AudioScience GPLs Hardware-Abstraction Layer

Rob Dye writes "According to an article at RadioWorld Online, AudioScience has GPL'ed their hardware abstration layer that allows access to the DSP power provided on their audio interfaces. Stating that 'Linux is becoming more important to the broadcast and professional audio industry,' they also released full documentation for this code and intend to release ALSA drivers for their boards. This is terrific news for professional sound under Linux, especially considering the reluctance of video card manufacturers to open their HAL's."

Comments

About time

[thecoder42]

Hopefully the videocard makers will follow suit and release their drivers open source to the world.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like Matrox has been doing since ages?

Re:About time

[Trogre]

Have you ever tried getting a G440 to run with dual screen and acceleration under X 4.3?

the light is shining

[castlec]

professional rendering has been on linux for a while, mostly under proprietary apps, but they recognized the need to support more than just the proprietary OSs. It's good to see professional audio begin to make its slice available to the free world. this could be the beginning of the end of the large recording studios.

Re:the light is shining

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you so interested in seeing an end to large recording studios? Have they harmed you in some way, or do you just want them to go away because they are "large"? I work at a mid size all digital studio. We have the typical Pro Tools gear in place, upper-mid range condensor mics, decent sounding rooms, etc. Depending on the type of music, we can and do perform album quality work. There is a signifigent amount of time, hardware, software, and assorted gear invested in this place. Running Linux here would gain us exactly nothing, in fact we would lose out on support, software availability, easy exchange of projects, and even credibility. We run on OSX and XP, Linux provides precisely zero benefit to us. So what if it is free? It is of no consequence whatsoever whether I pay the MS tax on the XP system or the Apple tax on the dual G4. The cost of the OS is less than quality XLR cables. Our systems work flawlessly, they do not crash, the performance is amazing, any visiting engineer or producer can sit down and get right to work, etc. Leave Linux on the render farms pleae, where it can go about it's business ( quite well no doubt ) but no one has to actually work with it.

Ok, sorry, that is my Linux rant. Seems that all of the Linux fans are determined to free professional users of whatever from the evils of proprietary software, when in fact we are quite happy using what we have. You do not know best in this case, as evidenced by your desire to see large recording studios go away. We have a huge amount of money invested in our studio, and quite honestly we can never compete with the big boys. Those rooms cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build for a reason, they are amazing sounding works of art. Three thousand dollar mics and preamps do make a difference. You are not going to sit in your basement with a Shure mic, linux box, and "whatever the new linux disk system is called" and compete with even a mild project studio.

Re:the light is shining

[castlec]

My view is this: Make a system accessible and people will use it. I have no doubt that the systems you use have mature software that is very reliable, however very few people have access to it. I agree with you that just because something is free does not mean that it is better, however, you neglect the possiblity that just because something is free doesn't mean it can't be better. This is an opportunity for the little guy to produce more of his own music, cheaper. I know quite a few people producing their own music. And you are right, they can't compete with even a mild project studio, but that doesn't mean that given the right developments in the free software world that they wouldn't be able to do so. Those developments still need to happen, but wouldn't it be nice if a dedicated artist could produce a high quality recording without selling away his/her soul?

This may change the entire hardware industry!

[jgardn]

This could be the first step towards a more open and cooperative hardware industry. Today, it is practically impossible to obtain the specs and paramaters of existing hardware. Maybe in the future, hardware manufacturers will publish their specs and intentions as they release new hardware. Open Source could turn into Open Hardware.

Re:This may change the entire hardware industry!

[Anonymous Coward]

No it won't.

It is not "practically impossible" to obtain specs and parameters for existing hardware ... just the specs from a few select, highly visible companies such as NVidia and ATI.

How else do Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD support so much hardware ? It is not through reverse engineering.

I consider that it was far more significant when Matrox and Xircom opened the specs to their hardware. At the time they were more or less the "equivalents" of nvidia / ati. Their hardware was considered to pretty much be the best or most commonly available in its format.

Doubtful

[wowbagger]

I don't think you can draw parallels between an audio processing card and a video card:

In an audio processing card, the "magic" is in the DSP firmware loaded onto the card, which a GPL driver will simply treat as a binary blob of data stuffed in by a user space program when the driver module is loaded.

Once that "blob" is loaded, the audio streams are fairly simple, and the "magic" of the DSP is not reveiled by feeding the audio streams in - you feed in 44.1kS/s 16x2 audio, you get an MPEG stream - that operation reveils nothing about how the MPEG algorithm is implemented. Additionally, the MPEG algorithm is well documented and public knowledge (NOT public DOMAIN - public KNOWLEDGE!)

In a video card, the "magic" is in the chip's hardware design - in that respect it is simillar to the audio card.

With one significant exception: the way you "feed" the data into the card reveils MUCH about the implementation of the underlying algorithms, many of which are trade secrets.

So while I applaud AudioScience for this move, and while this move provides a good example to the video card makers, their situation is sufficiently different from AudioScience that, at this time, I doubt this will make much difference to them.

Now, if things progress to the point where Linux is a significant fraction of the video card manufacturer's market....

Quick question

[GreatOgre]

Is it possible for the video card manufacturers to build their boards such that the information about the chipsets, algorithms, etc. are not easily revealed? If so, why don't they do so?

Re:Quick question

[wowbagger]

It's due to the complexity of the operations done by a video card.

Consider what must happen every frame of your frag-fest in UT2003:

1) The game must hand a list of polygons to the card. This poly-list contains the position of the poly in 3 dimensional space and what texture map to use.
2) The game must also tell the card where the camera is looking, how wide the field of view is, and the rate at which depth changes effect the view.
3) The card must then transform the 3D polys into a list of 2D poly.
4) The card must then try to eliminate as many of the polys as possible - the ones that won't be seen. This gets more complicated because some polys are translucent, so you CANNOT eliminate what's behind them.
5) The card must then fill in the texture, applying any bump mapping and other alterations.

There are several places "magic" happens. For example, the triangle setup (step 3) - that requires multiplying a 5x5 matrix against a 5 vector (if my memory serves - it's been awhile since I've written a transform routine like this). If you try to do this in floating point, it makes the work rather more difficult (read: a LOT more transistors). So, many venders use a simpler fixed-point representation here - and the details of that representation give a lot away about how the card works.

Then there is hidden surface removal - that is VERY complicated, and is usually done by the CPU in the driver rather than the card. More magic.

Sure, one day it may be possible to embed all those things into the card, so that all the hardware driver sees is a GLX interface, but that day is unto todays graphics cards what a modern DSP based sound card is unto a Soundblaster 8-bit.

(and yes, I've skipped a few steps in the graphics pipeline - this post is long enough as it is!)

Re:Quick question

[Hard_Code]

But most (all?) graphics programmers are programming to a high level interface like opengl or directx *anyway* (and in turn these can only use whatever the driver for the card exposes, right?), so why even bother exposing more than is necessary? Anything you can't hide, open source. I'm buying hardware, not software. If "hidden surface removal" must live in the driver, and is complicated, open source the damn thing and compete on hardware merits. The programmability is even being abstracted through mid-level shader languages, so I see the need for exposing the guts of the card decreasing. In fact, I think reprogrammability of graphics cards [and drivers] would be a great thing...you could load a module that is "optimized" for a given application instead of having a monolithic driver from a vendor which tries to balance everything accross the board.

Is there really any innovation in the closed source drivers?

Re:Quick question

[wowbagger]

If "hidden surface removal" must live in the driver, and is complicated, open source the damn thing and compete on hardware merits.

But that is exactly what the hardware venders DON'T want to do, and that is why they don't open their drivers.

Yes...we need more control!!

[thenarftwit]

It is about time that the hardware opened up...this would enable the development of all sorts of cool unforseen applications of existing hardware which would incidentally mean more sales to the hardware makers (it would also mean the hardware makers would have to open up the designs, but that would benefit everybody by having pressure to make good, clean designs, not cheap, quick shorcuts). It would also be cool if really big FPGA technology was cheaplly availible so that people could explore different hardware configurations depending upon the application they want to do...after all, customized FPGA architecture that was incorporated into future motherboards could probably find cool uses. Besides, it's allways better, both from a creative viewpoint and an economic one too that the existing hardware base be effectivly used, look at SETI at home, it proved that a very big supercomputer could be constructed out of a community of people contributing their un-used cpu cycles. The same with open source software and open sourec hardware, it's about releasing the pent-up creativity that commercial interests keep under tight lock and key, that's why microsoft is so scared of open source software, they can't really compete, the model is by it's very an darwinian evolving system that has no constraint other than learning, curiosity and meeting the demands of actual users, not a community of proffit makers (shareholders, owners)

off topic, but...

[lfourrier]

why does audioscience GPLs something that is then GPL'ed ?
Why not GPLed ?
English is not my mother tongue and I wish to comprehend the logic of this gramatical construction.
Using names for verbs is, if not correct, admitted practice in engineering circles (at least). But using acronyms as verbs seems much more uncommon.
Can someone explain what is the "norm"(if there is one) for such constructions (UPPER vs lower, ' or not ', ...)

Re:off topic, but...

[bill_mcgonigle]

why does audioscience GPLs something that is then GPL'ed ?
Why not GPLed ?

Audioscience can GPL something.
As audioscience GPL's something (some sort of present progressive, I think...)
Audioscience GPL'ed something (past tense).

The reason for the apostrophe is not to indicate posession, but to deliniate the end of the acronym . Expecially with mixed-case acronyms, or perhaps a medium restricted to all upper-case, it can be difficult to tell where the end of an acryonym is and the modifiers begin.

Re:off topic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course this is not "proper" English, but instead seems to be a variation spwaned by the Internet/tech culture.

Re:off topic, but...

[bill_mcgonigle]

Of course this is not "proper" English, but instead seems to be a variation spwaned by the Internet/tech culture.

No, this was in my high school English text, and that was a while ago.

Some newer texts, esp. MW, advocate only using an apostrophe in the case of an abbreviated acronym (the M.D.'s are on call) and using mixed case for non-abbreviated acronyms (the CPUs are fast) but if you're WRITING IN ALL CAPS AND YOU SAY THE CPUS ARE FAST it's hard to know if S is part of the acronym or not, so the apostrophe is helpful. Many government documents are in all caps for some reason.

Re:off topic, but...

[Skjellifetti]

Is it to delineate the end of the acronym or for the same reason that do not becomes don't? The apostrophe represents the missing letters in L[icens]ed. To quote Frank Zappa, "The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe."