pompomtom · · Score: 1
    you can never achive realtime useability with a software synth.

    Bollocks. Just map the CC numbers between a hardware synth and your pc. I use a qm309 and an su700, and that's not even considering dedicated control boxes like your phatboys....
    --

    Buckets,

    pompomtom

    "There's an exception to every rule. Except for some rules"
    1. Re:realtime useability by SampleMinded · · Score: 1

      You proved my point! Software synth Plus hardware makes realtime possible. Bollocks indeed!

    2. Re:realtime useability by pompomtom · · Score: 1

      Software synth Plus hardware makes realtime possible

      Which is a long way from "Unless you have a touch screen monitor, that you keep face up, you can never achive realtime useability with a software synth."

      Bollocks indeed, indeed!

      --

      Buckets,

      pompomtom

      "There's an exception to every rule. Except for some rules"
  36. Hardware Version? by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

    How difficult would it be to build an embedded version of this by making a box using off the shelf components? With embedded linux and reborn under the hood?

    nick ...

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  37. Why the excitement? by tshak · · Score: 2

    Although this is a cool program (esp since I'm into electronic music creation), we should not be getting so excited about this software. It seems that the OSS Modus Operandi is copied software ideas from many years ago. Why not post an article about something NEW from the OSS community?

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips