New MusE Release, A Step Toward The Linux Studio

spamatica writes "In these times when multimedia on Linux seems to be on a roll, it's my pleasure to break the news that one of the most powerful midi/audio sequencers on Linux, MusE, has just had a new release. This release is a major milestone featuring things such as Jack-transport and win32/VST-Instrument support. Moreover it has been much improved concerning usability, stability and functionality. The Linux-based studio is looming ever closer -- in fact, it's here!"

Comments

Exciting..

[superhoe]

.. all I need now is to get my professional audio card to actually work under Linux.

Re:Exciting..

[gallir]

It's free soft^W^Hdom, freedom, stupid!

Re:Exciting..

[AliasTheRoot]

agreed, free^H^H^Hdom is all well and good but if it involves crap software that is hard to use and doesnt perform as well as commercial software then I will spend my dollars.

Re:Exciting..

[mirko]

I switched to Mac because the following award-winning cards were NEVER recognized under Linux (I highly doubt they will, BTW).

• SW1000XG
• 01X

Of course, it's nice for the /. crowd that there now is a sequencer that looks like Cubase VST before Y2K (this is not intended to be a flamebait, it's just a personal constatation) but I do not think there will be a product as well done as Logic Pro or at least as Reason before they once again elevate the standard.

Re:Exciting..

[abe ferlman]

My Delta 1010 works just fine, as does my Turtle Beach USB MIDI adapter.

Your Echo Darla, Gina, Layla or RME Hamerfall card would be supported by ALSA as well, among others. Linux audio may have issues, but a lack of professional sound cards that work is not one of them.

Re:Exciting..

[Anonymous Coward]

The SW1000XG appears to have the same degree of support on Mac OS X as it does in Linux, ie none.

Maybe you should have bought a card with specifications that are open, or at least made available on reasonable terms, in order that it might continue to be supported after the vendor loses interest.

Re:Exciting..

[Kiryat Malachi]

According to ALSA's own page, they don't support my professional sound card.

A lack, maybe not, but they don't support everything, and for most people they won't be willing to buy a new card for Linux compatability.

Also, as another poster here said: we really do want manufacturer drivers, so we have a throat to slit when it fails to work, or when there's some obscure conflict.

Re:Exciting..

[mirko]

Yep, this is why I sold the sw1000xg and bought a 01x which IS mLan compliant, thus open.
Now, Linux apps still lack DAW support amongst other things, if music apps are coded by hobbyists, I doubt they can be at once coders and musicians and you surely need both to code a hich-speced app.

Re:Exciting..

[abe ferlman]

perhaps someday there will be a sufficiently large market to support a service industry supporting free software drivers and you'll have someone to blame if you need to. Until then we're forced to choose between a company's desire to protect its reputation and the ability to use free software thereby avoiding lockin/no source code/etc. I understand we choose different sides of this divide, but I hope one day we won't have to choose.

Re:Exciting..

[zerblat]

Actually it's the other way around, Aardvark doesn't support ALSA. Had they supplied the ALSA people with sufficient specs, I'm sure your Q10 would be working in Linux right now. Have you contacted Aardvark and told them that you would be interested in support for ALSA?

Re:Exciting..

[Unknown Lamer]

Ardour

It certainly looks (and works since I use it) like a DAW to me.

Re:Exciting..

[3Suns]

Yeah, I was talking to a sound professional this weekend actually, who has his own studio running mostly on Mac with a few PCs. What's holding Linux back in the studios is (1) lack of familiar professional mixing/software (one app doesn't cut it, they need a whole suite of very full-featured, professional apps and utilities), and (2) hardware support for the piles of miscellaneous equipment that gets used all the time. The newer hardware is all digital, and there are linux drivers for a very small percentage of it.

Re:Exciting..

[rmull]

mLan is a superset of normal firewire audio (IEC 6something), which is starting to get some attention in JACK via the firewire generic driver. I'd do it myself with my fa-101, but the standard is kind of expensive.

Re:Exciting..

[Ricdude]

As with any OS, you must check the hardware compatibility lists before purchasing hardware and expecting it to work. The point is you *can* buy pro quality cards to work under linux. Whether or not you choose to or not is up to you. Personally, I tend to buy hardware that works on Linux and Windows. I had fun once with a hardware modem that didn't work under Windows until I downloaded the right driver (via Linux). There are very few things that can't work well on both. I make a point of buying hardware that does what I need under Linux, I make a point of letting the companies I buy from know *why* I chose their product, and I make a point of letting any companies I didn't choose know why I didn't buy their product. Hopefully, more companies will support Linux as a result.

Re:Exciting..

[Kiryat Malachi]

No, because quite honestly I'm perfectly happy with it in Windows. I have zero interest in moving solely to Linux, since the existing solutions are "good enough", and every time I've tried a Linux install on my machine it has died horribly (far before the point where I could make a decision about ease of use and interface).

Re:Exciting..

[Kiryat Malachi]

1. This sounds like a Linux problem to me.

2. If the open source ones exist. If they work. If they support all the features properly. Then yeah, sure, they might be more reliable.

3. This may be true for consumer hardware, but the people who make high-end recording studio hardware don't have the luxury of being able to piss off their customers. They don't sell enough volume. It's the same as a high-end IBM software stack - part of the purchase price is the maker's assurance that they will resolve issues for you.

Re:Exciting..

[sloanster]

hmm, how does this silly troll get modded as insightful? My $600 Hammerfall works like a charm...

Seriously, though, one would think someone buying a "professional audio card" for linux would actually check that it actually supports linux, before purchasing.

Re:Exciting..

[Kiryat Malachi]

The first time I "installed", my keyboard DID NOT WORK. At all. Not during install. Not ever.

The second time (on SuSe, Mandrake, and Gentoo all) I get kernel panics during install. Keyboard works long enough to start the install, but then the kernel panics.

I like the command prompt just fine; I use more than a few UNIX systems at work. But fuck you hippy ass superior Linux zealots who think that obviously your system is superior for everything; for some things, ease of use and NOT HAVING TO FUCKING WASTE MY LIFE TRYING TO GET IT INSTALLED trumps whatever technological superiority you may or may not have.

Oh, and remember: CLI is great for programming and sysadmin, but sucks for many other things. You, on the other hand, suck for all things.

Finally,

[Lispy]

I can put my old Atari 1040ST to rest. No, seriously, this is another killerapp that kept some of my friends from switching to Linux so far. I am really curious if it is competitve enough and easy to use for all those Apple switchers.

Re:Finally,

[CdBee]

I suspect if it's really that good it'll get ported to OS X anyway, many othr GPL apps of this kind (Think AudaCity) get ported eventually.

Re:Finally,

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I can put my old Atari 1040ST to rest. No, seriously, this is another killerapp that kept some of my friends from switching to Linux so far.

I'm curious: you do know that Cubase exists on Windows and Macintosh, right? Heck, you even have the choice of using Cakewalk or DP on those platforms.

What's this Atari ST nonsense? I can't decide whether you're trolling, or you're such a hysterical Windows and Mac hater that you're willing to not use anything but your Atari until something's available for Linux...

Re:Finally,

[Elektroschock]

I would Band in the Box, a crappy old tool that does what the musician *really* needs. From a usability perspective it may be bad, from a usefulness perspective it is unrivaled

Re:Finally,

[Threni]

> What's this Atari ST nonsense?

So you know little about audio software, right? Cubase on the ST was more stable and usable 12 or more years ago than the same software under Windows. I gave up trying to get accurate, fast hihats on my PC, instead using Cakewalk (which is inferior to Cubase in practically every other way). Cubase on the ST is rock solid, with out-of-the-box midi support, and many studios still use it. You're suggesting people upgrade from STs just because they're old? Why? That's just not how things work once you get out of the PC industry. People upgrade because there's a point to it, or because they have to, not just because they can.

Re:Finally,

[AliasTheRoot]

I agree with the poster, I owned an Atari ST and an Amiga, and now both are rusting away in the Garage because everything they can do can be done on modern hardware with modern operating systems faster and better.

If you really insist on booting your OS off a 720k floppy and waiting another 3 minutes for your application to come up, then being limited to 100k for a sample then who am I to stop you...

Re:Finally,

[tolan-b]

The Atari ST has very low MIDI latency. Also, the OS is on firmare, so you don't have to boot off floppy.

Re:Finally,

[LizardKing]

What's this Atari ST nonsense?

I still use Steinberg Pro-24 (the forerunner to Cubase) on an Atari ST. It is far more stable than any version of Cubase that I have used on a PC. I don't own a Mac, but I do hear that recent versions of Cubase have been rock solid on that operating system. So if I upgraded that would be they way I'd go. Then again by the time I can afford a decent Mac, Rosegarden (http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/) may have reached a stable release ...

As for the poster below who talks about booting from a 720Kb floppy, my ST has a SCSI hard drive, and boots in seconds.

Re:Finally,

[LizardKing]

limited to 100k for a sample

Some of us aren't totally enamoured by software synths and samplers. I'd rather use hardware devices (analogue preferably), and just use the computer as a sequencer and patch editor/librarian.

Re:Finally,

[Kiryat Malachi]

If you do that, then why do you need the kind of timing ST owners blather on about? There are outboard sequencers that would do you just fine.

Re:Finally,

[LizardKing]

If you do that, then why do you need the kind of timing ST owners blather on about? There are outboard sequencers that would do you just fine.

I don't need anything out of the ordinary when it comes to latency. The main reason I use the ST instead of a hardware sequencer, is the better interaction via mouse, monitor and keyboard. Saying that, I do have an ancient Roland MC-300 sequencer that I use for live stuff (it's a rugged little beastie).

Re:Finally,

[Kiryat Malachi]

I was thinking more along the lines of one of the modern sequencers that can accept sequence data from a PC; edit on a good interface, dump it to the hardware sequencer for timing reasons. But if you want the better interaction, but don't have special timing needs, why not upgrade from the ST?

I don't know. All my current live stuff is about as far away from sequenced as you can get (improvised, nothing pre-recorded and nothing pre-planned), so it's been a while since I've had to fight with a sequencer.

Re:Finally,

[Anonymous Coward]

Timing on the ST had nothing to do with the OS. I'm not sure of the particulars, but the MIDI clock was a Integer mutiple of one of the base hardware clocks, that's why it's rock solid, no rounding of floating point numbers like you get these days.
The same chip is still being used in brand new broadcast timecode generators right now.

Re:Finally,

[Ford Prefect]

Can't stop from posting something in favor of Atari, especially the 1040ST and the Falcon 030. The only 2 computers I've ever owned that fit the bill as "music computers."

I had an ST myself, and while I never used it for music stuff (apart from farting about in Quartet), I always wondered why the MIDI ports were there. Yes, they helped the ST become a favourite machine for music work, but which Atari engineer decided to put them into the design in the first place, and why?

Were there any other home computers that had them first, as a kind of precedent? For a bargain-basement design like the ST's, the non-essential, specialised MIDI ports seem a bit of a frivolity, so was someone at Atari a big fan of music production, and somehow predicted the machine's future?

Re:Finally,

[sploxx]

I can put my old Atari 1040ST to rest.
Why should you?
Now is the time to port MusE to Linux/m68k on Atari ST! :-)

Re:Finally,

[chegosaurus]

Amen. I still use Bars and Pipes on the Amiga. Not anywhere near so stable as Pro-24, but it just suits the way I like to work.

The people saying you should junk the old hardware and software which help you work are idiots. Making music isn't like compiling code - a faster computer doesn't necessarily make you more productive.

When a person creates, the tools they use are important. Some people like oil paints, some like acrylics. Some people like Pro-24, some like Cakewalk. Some like digital, some like analog.

Re:Finally,

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly!

I have several 20 year old Synth sound modules that the local posers that work at Guitar Center try and ridicule me into buying a new roland or other sound module.

My old sound modules create the sounds that the newer ones try and "emulate" or play from samples.

only fools upgrade because something is "old" and in the pc world, there are lots and lots of fools.

Re:Finally,

[KodaK]

I owned an Atari ST and an Amiga, and now both are rusting away in the Garage

I'll buy them from you. Seriously.

Re:Finally,

[LizardKing]

I was thinking more along the lines of one of the modern sequencers

I borrowed my brothers Akai MPC a while ago, and it was a very nice piece of equipment. I couldn't justify the cost of one for myself though, as I'd never use half the features. I'm also hopeless at sampling, so I'd end up using third party libraries.

Re:Finally,

[IANAAC]

Cubase on the ST was more stable and usable 12 or more years ago than the same software under Windows. I gave up trying to get accurate, fast hihats on my PC, instead using Cakewalk (which is inferior to Cubase in practically every other way).

Couple of things...
Cubase from 12 years ago is nothing like Cubase of today, ST or Windows. They do very different things, although MIDI has always been there. If you want what Cubase offers today, there's no way to get an ST to handle everything it does. You need to go with either a Mac or a PC. Cubase of today is a complete production environment, 12 years ago it was very much not that.

Second, your statement regarding Cakewalk being inferior is out of date, as well as misleading. Cakewalk what? Sonar? Home Studio? Both Cubase and Sonar do eaxctly the same thing, albeit with a different workflow, which makes your statement subjective at best.

Re:Finally,

[Threni]

> Cubase from 12 years ago is nothing like Cubase of today, ST or Windows. They
> do very different things, although MIDI has always been there. If you want what
> Cubase offers today, there's no way to get an ST to handle everything it does.
> You need to go with either a Mac or a PC. Cubase of today is a complete
> production environment, 12 years ago it was very much not that.

If you just want a sequencer to drive external devices then the version of Cubase on the ST is fine.

> Second, your statement regarding Cakewalk being inferior is out of date, as
> well as misleading. Cakewalk what? Sonar? Home Studio? Both Cubase and Sonar do
> eaxctly the same thing, albeit with a different workflow, which makes your
> statement subjective at best.

The most sophisticated versions of Cakewalk do not compare favourably the the most sophisticated versions of Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools, Sadie...

It looks fully functional but..

[alex_ware]

if they made a live distro outof it, then it would help people change. do people want to dump windows before even trying the software: no

Re:It looks fully functional but..

[Anonymous Coward]

Here it is: http://www.agnula.org/ and here is the MuSE tutorial: http://www.agnula.org/documentation/dp_tutorials/m use/index_html/view

This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[Saven Marek]

This is where Apple has traditionally worked, and it's been a strong position for them.

While the market isn't big, it is fiercely loyal and worth money to them. Now that Linux based solutions can compete and strip away that advantage, Linux too will embed itself more concretely in the mindset of Yet Another Subculture.

Heh. Why would you now spend $50k on a mac recording studio when you can get a Linux based one for the cost of cheap 2nd hand hardware?. Revolutions baby...

The Nets Biggest Adult Anime Gallery's

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[proj_2501]

well, there are reasons to avoid cheap 2nd hand hardware for a studio. if you can't get low latency or a low noise floor out of your sound card, or if you can't get linux drivers for the card, what's the point in saving money?

also, there's no ableton live for linux, which is key in my book :)

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[winchester]

Some people actually just want to use the software to create, not tinker around with deboggers and compilers, learning how to do driver development under Linux.

Interesting though it may sound to develop your own drivers, I just want my machine to be usable as a music production tool, not as a tinker device in a perpetual state of change.

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[Threni]

> Now that Linux based solutions can compete and strip away that advantage

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. There's a long way to go before it's accurate to describe Linux as a suitable choice of platform for the professional musician.

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[doofusclam]

Rubbish. I'd like to know just how many people in the world are capable of writing a proper low-latency driver for sound card which takes full advantage of any hardware assist built in.

Having less drivers is *not* an advantage. Much as i'd love to use this programme, it's going to make little difference to the poor state of Linux sound support.

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[burnttoy]

Man! That's a good one! All I wanted to to was record some sounds but first I have to spend 6 months tracking down hardware specs (that might not be available) and writing (AND debugging) a bunch of low level, machine mangling driver code. I write drivers for a living, music helps me relax!

Note... it's very easy to get the MS DDKs.... very easy... WDM has worked well as a driver model. MS wants to replace it with Longhorn. I DON'T think this should (be allowed to) happen. WDM is supported across multiple (windows) OS's and I really don't see why some clever coders can't encapsulate that functionality.... hint, hint.

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[Dylan2000]

Here you are, Mr. Bowie, your studio is finished, you can start recording your next 'Space Oddity' now!

"How come I'm not hearing any sound?"

Oh yeah, I forgot, here's the manual. And a copy of 'How to learn C++ in 21 days'. Don't forget to recompile your kernel once you've written the driver.

"Colonel? Chauffeur??"

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[EachLennyAPenny]

The same person cappable of writing such a driver for Linux could as well write it fo Windows or MAc OS X. I fail to see the advantage of Linux.

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[wulfhound]

Most of that $50K is hardware - DSP accelerators, fast external drives, high quality AD/DA convertors. Yes, you can get equivalent performance with cheaper hardware, but we are still talking about rather more than a $500 secondhand PC.

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[kfg]

If it were a propritary system you could be waiting months or years for support that might not come.

I'm not sure quite how to break this to you, but the essential problem is that the architecture of professional sound cards is a propriatary system.

You cannot write a driver worth a crap against a secret spec. If the card manufacturers will not release those specs you are stuck waiting for support that might not come.

It isn't enough for your software to be open source. Your hardware must be open spec as well.

KFG

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[Saven Marek]

I was under the impression none of this is really necessary. After all ur working digitally, and can do all ur audio straight from what ur working on into a CD ISO.

Burn it to CD and their is the master, no AD/DA necessary

The Nets Biggest Adult Anime Gallery's

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[pesc]

After all ur working digitally, and can do all ur audio straight from what ur working on into a CD ISO.

You need a professional soundcard because:

1) You may want to record good quality audio. Maybe from several sources simultaneously.

2) You may want to listen to what you are doing before burning a CD.

3) You need a professional soundcard with latency of a few ms (and good drivers) so that you can play a note on a MIDI keyboard and not having to wait half a second to hear it from your softsynth and effects.

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[Kiryat Malachi]

Your impression is wrong.

First, you need good A/Ds if you have *any* external instrumentation. If you're using hardware effects (and pros do) you'll need good D/As as well. I have *severe* doubts that the free plugins available will necessarily sound as good as some of the really nice ones from people like Waves or Universal Audio, and many still won't use those plugins, preferring to use outboard hardware (how much is an LA-1 going for these days? Anyone? Bueller?) And those plugins go for damn near as much as the hardware they replace. You can count on a couple grand here; even if you wind up using RNC's for all your compressors, they're still gonna cost you a couple hundred per, and you need more than one if you're doing multitrack.

Many studios provide some instruments to customers; that cost isn't going to change.

You'll need outboard compressors, and outboard mixing, in order to do real multi-tracking (especially of vocals), because you'll have serious dynamic range issues trying to track them without at least a little bit of compression available. You could, I suppose, go straight into pre-amped A/D inputs, but then again, that hardware isn't cheap either.

Good monitoring hardware is important, and you'll need to spend around $1000, minimum, to achieve acceptable results. Most studios will spend more, acquiring multiple pairs of monitors in different price ranges, as well as some typical "home" speakers for final checkout.

And of course, we're forgetting the most expensive, most often forgotten, and in many ways most important part of a studio - the room itself. It can cost a metric ass-tonne in order to properly treat a room, and god forbid you have to knock down/rebuild/move walls to make it sound-tight and to eliminate nasty room modes.

Sure, if you want to do a computer-only studio, which is pretty much useful only for totally synthetic music (you've pretty much limited yourself to non-vocal electronic music with no real instruments and no outboard anything), you could use a Linux solution with spare hardware, but most of that sort of studio wind up spending a bunch on their computer because *everything* has to happen inside of their computer and they don't have enough processing for it all to happen at once.

$50,000 is a reasonable figure for a low-to-mid end studio; of that, exactly how much is the OS, computer software that could be replaced with Free, and computer hardware (not audio hardware) cost? About $5,000, tops.

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[LizardKing]

This is where Apple has traditionally worked, and it's been a strong position for them.

This may just be my experience, but I've found that in the UK studios are more likely to have PC's than a Mac. however, in the States the opposite appears to be true. I haven't seen an Atari ST in a professional studio since 1996 though ...

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[saigon_from_europe]

Driver in C++? You really don't like Bowie!

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[ajs318]

And therein lies the problem.

When the US constitution was written, nobody could have foreseen that one day, the technology would exist that would enable a manufacturer to sell something which effectively kept a secret from its rightful owner. If you bought a locked box, you could always split it open. If you bought something tiny, you could always look at it through a microscope. It just wasn't anything to be bothered about. (This is the same thinking as "you could always sneak off into the woods somewhere to be sure of having a private conversation".) It was simply inconceivable that that "right" could be violated, and therefore, it wasn't viewed as worthy of protection -- it would have been about as sensible as a law today issuing speeding tickets for anybody caught travelling at more than 300 megametres per second. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers wanted to keep the laws fair and few. Banning the impossible would have been a Bad Law -- it was redundant, because there was no conceivable way to break it, and also it might encourage future lawmakers to create redundant laws.

Fast forward 200-odd years and see how things have changed. Now it is physically possible to attempt to keep details of a purchased product secret from its rightful owner, with a high barrier to discovery; though this is clearly at odds with common law property rights. And the rest of the world seems hell-bent on adopting US-style law.

What we basically need is a new law clarifying -- for it is not, by any leap of imagination, a new right, but dates back to the time before it was physically possible even to violate that right -- that the rightful owner of a piece of hardware is, by sole virtue of such ownership, automatically privy to {but may be bound to keep} any and every secret contained within that piece of hardware. For manufacturers to attempt to keep secrets from the very people who pay their wages is very broken, and should not be tolerated. There might be some predictable protest from manufacturers, upset at the though of competitors knowing their secrets -- but the chances are that your competitors have already reverse-engineered your secrets. (side note: should we try ATI for open source nVidia drivers?) Furthermore, there are such things as patents, which oblige other people to pay you money before they make any money out of your ideas (at least until such time as you ought to have made enough money out of them and now it's everyone else's turn) which actually can be used properly.

(Of course, such a law may turn out to be unnecessary: it is entirely conceivable that a future technological change will restore the situation where keeping secrets from your customers is impossible.)

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[clifyt]

"Why would you now spend $50k on a mac recording studio when you can get a Linux based one for the cost of cheap 2nd hand hardware?."

Because the most you will be spending on a Mac Based Recording Studio will *NOT* be in the computer hardware. If you have $50k in a studio, I can guarentee that at most, a tenth of that is going to be on the computer.

$3k for the highest performing Mac...maybe another $2k for the monitor. Thats $5k right there.

And its well spent because it works out of the box. I don't know about you, but when I'm in a studio, I don't want to deal with computers. I want to deal with music. Then again, thats why PC users call me in...because I can fix their setups. I use to charge $75 an hour for the easy jobs -- and honestly, I've switched tacts over the last few years where I don't want to be bothered by technical bullshit in the studio as I can earn more by dealing with the musical aspects of things as opposed to the technical.

But all in all -- you will not be saving that much all in all. And you won't be saving by running second hand equipment. And if you know anything about music technology, you know the crappy hardware is the death of recording...if all you are doing is a 4 track punk recording or if you are doing offline techno bedroom mixes (and honestly, most techno I've heard could easily be done offline in a loop environment in a bedroom -- its one of the advantages of the medium as well as one of the curses) -- second hand hardware based mediums might work perfectly for you.

Personally, I still deal purely with SCSI and now SATA (firewire is for backups and sample storage). That stuff doesn't come cheap. You *CAN* record the 4 track stuff on a 3 year old laptop with a 5400 RPM drive -- and it will be fine, but when you are recording 64 tracks simultanously (which I rarely do, but I work with studios that do), you will see that your revolution means nothing.

Past that, there is that tricky easy of use thing...people use the Mac because it makes the operating system transparent in many ways. The software they record on is mostly transparent -- at least from a seasoned musicians point of view (there are problems -- otherwise I wouldn't run a forum to help people get over the hump and my friends wouldn't make so much money writting training books or doing instructional dvds).

But all in all -- I say bring it on. The more competition, the better. The more free solutions, the less I have to deal with pirates. The more free solutions, the more potential musicians that might write the next masterpiece. The more not so usable solutions, the more oportunities for music techs to get paid (heh! and maybe the ignorant slashdot masses might actually understand why albums cost so much to record -- because of bastards like me who want to get paid).

I'm gonna have to try this one out as my PC has sat for 6 months without being turned on -- and its actually twice as fast as my Mac. Maybe I might find a reason to use it again...

clif
sonikmatter.com

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[Anonymous Coward]

oh cripes. 90% of the noise floor in a studio is the equipment before the computer.

the Mackie mixers that are typical in home studios have almost a 5 db hiss sitting there with all controls potted all the way down. (5db from silence not from the bizzare zero db refrence that is so prevalent in audio.) then you have how your cables are run, the low end microphones you are using as well as the noise levels coming out of the guitar's, effects pedals, the keyboards and synth modules themselves (alesis = high noise floor!)

sorry, but a guy in his basement with a turtlebeach santa cruz $48.00 soundcard can get studio quality recording quite easily. going overboard with $300-$500 dollar soundcards and all the other junk without upgrading and making sure your entire analog path is quiet is completely foolish.

low noise floor starts with your audio-gear NOT in the computer.... that's the last place you need to look.

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[drinkypoo]

It's still not necessary to spend the big apple-style bucks to build a studio on linux if the software is there. You can buy 24 bit 96 khz four channel audio cards with linux support for under $250 each - I can't remember who makes them, though, because I don't have that kind of money to spend on sound cards anyway :)

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[Marc2k]

1) You may want to record good quality audio. Maybe from several sources simultaneously.

That 'maybe' is an 'absolutely' if you're remotely thinking about recording drums. At that rate, even a decent 16-channel input is going to cost a few thousand.

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[someonehasmyname]

Umm.. I wouldn't call MusE 'competition' to any other product in this 'Subculture.'

Karma be damned, but I've got to share my thoughts.

I write music as a hobby. I've been using various midi and audio sequencers for years, all with support for vst or au virtual instruments, tons of great sounding effects, such as reverbs, compressors, delays, etc.

IMHO, _nothing_ touches EMagic's Logic 6 Pro (EMagic is owned by Apple, btw)

It's got the best suite of effects and virtual instruments, and practically every 'name-brand' plugin will work.

I moved from Windows to OS X about a year ago and haven't looked back since. I would rather go back to Windows than use MusE on Linux.

Why? Hardware support.

Audio requires very high throughput. Latency is bad. Yes, Linux is fast, but I'll bet money my $1000 sound card will not perform under Linux like it does in my Mac. Would my Unitor 8 midi interface work under Linux? Maybe, but probably not well. The list goes on...

MusE may help get newbies into midi sequencing cheaply, but no recording professionals would ever consider it until Linux makes major headway with hardware manufacturers. Devices need to work under Linux. If they can run decently under Windows I know they'd run great under Linux, but manufacturers don't care about Linux [yet].

When ProTools and Waves run on Linux producers and engineers will care.

You may think that now that software is available manufacturers will write Linux drivers for their devices, but I don't see it happening. They won't care until they see that a large (and growing) percent of their paying customers are runnning Linux.

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[kfg]

While I agree with your post in basis the American patent system was inspired by the fact that it was possible to maintain trade/product secrets, thus losing them to humanity when the secret holders went out of business/died.

The founding fathers were fully cognizant of the issue and the laws they wrote were devised to deal with it. Those laws have largely been abandoned in favor of private profit.

KFG

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[proj_2501]

It looks more like Traktor for Linux. Useful, but not quite what Ableton is made for. (especially with version 4. yummy)

Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked

[abb3w]

Now it is physically possible to attempt to keep details of a purchased product secret from its rightful owner, with a high barrier to discovery; though this is clearly at odds with common law property rights.

Furthermore, our Gubbernment in action have passed laws making it illegal to try and find out its secrets. Joy!

Thats nice

[Anonymous Coward]

How about some of these super-star coders make things like simple audio work properly on Linux? Hands up if your soundcard doesn't work properly with ALSA, or aRts doesn't work properly, or you can't get Real Player to use the correct audio device.

Audio on Linux is a joke, and anyone suggesting for a second that it could be used in a professional studio must have a serious brain injury.

Re:Thats nice

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

How about some of these super-star coders make things like simple audio work properly on Linux? Hands up if your soundcard doesn't work properly with ALSA, or aRts doesn't work properly

I have a shiny sixpence here that says you have a VIA, i8x0 or other such insanely bad integrated sound device.

I mean honestly, ALSA is usually nothing but flawless with any decent soundcard. Even the $15 SBLive works great. Granted, ALSA isn't the easiest thing to set up, but once it's done, it works. As for aRTs, well hmm,.. it's aRTs you know, but at least with a soundcard that supports hardware mixing, it won't tie your audio out.

Audio on Linux is a joke,

Traditionally that's true. But fortunately, some people want to improve it instead of just whining about it like you.

Oh and also, just so you know, your post was OT, since the article is about a MIDI sequencer, not PCM audio through the soundcard.

Re:Thats nice

[mccalli]

Oh and also, just so you know, your post was OT, since the article is about a MIDI sequencer, not PCM audio through the soundcard.

Not in this case - the article specifically references VST instruments. VST will be played through the sound card, so Linux sound card drivers and latencies are very important indeed in this case.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Thats nice

[superhoe]

I mean honestly, ALSA is usually nothing but flawless with any decent soundcard. Even the $15 SBLive works great.

Exactly, but let's go a bit further. Even the $15 card works fine - but $500 card doesn't. That's the main problem. There is a need to support the pro cards (with all features) until you can go pro with Linux audio.

I can definitely get my SBLive working with ALSA, but that's unfortunately not the card I produce with :P

Ok, ok, it's the manufacturers..

Re:Thats nice

[DavidChristopher]

You do realize that a Soundblasters are not considered "Professional"? They're not even "Prosumer".

Until my MOTU interfaces are SUPPORTED (by MOTU, I need a throat to choke) my DAW will remain Windows.

Sorry, we're not yet ready for Primetime.

D

Re:Thats nice

[13Echo]

Agreed. And anyone that says that audio on Linux is a joke needs to have their head checked. Not only is the latency lower than Windows, but the ALSA/Jack subsystem is becoming more functional than DirectX in many respects.

If people would stop buying crappy integrated chips, they'd realize that Linux audio is certainly not a joke. It may not be perfect yet, but in a few years it will be THE system for audio. The framework is already there. We simply need more support from hardware manufacturers.

Re:Thats nice

[ignatus]

Audio on Linux is a joke

No it's not. Allright, not every soundcard is fully covered. And yes, that's mostly the manufacturers fault for not revealing the specifications and refusing to implement a driver themselves.

But on the other hand, unlike windows, linux has a lot more configuration options. Some year ago, i usually argued that my live! soundblaster just sounded _better_ in windows. Until i discoverd i could costomize the build-in 5-band equalizer in linux (i didn't even know it was there because windows didn't mention it). Hell, you can even root the mixer inputs to the card's output yourself if you want to (which is very neat if you want to fully exploit /dev/dsp2 capabilities).

Yes, it's not allways as user friendly. But i rather have the ability to costomize than none at all. Normal users aren't going to bother anyway.

Re:Thats nice

[jimicus]

We simply need more support from hardware manufacturers.

Unfortunately, the manufacturers are saying "we can do this but to justify it we need more users". Circular dependencies, anyone?

Re:Thats nice

[mabinogi]

No, _MOTU_ are not ready for linux, that's their problem (and their customers')

But there are pro audio sound cards made by companies that actually support Linux.

Not that I'm suggesting you go and change your setup just so that you can run Linux. I can't see any sense in that myself, if your current setup works fine, there's no point in messing with it.
But don't make the blanket claim that it's not ready just because your brand doesn't support it.

Re:Thats nice

[m50d]

I have a shiny sixpence here that says you have a VIA, i8x0 or other such insanely bad integrated sound device. I'll take you up on that. My onboard via 82c686b and laptop i810 were autodetected no problem in *slackware* for goodness' sake, just had to unmute them in alsamixer and can play sounds no problem. IME it's the cheap soundblasters which are the hardest to get working.

Re:Thats nice

[dilvie]

Neither of my pro sound devices work under linux. I have an Event EZ-BUS (USB mixer), and a Yamaha DS2416.

None of my favorite audio applications work under linux. It's great to see some open-source competition out there (the more choices, the better!), but MusE will NOT be replacing my Cubase/Psycle rig anytime soon.

I'm a geek as much as the next /. user, but I'm a musician first, and it's critical for me to have a creative process that flows well when I write my music.

Right now, the linux desktop is less than inspiring (don't shoot me). I have WindowsXP with cygwin, litestep, and a bunch of hacks that essentially make it work like a well-oiled unix box, but all the convenience of broad application support and great compatibility.

Great...

[burnttoy]

Now... where's the drivers for more synth cards?? Oh... there aren't any.... oh well.... Linux sound is fine for the desktop (mostly onboard or Creative) but many important cards are not supported.

Re:Great...

[localekko]

Agreed. Show me solid, complete Linux support for a Yamaha DS2416 and Emagic AMT-8, then I will ditch Logic.

ardour?

[MancunianMaskMan]

anyone know how this compares (quality-wise, cpu-hunger-wise, functionality-wise) to ardour.

I can't try it out because my pII-233 is a bit weak...

Re:ardour?

[JohnWilliams]

Ardour is a hard disk recorder. Muse is a MIDI sequencer with some support for audio tracks. They are not competitive, but complementary.

Re:ardour?

[Elektroschock]

There is only one tool to compete with: http://www.pgmusic.com/bandbox.htm It is a user-centered product, not for professionals, for musicians. It features everything musicians really need.

Re:ardour?

[JohnWilliams]

I find this comment difficult to believe. Band in a Box is a bunch of preset sequences and samples. This person's definition of "musician" versus "professional" is very strange. (I am an amateur musician, but I believe there is such a thing as a professional musician.) Perhaps ElektroSchock can tell me where I'm wrong?

Re:ardour?

[wulfhound]

Nice advert :p - sure, Band In A Box isn't bad at all, and is the ideal app for a great many people - BUT, there are plenty of things a musician could legitimately want that it doesn't do.

Re:ardour?

[Pecisk]

Ardour is more Pro Tools, sound tweaking tool, as MusE is full audio/midi sequencer. I guess in future Ardour and MusE could be in battle for good meaning, but Ardour is more really for sound tweakage. I'm really getting more and more excited about Linux pro audio, as I have Ice1712 based (ALSA drivers fully support this cipset) sound card from Terratec EWS88MT. It rocks. And Jack and Ardour shows big improvements. Of coarse, there are still long road ahead for fully user friendly Linux audio studio which could be used for low and medium level pro audio studios, but it's getting there. And it WILL get there.

Re:ardour?

[Unknown Lamer]

You can always run the output of a MuSE track into Ardour via JACK ;)

Re:ardour?

[rmull]

Can you sychronise the transport now? I tried that a few months ago, to no avail.

Re:ardour?

[froh]

Yes you can, select "Sync with JACK" in options editor | sync tab.
Just tested now with ardour and rhytmbox.
Ardour 0.9beta17

Re:still no vst support...

[Queuetue]

Why would the use of WINE prevent low latency use? One more time, WINE is an implementation of the same win32 spec as MS Windows is - not a slow emulator. It therefore can and often does run just as fast as windows - and in some cases, faster.

Is the latency an educated userspace vs kernel space issue you can expand upon, or just a personal bias against WINE?

Pushing for multimedia power in Linux

[Zorilla]

We can all troll that Linux still has trouble supporting sound, decent system-wide hardware MIDI beyond KDE's aRTs MIDI (or a really nice software wavetable synth like WinGroove's), more-than-2 channel support for sound, and difficulties playing DVDs and WMV9 systems (which still seems impossible for the video portion even if the WMA2 stream plays), but I think this could be a push for improvements to all of the above.

(Wow, that was just one sentence)

Re:Pushing for multimedia power in Linux

[AliasTheRoot]

I'm happy to troll about it, I spent 2 days trying to get my soundcard working in Linux and eventually gave up and switched to the onboard sound chip, which breaks every other kernel release.

Re:Pushing for multimedia power in Linux

[FooBarWidget]

And my soundcard worked out-of-the-box after installation.

Re:Pushing for multimedia power in Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? I have system wide midi, with a patchbay, using qjackctl. I also have eight channel sound at 24bit 96k with a latency of 5 ms, and can patch any apps I/O to any I/O on the card.

I don't use arts. If you want pro audio on Linux, use Jack.

And what the hell is a WMV9? I'm a sound engineer, not a lampie!

Copies of the changelog

[djcapelis]

The slashdot effect is starting on the poor site and the database only allows 32 connections at one time... so I figured it would be best to post a copy of the news summaries that it digs out of the database: .7 and .7-PRE4 don't have much changed in the way of news. .7-PRE3

# Configuration and customization

* Shortcuts for 'arrowing around' in arranger added
* changed default start behaviour to open default.med template
* Lots of new icons ;-)
* A proposal for MusE logo (tell us what you think!)
* Autodetect of browser for help system

# MusE general:

* FluidSynth: added support for drum patches
* MusE now will not start if RTC is not available.
* show one more measure in pianoroll and drum editor
* list editor: implemented input mode for program change messages

# Fixed bugs:

* fixed: pitch bend handling and import fixed
* fixed: 'edit - delete track' hangs MusE - bug
* fixed: routing for stereo LADSPA plugins used in mono strips
* fixed: midi import problems
* auxSend chorusSend and reverbSend enabled in midi mixer strip if corresponding controllers are added
* implemented 'Add New Controller' in list editor / edit controller
* midi controller values now saved in .med file
* updated roland-XP30.idf instrument definition
* And a number of other bugs fixed (and added?)
* Also check the TODO for currently known issues. .7-PRE2

# Custom guis for plugins work again
# Splash screen
# LADCCA/LASH support updated
# Cleaned up shortcuts
# Single key shortcuts for edit tools
# Update marker list on tempo change
# Allow adding markers from the ruler with shift-click
# Metronom now sends proper note off events
# Clip list editor deaktivated
# After loading of template, treat current project as 'untitled'
# Song format changed due to bugfixes
# Shortcuts to bug reporting tool and homepage from help menu
# Updated AboutBox
# Fixed QT version check in m4/qt.m4
# And a number of other bugs
# Check the Changelog for a complete list of changes.
# Also check the TODO for currently known issues.

Me alone?

[ceeam]

Who else has read the title as SusE? This miscapitalization is silly.

Re:Me alone?

[wulfhound]

Not to mention, I have a feeling these guys -> www.museresearch.com - (who, by the way, are doing some great work in getting VSTs to run on a custom Linux-based PC) might feel that this infringes on their trademark just a little.

Re:Linux + Guitar

[ptaff]

In addition to the audio/MIDI editing stuff that Muse now has, I'm looking for some decent guitar-oriented analog effects

This would have to be pipelined in Jack. As you'd put your pedals between your guitar and your amp, you'd put a software soundeffect program between the input source and MusE, via Jack. One of the available pipeline filters is JACK Rack, which does what you want.

Competition is good

[tezza]

This can act as a fomenting gorund for new ideas that don't rely on expensive outlays to get equipment. Some of the best sound coders I ever worked with did their best stuff at 15/16 years old. Where you gonna dig the cash out for the professional stuff??

These youngsters, or just destitute people with a passion need the access to tools such as this. The barrier to entry of closed source and cost prohibits these people from expressing their genius ideas [if any I accept].

So if they code a brilliant idea here, the big players will take that and commercialize it. Stuff like open standards are all helped here.

Keep up the good work!

Atari ST and Sequencing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the Atari ST is still pretty popular for MIDI sequencing ... something about the basic operating system providing for no unexpected behaviour when sequencing, unlike Windows that can decide to halt suddenly when it decides to mess with RAM, hard drive caching or another task messes up everything.

Re:still no vst support...

[wulfhound]

It's not a big problem. WINE is slower than Windows API calls, yes, but VSTs shouldn't be making Windows API calls from the low-latency parts of the code anyway (and indeed, the vast majority do not).

I've been waiting for MIDI...

[no longer myself]

I've missed messing around with MIDI since I left MS Windows, but this still looks a little too tricky for a convert like me...

~~~ Requirements (paraphrased)
- QT: Qt 3.2.0 or above
- ALSA 0.9.x or newer (cvs)
- gcc 3.x.x
NOTE: you _must_ compile MusE with the same compiler you used to compile QT
- libsndfile 1.0.1 (current 1.0.4)
- Linux kernel with rtc (RealTimeClock) driver (device /dev/rtc)
- JACK
- fluidsynth-1.0.3 (formerly known as iiwusynth)
- of course: a soundcard and/or some midi gear
- (if you compile from cvs:) automake 1.7 and autoconf 2.54
~~~~

I don't even know "JACK", and just looking over these things I'd have to update every single one of these requirements except for the ones I don't even have installed in the first place. I guess I won't be installing this for a while... :-(

Sadly all my boxes have that on-board AC97 audio, and it has no hardware MIDI support at all. Otherwise, ALSA does a great job, and I never needed to configure anything for wave output. Just no MIDI.

(Side note: I never could get things like TiMIDIty to work right either... Guess, I'm just not quite geeky enough... yet.)

Re:I've been waiting for MIDI...

[infolib]

Wait till it comes out for your distro. Proprietary software is often written and packaged in the same company and they release nothing until installer etc. etc. is ready. Open source programs are often written and packaged by different persons, and the first person considers the program "released" when the tarball's ready.

Midi really ought to work though - even if you're not "geeky". What distro are you using?

Re:I've been waiting for MIDI...

[Anonymous Coward]

With regards to getting Timidity working, I only discovered fairly recently that you need to get your hands on separately-available "patches", or instrument files (unless they get automatically installed with your distro).

Using Gentoo, this turned out to be as easy as "emerge timidity++" followed by "emerge timidity-eawpatches" (and then a quick config-update to put the new instrument configuration in place). Under Debian, it looks like there is a package called "timidity-patches" which should do the trick.

This has worked just fine for me on at least two machines so far. I hope it helps!

Re:I've been waiting for MIDI...

[endoftheroadmatt]

You may want to take a look at this page:

http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/

From their site: "Planet CCRMA at Home is a collection of software packages that you can add to a computer running RedHat 7.3, 8.0, 9 or Fedora Core 1" (and 2, if not now then very soon) "to transform it into an audio/video oriented workstation. Here at CCRMA we use a consistent and well defined Linux environment for our daily work in audio and computer music and research. With the Planet CCRMA at Home package collection, you can easily install most of that environment on your own Linux system."

It's a apt-getable addon for Fedora/Redhat, which is easy enough for new converts. I haven't used it in a few months (since a switch to Debian), but they do a very good walkthrough of how to setup a Linux audio workstation, and everything works very well together.

Re:I've been waiting for MIDI...

[AngryDill]

I also had the problem of Timidity (and several other audio programs) not working.

I run KDE, and ss it turned out, KDEs sound system (ARtS) doesn't seem to be compatible with most non-ARtS programs

Timidity, RealPlayer and other programs suddenly started working once I changed the KDE Control Center setting to not automatically launch ARtS at startup.

Of course, YMMV

Note: many of the KDE-specific media players require ARtS to be running. If you install the "KickARtS" program, you can have a handy system-tray icon that allows you to easily start and stop ARtS as desired.

Rosegarden

[javilon]

How does Muse compare to Rosegarden?

Re:Rosegarden

[Chris Cannam]

> How does Muse compare to Rosegarden?

Well, they're both audio and MIDI sequencers for Linux. They both support outboard MIDI gear, native Linux ALSA soft synths, and audio and transport synchronisation through JACK. Both look and feel somewhat like the big sequencers for other platforms. Both use Qt for their GUIs, though Rosegarden also uses the KDE libraries. I happen to think Rosegarden has the more polished GUI, but I'm biased (see disclaimer at bottom).

Both support arbitrary numbers of MIDI and audio tracks, with audio mixing and routing capabilities. Both support LADSPA effects plugins, of which there are hundreds available free. Both can (with some work!) be made to use VST effects through vstserver. MusE can host VST instruments with libfst using Wine; either of them can drive VST instruments hosted separately using jack_fst. None of these VST solutions is currently at all easy to configure and build, but see here for more information. Rosegarden is implementing the DSSI synth API and will probably ultimately use a DSSI wrapper for VST instruments. Rosegarden can also be run without audio support if you only want MIDI or score, whereas MusE always requires JACK.

My rather fuzzy impression of the difference in "feel" between them is that MusE feels like it came more from a studio/MIDI gearhead background, Rosegarden more from a composition background. MusE is a bit further ahead with things like instrument plugins, audio routing (send/returns etc) and automation. Rosegarden places a lot more emphasis on the score editor, whereas the one that used to be in MusE was actually removed completely for the 0.7 release.

Rosegarden is a somewhat bigger and more complicated program than MusE (c 200K lines of code vs 130K LOC), which you may see as good or bad depending on whether the extra code happens to do stuff you want or not. They're both written in C++, should you happen to care.

On the subject of soundcard support: the usual quick answer is "it's probably supported unless it's FireWire or made by MOTU". In particular the current M-Audio, Terratec and RME semi-pro gear mostly works fine, as well as most consumer cards. The lack of FireWire audio device support currently is a pain though. Anyway, see the ALSA soundcard matrix for detailed information.

(Disclaimer: I am a Rosegarden developer and, although I track MusE CVS, I have never actually managed to get MusE 0.7 to build because I don't have the right libraries and autotools. So do take all this with a pinch of salt.)

Re:still no vst support...

[nmoog]

I dont know who you were addressing that initial question to, but I do agree that VST support is (almost) essential to anyone wanting to do pro audio.

There are a couple of really decent attempts at using vst plugins under wine. Check this excellent tutorial from Dave Phillips

I have got all my favourite VSTi and VST plugins going a treat thanks to this.

Now quit whinging.

Soundfont support?

[crivens]

Yes but does it support loadable and selectable Soundfonts with my SBLive! Value?

Re:Soundfont support?

[spamatica]

Indeed it does, through the internal fluidsynth softsynth, nicely and integrated.

However there's currently no integrated support for soundfonts loaded on the card itself. Loading the soundfonts manually would work just fine though.

Re:Interesting

[Tarential]

http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/lmuse/muse-0.7. 0.tar.bz2?download .tar.bz2 - good enough?

VSTi support??

[soliptic]

win32/VST-Instrument support

This is a very, very, very big deal. Does this only apply to VSTis whose manufacturers supply a native linux port (ie, essentially none), or with the wonders of WINE (or similar) can I now run all my favourite gear from Native Instruments, Ohmforce, TC, etc?

Re:VSTi support??

[wulfhound]

In theory this allows all Windows VSTs to work. In practice compatibility is somewhat less than 100% due to bugs in the VSTis themselves, or lack of support for nasty things like PACE copyprotection drivers which quite a few VSTs (including, I think, TC) use.

Re:VSTi support??

[spamatica]

It works through the wonders of the beautiful projects Wine and libfst. So, basically all your favourite plugs are compatible.

Though this technology is still quite young, your milage will vary (it works better than expected though). Eventually all plugs will work!

Re:VSTi support??

[soliptic]

Thanks for clarifying. I have to say I didn't realise this was possible in Linux yet.

From a musician/producer's perspective, I have to say I will never, ever switch to Linux for my DAW work as long as I see things like this: "None of these VST solutions is currently at all easy to configure and build..." (+5 post a little up the page). I find it very hard to find time to write music these days, what with the hated full-time job and the large amount of time I spend organising not-directly-musical things like online sales of my band's album. There's no way I'm going to eat into that using anything requiring conf file editing, compilation, finding obscure libraries and dependencies, or whatever.

If it's not easier and more solid than my current setup, I won't switch. Realistically, if it cant run 90% of my current preferred tools smoothly, I won't switch either ("as good as" doesn't really cut it in this game). I suspect most others would say the same.

Nevertheless I follow Linux audio with interest. I can't wait to jump the Windows ship because the DRM-enabled future Microsoft envisages is somewhere I never, ever want to tread. My only real hope is that Linux becomes a 100% realistic proposition for me before my current XP box needs replacing, because Longhorn looks like something I wouldn't touch with someone else's ;)

Re:still no vst support...

[sigaar]

Well, see, that's the only problem with WINE. If your app of choice is not completely supported, it might run slower or not at all.

In all fairness, it wasn't Steinberg's intention to have Cubase run on Linux, nor was it Linus' intention to write a kernel that would run Windows apps.

As for speed, some completely supported apps are really much faster. When Return to Castle Wolfenstein just came out, I couldn't play it in Windows (Celeron 500, 256mb, TNT2 16mb) - only got about 3-5 fps. Playing the windows binary in linux under WINE (the linux binary wasn't out yet) gave me a bout 9 fps on avarage, which made it *barely just* playable.

Re:Linux + Guitar

[ScottGant]

Also, for the couple dozen linux guitarists that are out there: what does everyone out there use to reduce hiss in the incoming guitar signal?

I'm a traditionalist and just mic it off my Twin Reverb and I'm really not standing anywhere near my monitor when I'm playing anyway. But then again, I'm usually playing the LP which has the buckers on it so there is no hum....but when I strap the Tele on I practically have to stand in the next room. But you can't beat that twang!

As I said, I'm a traditionalist and prefer tube to transistor and analog to digital. I just use digital for recording and mixing. But there are SO many different ways you can skin this cat to make the sound you want it's not even funny. I'm getting more and more into it, little by little because too much will blow my mind. I get side-tracked into tangents that go nowhere and waste time...so I try to keep it as simple as my simple mind can grasp.

Re:still no vst support...

[Kiryat Malachi]

I'd worry about the Waves authorization method breaking; last set I used was still dongle-authorized, I don't know if its changed since then, but its probably something equally noxious.

Yes, but...

[Ed Avis]

Does it run on SuSE?

Re:Yes, but...

[Ardhail]

Well, I'm running Suse 9.0 personal, and as soon as i've tweaked this box's config script so that my comp actually knows where it keep those minor libs like QT3, and PKG-CONFIG, i'll let you know... (being a fresh windows convert, i'm in love with O'Reilly)

Editing music without a MIDI keyboard

[ElMiguel]

My problem with MusE is that it has a Steinberg-style interface. I'm not proficient enough with a MIDI keyboard to use it for any serious work and trying to write a song with Steinberg's and MusE's mouse-based note input facilities is a nightmare.

Trackers, on the other hand, were designed to be nicely usable with only a keyboard and mouse, but ever since Impulse Tracker died I haven't found one to my liking.

I know of many trackers for Linux and Windows, but all of them are too unstable, their development stopped years ago and can't be made to work with current hardware and software, or are seriously lacking in features and usability. Especially those trying to imitate Fast Tracker 2 seem to have a fondness for absolutely crammed interfaces with tiny letters and icons.

Can you recommend some software that does not require a MIDI keyboard to be usable and actually works for you?

Re:Editing music without a MIDI keyboard

[forgnogzambrucken]

i hear that, brother. i keep a 486 alive to run impulse tracker on in a dark corner of my living quarters. i, tho, have found happiness in windows, with modplug's tracker. its not for everyone, but if you're an impulse tracker man, its definately worth the try. it gets the job done for me.

Re:Editing music without a MIDI keyboard

[KodaK]

I haven't used it a whole lot, but Cheesetracker seems to fit the requirements you've listed.

HTH,

Close, but no cigar

[iamdrscience]

Good MIDI support, sequencers and virtual synths are all great stuff, but there is one hugely crucial element to "the linux studio" that's missing, and that's support for professional sound cards.

It's always been a bit of a trick to get sound working on Linux, but it's always getting easier too and most desktop oriented distros (i.e. Mandrake, Redhat, Suse) make it no problem in most cases, but there is really zero support for most of the established professional audio interfaces (i.e. Motu, Audigy, etc.). I've had a few friends adventurous to consider playing around with Linux audio programs, but when they ask if their $200 (and up) interfaces don't work and the best I can do is point them to the O'Reilly book on writing Linux drivers, it's (understandably) a real turn-off.

In summary: If anybody out there has the time and knowledge and is looking for a project, this is a great one. Work on writing drivers for the upper-crust interfaces. I'm sure there are even a few nerds out there willing to lend you their cards so that they can get a driver for it.

Re:Close, but no cigar

[zerblat]

[...]but there is really zero support for most of the established professional audio interfaces (i.e. Motu, Audigy, etc.).

The problem is that Motu haven't been willing to release necessary documentation. Audigy? Are you talking about Creative Labs's SoundBlaster Audigy? And using it in the same sentance as professional?

There is support in ALSA for decent audio hardware from e.g. RME (who have been very supportive of the ALSA developers), M-Audio, Echo and others. The problem is that many of the hardware makers won't release documentation, so knowing how to write a Linux driver won't help you much. The real challange is lobbying/infiltrating/black mailing the hardware makers and convince them that it isn't always a bad idea to let your customers know how to use the devices you sell them.

Re:Close, but no cigar

[mabinogi]

How is this the problem of the audio application?

It's definitely a problem for linux audio in general, but it's a little unfair to use it as a point against MusE.
Are you saying that they should give up until every MOTU card is supported out of the box on Linux?

Hell, even if SBLive! was the only audio card supported, then this application (and the other audio projects that seem to be maturing these days - JACK, Rosegarden, LADSPA, Ardour, etc) is still a great step forward for Linux audio.

You're not going to see Pro Audio manufacturers supporting Linux, until people are already making great music with their SB Lives and crappy AC97 audio cards using programs like this.
So a little less negativity!

Re:Close, but no cigar

[Unknown Lamer]

A Sound Blaster Audigy is not a pro sound card (and that's a non-issue anyway because ALSA has working drivers for it anyway). A pro sound card is something like an M-Audio Delta 1010[-LT] or an RME Hammerfall which both have working drivers.

It's a lot of the low-end pro sound cards that aren't supported. Bug the manufacturers about releasing specs to the ALSA developers and maybe that problem will go away.

Re:Close, but no cigar

[marsu_k]

but there is one hugely crucial element to "the linux studio" that's missing, and that's support for professional sound cards

FWIW I have Audigy up and running, but that's hardly a card I'd call professional. So lets see... ALSA currently supports several RME cards (with ADAT I/O), several M-Audio cards (most of which are 200$ and up) and some cards from SEK'D and Echo, for example. Granted this is not by any means a complete selection of pro audio cards, but you can get a pro card that'll work with Linux if you shop around a bit (RMEs are held in quite high regard in pro audio circles, right?).

Re:Close, but no cigar

[Lumpy]

I've had a few friends adventurous to consider playing around with Linux audio programs, but when they ask if their $200 (and up) interfaces don't work and the best I can do is point them to the O'Reilly book on writing Linux drivers, it's (understandably) a real turn-off.

Of course, you're being an ass to them by playing the elitest RTFM! game.

Linux supports a WIDE range of professional sound recording cards. if you would have actually searched instead of acting like a snide know-it-all to your friends you would have known this....

Here, I'll help you...

Alsa sound card matrix.

it shows support for the Sonorus medi/o and studi/o professional 24 channel recording cards.

Oh look it supports the RME hammerfall card 52 recording channels at 24bit resolution.

There are lots more supported, I leave it up to you to find the rest in the link above.

I strongly suggest you actually learn about the ALSA support of professional soundcards and the PRO MIDI interfaces.... the midiman usb midi devices are also well supported and used extensively by professionals. Handing out advice to people when you do not know the facts only spreads bad information.

and as always, find out what is supported and then go buy it. buying something at random and then hoping it is supported is always a silly thing to do.

Re:Close, but no cigar

[fishbowl]

"There are lots more supported, I leave it up to you to find the rest in the link above."

Some cards that are unsupported though, happen to be a specific intersection with certain cards that are very commonly used in pro applications.

Now, my argument is, if you're really a pro, you're not looking to install linux on the DAW you already have, any more than someone would consider putting Mac OSX on their Windows DAW, get it? You're looking at linux because it offers a promise of flexibility, and in some areas, higher quality than what you have already.
So the argument that DigiDesign or MOTU or Aardvark doesn't have linux support, ought never be raised. The best choice for your linux DAW happens to be the Delta 1010, so the design discussion should start there! Next, the idea that it's going to be easy to setup is out the window also. I wish ALSA exposed ASIO interfaces and gave latency guarantees.

I wish FLStudio and Magix had linux ports. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool linux advocate, but my home studio runs FLStudio and Magix on XP-Pro. However, I can see the promises for the future, being able to optimize the system for audio (kernel and driver tuning, or customization of the apps).

A pro studio isn't going to look at linux as a solution for the DAW. Shouldn't stop them from using linux for file servers and for the service desk though...

Re:Close, but no cigar

[halfelven]

What? You call Audigy a professional card? (rolling on the floor laughing my guts out)

Have you tried to do some serious (i try to avoid the overused word "professional") with an Audigy? Then compare it with a (well, there's no better substitute) truly professional card?
Did you notice that Audigy actually has a hard, fixed sampling rate of 48kHz and works around that with tricks in the DAC/ADCs? Is that what you call professional?

In any case, Audigy support is fine in Linux. One of the systems that i own has an Audigy2 Platinum and it works fine in conjunction with an external synthesizer (Alesis), several sequencers (Muse, Rosegarden, Seq24), digital multitrack recorders (Ardour), softsynths (ZynAddSubFX, amSynth, Hydrogen), etc.

FYI, professional cards supported by Linux are RME and MAudio. They work very well with ALSA. All features that they have on Windows are present in Linux as well.
There is indeed a lack of support for Motu.

Re:Close, but no cigar

[fishbowl]

Since when does Linux adoption and advocacy require a "compelling reason?"

There's a compelling reason to use Linux in *my* studio. Yeah, I'm an amateur, hobbyist, whatever. I have linux in my rig because I'm making my own synth.

Yamaha UX16 USB Midi works w/ Linux

[bach37]

This usb midi device to connect your midi keyboard works excellent in Linux. The module is snd-usb-audio. I've done all the midi-type applications (rosegarden, NoteEdit, etc) and this midi/usb works great. Plugged it in and it works.

Just wanted to make a post in case others might be interested.

Re:still no vst support...

[mabinogi]

You know, I have no problem whatsoever not using a single VST plugin or VSTi instrument.

Though I do use plenty of DirectX plugins and DXi instruments.....

But Cakewalk's ability to get plugin developers to write DX plugins shows that there's nothing holy about VST...If linux starts to show promise in the DAW market, then there'll be commercial plugin developers writing LADSPA plugins soon enough. Though I'm not sure if anyone's come up with a virtual synth standard for Linux yet..(unless LADSPA also covers that...I'm not sure, but I don't think it does)..

BTW, I've found VST to be rather limiting, unless someone can tell me how to use two different audio interfaces at once with VST?
I want to be able to have both my audio card, and my PODxt used at once. I don't see why I should have to ignore the perfectly good digital interface on the POD just because VST only lets you use one driver at a time. WDM doesn't give me that problem.

Check out PlanetCCRMA

[theManInTheYellowHat]

There is a great deal of work that should be reviewed by anyone concidering Linux sound / video production and I am supprized that someone has not mentioned it yet.

Planet CCRMA is awesome! This is such a good start for everyone who says "I am not geeky enough to get {insert package here} working". I suspect that the FC2 iso's are close to coming out, the ones for FC1 are excelent. You basicly install FC and then there is a kernel iso and an app iso which installs most of the known linux sound apps. The mailing list is also quite active and the people very helpful.

Strong work from Fernando Lopez-Lezcano!!!

Re:Check out PlanetCCRMA

[c64k]

CCRMA rocks my world, I've played two shows now off a ccrma laptop system.

happiness.

OT: Linux replacement for Cakewalk

[Zebbers]

I've used the cakewalk line of programs for years now and it's one of the few reasons I still run windows on one of my boxes....are there any replacements?

I have a dedicated box for it, so its highly unlikely Id ever switch unless it was as polished as CW.

No support for professional sound cards?

[21chrisp]

There are so few musicians who produce music with Linux, you can't really blame professional sound card makers for not taking the time to create linux drivers for them.

Since, there are no such drivers there can be only one solution to those creating software like Muse: give up. That's right, just give up! Don't bother creating full featured software studios on Linux!! Nobody really uses Linux with their Digidesign right? So it must be a waste of time creating something like this. There is no need to try and introduce sound production to Linux because you can already do it on Windows and OSX. In fact, let's all just STOP, and wait for professional sound card drivers to magically appear on Linux. I'm sure all of these companies will come to their senses and create drivers for a system that has no user base in their market.

Now that I think of it, I can't figure out why Linux was created in the first place. I mean.. Windows already existed and did everything people really NEEDED right? So why BOTHER creating Linux. What a waste of time that was. Now that I think about it we should just stop developing everything in Linux! Just use Windows! Don't like that?? What's wrong?? Can't you afford a friggin Mac you lamer?! What about those crazy free/openBSD people! Windows existed then too! They should have never bothered. OS9 was OK, Apple didn't really NEED that BSD code.

Oh wait! I forgot to mention shareware/freeware that's available for Windows too! Microsoft has their own version of most of that stuff.. so don't create that either! It's a waste of time. I hate that stuff. I'm getting rid of Gaim and going back to regular AIM.. I LOVE THOST POP-UPS!!!!

My conclusion is that from now on we should simply rely on the large scale hardware/software vendors to provide us with our needs. I can do everything I need on a Mac, so I'm going to take a second Morgage and get a spanking new G5. That will show those fools!

Yay! My first Troll!

Re:No support for professional sound cards?

[21chrisp]

I do have at least a good 8 years of experience in pro audio. While I DO use Windows for a fair amount of music production, I also use Linux quite a bit (mostly just because I prefer Linux to Windows). No, it's not as good at pro audio as Windows or OSX. No, it's not even on the most distant radar. Especially since it's only had a low-latency capable kernel for less than a year.

Down the line, who knows? 10 years ago, no one thought Linux would be where it's at now in the server market. It still happened. My comment is directed at people who respond to information like this with a 'why bother, give it up' type attitude. Without so many people putting their time and effort into projects like this, there would be NO options for music production in Linux (pro or not). Was Windows always worthy of a Pro studio? Was Mac always? I don't know many people who used a Mac II for producing pro audio. It takes time.

As for building a pro studio.. that's something we all have! As a matter of fact I do know how much it costs, and no licensing fees are not a factor. What did I say to give you an impression like that anyway? Well.. let's see.. if I was building a pro studio, I would get a friggin' Mac. For home/hobbyist use.. sorry some of us can't afford home pro audio studios and personal sound engineers.

Finally, if I'm a kid, you must be quite old. Maybe you should retire.

Re:Linux + Guitar

[Tired and Emotional]

Are you using a Direct box? An active one would be best.

There are two issues that may be causing trouble.

If you have balanced ins on your interface an unbalanced interface can cause hum. A direct box with a ground lift can help.

Guitar outputs are high impedance. You may be trying to drive a low impedance input. A hi to low converting direct box will help. However if its a transformer based direct box it also reduces the signal coming out (in voltage terms). An active direct box can avoid this but, of course, the active direct box itself will introduce some noise - it just should be less noise than you are currently getting.

Mac to Linux: "What took you so long?"

[poot_rootbeer]

The Linux-based studio is looming ever closer -- in fact, it's here!"

Great. But why would any pro or semi-pro studio migrate from the ProTools and OS X solution they almost certainly already have?

I think it's great that Linux supports tools powerful enough that they could conceivably be used to run a recording studio, but realistically I don't expect market penetration to be significant.

bump:Re:OT: Linux replacement for Cakewalk

[flyingace]

Is this a cakewalk replacement too.. I have to use windows with cakewalk.

Korg Triton Extreme USB Midi and USB Storage

[KodaK]

Just wanted to make a post in case others might be interested.

Well, in that case: my newest toy, a Korg Triton Extreme works too. It has a built in USB-MIDI interface and you can access the compact flash slot as usb-storage (the EX must be in usb-storage mode). I had to patch usbquirks.h in alsa to get it to work, but the changes have been added to CVS.

FWIW, I also have a Radium 61 key and a Midisport (this device is sold under many names) working just fine in Linux.

So, yeah, Linux audio isn't that pathetic. Granted, I'm no pro, but I can make sounds. I love using the Radium to control AmSynth. Sweeper madness. :)

I'm just using a Soundblaster Live for audio at this point. Sometime in the near future I'll get a M-audio 2496, but I need to pay some of this other crap off first.

Re:MUSE now has VST Support !!!!!

[Desval]

No offense, but I think you missed the point about VST support. These are not native Linux VSTs, but Win32 ones running on Linux through an emulation layer. I agree that VSTs in themselves are nothing new, but until vendors build native versions for Linux (never), being able to run the Win32 versions is a big deal. This is the equivalent of running the Mac version of a VST on a PC and I havn't seen that one yet.

Terrible user interface

[caseih]

From the screenshot I see one thing immediately that I absolutely can't stand: little volume knobs that you have to "turn" with the mouse pointer. There cannot be a more lame widget to try to use in a mouse-based user-interface. Sure you can probably use the scroll wheel.

The entire interface looks cluttered and not well-suited for use along side our current GUI apps. There are reasons why certain things are and aren't done in GUIs. We can't always make our programs look just like the physical objects we are trying to replace (ie the mixing board).

More power to them.

[JazzyJ]

...they're making what looks like to be a very nice linux clone of Cubase VST32.

But until either Apple ports MacOS X to intel in it's entirety (not just darwin) or Digidesign ports ProTools to Linux, you won't really see any studios running Linux for their bread and butter. ProTools is the industry standard...and for very good reasons. I hope they do port it someday....I'd be one of the first in line to buy a copy.

Cheesetracker

[ElMiguel]

I know of cheesetracker and have used it somewhat. It's buggy and feels like a beta. The development has been really slow. The code is not very well done. The author didn't even answer a couple mails I sent him offering my help.

I regret to say this because in spite of everything it was one of the most promising Linux trackers, but I'm almost certain that it will be abandoned before it gets to a mildly usable state.

Modplug Tracker

[ElMiguel]

I have used Modplug extensively the last years, since, as you say, it has been the best option for Impulse Tracker fans. But it feels... too little. Its development has stopped, meaning we won't ever see important features such as decent MIDI import or, you know, Linux support.

I just refuse to believe that there aren't better alternatives.

Mandrake has no-brainer rpms...

[msimm]

If you happen to be using it or don't mind switching. You just need to set urpmi up to use alternative sources (you should always do this immediately).

Take a look: rpm.nyvalls.se

To add this as root type:

urpmi.addmedia thacs.rpms http://rpm.nyvalls.se/10.0/RPMS with hdlist.cz

to add PLF and some other useful ones:

urpmi.org/easyurpmi/

Looks like thac has already packaged Muse 0.7.0 along with a load of other sound related software. Good stuff. :)

Which begs two questions..

[msimm]

Which sound card are you using?

Which distro?

Not all distros are alike, and some do a better job at configuring things for you. If you trying to write off Linux as a whole (how'd you get modded insightful?) you need to give at least a couple of actual details (otherwise as far as I'm concerned your a potentail Microsoftie out on FUD partrol).

Re:Which begs two questions..

[msimm]

No. Not any more then 'they all work' under Windows XP or Macintosh.A lot of them working and by working intellegently (maybe with a little help like I was offering) there is a good chance the one he had did work. Nobody starts off with a new OS as a master of it.

Re:Which begs two questions..

[AliasTheRoot]

Well the soundcard in question is an au8830 chipset based one, it shows up in /dev/pci or wherever it's supposed to, i run kernel 2.6.7 on Gentoo. Both the Alsa codebase in the kernel and the seperate distribution is broken for this card.

Fortunately, I have an onboard CMedia chip which is fairly decent.

I agree with the grandparent poster though, it should just work. Getting compile errors on a kernel build after specifically naming a chipset isn't ideal.

As an aside, on FreeBSD you just need to change into the Aureal directory in ports and do make && make install to get working sound with this card. Even though it's obsolete, every version of windows i've tried has detected it out of the box.

Re:Which begs two questions..

[msimm]

Well unless you left something off or I missed something your chipset is listed as supported. I used a Vortex based card myself for years (Monster) under Linux (I use SB now for the easy support).

Here's a link to the original project (it was merged into the ALSA project):

savannah.nongnu.org/projects/openvortex/

Its also listed in the ALSA matrix as supported:

www.alsa-project.org

My advice would be (and you'll probably hate this) to NOT use Gentoo unless your idea of a relaxing afternoon is digging into the heart of how things work. I've been using Linux for at least 5 years now and I prefer Mandrake because (aside from MandrakeSoft making all their additions GPL) it has great auto configuration and hardware detection.

Before you go crazy at me, you can always try one of their live disks (MandrakeMove) out first and see if it works okay for you.

MandrakeMove

Sometimes easier isn't lame, its productive.

Re:Which begs two questions..

[AliasTheRoot]

I eventually fixed it by switching from the Gentoo 2.6 Kernel to the Standard 2.6 Kernel.

I prefer Gentoo as I come from *BSD land and portage makes me feel at home & things are laid out in a way I find more comfortable.

Re:Which begs two questions..

[msimm]

I understand, good work getting it fixed.

Re:Linux + Guitar

[BlueStrat]

"Also, for the couple dozen linux guitarists that are out there: what does everyone out there use to reduce hiss in the incoming guitar signal? For that matter, is anyone doing anything more exotic than just running the guitar cable to your soundcard's line in?"

I've had pretty good results recording guitar tracks at home for messing around with using the onboard Intel i810 audio chipset on my desktop computer (NOT pro-level recording, but quite usable for a first demo, tracking/recording ideas, etc., my band had a pro recording engineer/soundtruck come out to do our first CD 2 weeks ago..Macs and ProTools there [drool]) using a Digitech Genesis 1 (under $100 USD). It has a 3-level noise gate, and line and instrument level outs. I was quite pleasantly surprised at the results, especially since I play a Strat w/single-coil pickups. Much of your noise reduction (assuming you've done the basics, like avoiding playng near noise sources like CRTs, etc.) will involve how you set levels, and using the softwares' capabilities to reduce/filter remaining noise artifacts, in that order. Experimentation here is the rule of the day, as there are so many variables that what works for one persons' setup/environment may not work for someone elses'. Hope that helps :).

Strat

then bug Aardvark

[halfelven]

Send them an email, ask them to support Linux, etc.
They don't have to write the driver themselves. Often, a company will sit on their card's specs and not release them to the open source community. This will prevent a free driver to be written.

JAMin

[halfelven]

lack of familiar professional mixing/software

Have you looked at JAMin?

contact the manufacturers

[halfelven]

If the customers don't ask them to support Linux, how would they become aware of the need?

Re:contact the manufacturers

[mirko]

We were plenty to beg Yamaha...
This is the reason why they opened the 01X, but not the SW1000XG.

good sound card

[halfelven]

MAudio

You're probably thinking about Audiophile 2496, or maybe even the Delta 1010LT.
Still, the "big" Delta 1010 (not the LT) is perhaps better, since it has balanced analog. But it's more expensive (about $600).

Re:good sound card

[norkakn]

eh, it is more like "balanced" analog (the XLRs on the LT are basically the same thing). That being said, I have an LT and absolutely love it, I haven't a nice enough room where it really makes a difference (most places, even semi pro and some pro don't either, balancing only really comes into play on long runs.)

If I do go hardcore and want to expand, I'll get a good mixer with balanced inputs and maybe a second 1010lt, if I were ever to outgrow that I really ought to open up a studio

IF you have either, rock on and enjoy them though (-: much better than SB or related crap

MOTU..

[Marc2k]

Out of curiosity why are MOTU cards not supported? A friend of mine uses a 24-channel I/O card of theirs, and I was just wondering.

Re:MOTU..

[Chris Cannam]

> Out of curiosity why are MOTU cards not supported?

Oh, the usual reasons. MOTU don't want their cards to work with Linux, probably because they have a big investment in dedicated software to go with their hardware on other platforms. They won't release specifications, and they've been actively hostile towards any approach from developers offering to support them for free.

not Ardour but Rosegarden

[halfelven]

Muse is comparable with Rosegarden, not with Ardour.

Muse and Rosegarden are sequencers (MIDI and stuff), while Ardour is a DAW (digital multitrack sound recorder).

multichannel sound is fine, thank you

[halfelven]

Linux still has trouble supporting [...] more-than-2 channel support for sound

Are you kidding?

Hardware: Linux has perfect support for cards such as RME and MAudio which offer multichannel support, 8 channels per card or more. There are people using multiple cards in one computer, having 16 or more channels active at the same time.

Drivers: ALSA works fine with many channels at the same time.

Software: Ardour can use how many sound tracks in parallel? A couple hundred? :-) (not that the CPU will keep up with it anyway)

Re:Linux + Guitar

[Blahbbs]

I second the JACKRack suggestion. I tried ecamegapedal, but its interface was confusing to me. JACKRack is simple and makes it easy to chain multiple LADSPA plugins.

Four years behind BeOS

[objekt]

And it's all your fault!

Re:MUSE now has VST Support !!!!!

[Desval]

Maybe I missed the point....From what I understand VST is only a specification for a plugin (platform independant specification). From there you would have both Mac and PC versions of the same plugin. How can a plugin that is compiled for PowerPC run on an Intel processor (unless they're all written in something like Java, scary thought). Not to mention the user interfaces for each need to make API calls specific to each operating system (Carbon vs. Win32). This is the one area where Muse still has a few problems since it relies on Wine to provide access to a Win32 compatible subsystem.

I guess that if you a VST that had no display to control parameters, you could run it under either Mac or PC, but then again you will still run into the instruction set issue.

I've seen plenty of VSTs that are only available for either Mac or Windows, but not both. Drives me nuts.

Of course I could be completely off base on this one, but from what I understand, a VST has to be compiled for a specific platform (granted you can target Mac and Windows, but now every vendor does this).

Wonderful

[Fancia]

...if I could use it. Unfortunately, my bugreport that it is entirely broken under PowerPC has been ignored, as have requests both by myself and other people to have an option to run with JACK disabled. For many people, JACK is not only unnecessary, but difficult or impossible to use; it makes using MusE itself difficult, since it now *depends* on JACK even if only pure MIDI is to be used.

Re:Wonderful

[spamatica]

I'm sorry that you feel you have been ignored, I like to think this isn't so.
Please remember these things take time, we are not able to work full time on this project.

As for the current MusE running only with Jack, we have received numerous requests to bring back the standalone mode. And believe me, we take it seriously. But for 0.7.0 it was just not an option to put it back in. Nothing has been decided but I would think there is a strong chance it'll be back in one of the coming point releases.

As for the PPC problem, the one "dangling" problem I can remember is that MusE supposedly no longer starts under PPC/Linux. I'll freely admit that I don't have much clues to what this problem is but I did send a request to try a small patch so I do think I atleast tried.
The message is here:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg _id=8614229

Re:No manual scam.

[abe ferlman]

It's GPL'd - write your own manual or use the source. Or use the slightly scrambled manual they provide.

I use Ardour, and I haven't paid for the manual (yet).

SoundFonts?

[ghostlibrary]

So, as a complete idiot here... can any of these setups under Linux use SoundFonts (like the Proteus ones, e.g. http://www.soundfont.com/cds/mmbundle.asp Module Mania Bundle)?

I'd love to be able to ditch my Proteus racks and put my PC in instead, if this is the case. $99 for 5 modules instead of $80/rack would be great!

Let me know?

Re:SoundFonts?

[spamatica]

Yep,
soundfonts are actually well supported under Linux, both through hardware (sb-live etc) and through software, Fluidsynth, Timidity,etc. MusE has integrated support for Fluidsynth which means all loading/saving of patch information etc is stored in the song-file making it very easy to use.

Propellerheads-Reason-alike running on Linux?

[sbaum]

I'd *really* like to see something like Propellerheads' Reason running on Linux...

Dyne : Bolic

[LuSiDe]

http://www.dynebolic.org

By one of the developers of MusE IIRC. I know some artists who've used it, and who liked it.