New MusE Release, A Step Toward The Linux Studio

Exciting.. by superhoe · 2004-07-18 23:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--

-el

Re:Exciting.. by abe+ferlman · 2004-07-19 00:19 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Re:Exciting.. by zerblat · 2004-07-19 01:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

--
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
Re:Exciting.. by Unknown+Lamer · 2004-07-19 01:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Ardour

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

--

HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
Re:Exciting.. by Ricdude · 2004-07-19 03:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL

Finally, by Lispy · 2004-07-18 23:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

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, by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-07-18 23:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

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...

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:Finally, by Threni · 2004-07-18 23:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

> 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, by tolan-b · 2004-07-19 00:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

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, by LizardKing · 2004-07-19 00:05 · Score: 5, Informative

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, by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-19 00:59 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

It looks fully functional but.. by alex_ware · 2004-07-18 23:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--
If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.

Re:It looks fully functional but.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-18 23:39 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by Saven+Marek · 2004-07-18 23:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by proj_2501 · 2004-07-18 23:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Dylan2000 · 2004-07-18 23:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

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??"

--
Build your own website - full service homepage system your m
Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked by kfg · 2004-07-18 23:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by pesc · 2004-07-19 00:24 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--

)9TSS
Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked by Kiryat+Malachi · 2004-07-19 00:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--

---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked by LizardKing · 2004-07-19 00:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by ajs318 · 2004-07-19 01:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.)

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:This is where Apple has traditionally worked by clifyt · 2004-07-19 02:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-19 02:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

ardour? by MancunianMaskMan · 2004-07-18 23:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

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? by JohnWilliams · 2004-07-18 23:45 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
Professional Idiot

Re:still no vst support... by Queuetue · 2004-07-18 23:34 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by Zorilla · 2004-07-18 23:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

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)

--

It would be cool if it didn't suck.

Re:Pushing for multimedia power in Linux by AliasTheRoot · 2004-07-18 23:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

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:Thats nice by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-07-18 23:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Copies of the changelog by djcapelis · 2004-07-18 23:46 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
I touch computers in naughty places

Me alone? by ceeam · 2004-07-18 23:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:Linux + Guitar by ptaff · 2004-07-18 23:54 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

I've been waiting for MIDI... by no+longer+myself · 2004-07-19 00:03 · Score: 3, Informative

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.)

Rosegarden by javilon · 2004-07-19 00:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

How does Muse compare to Rosegarden?

--

When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."

Re:Rosegarden by Chris+Cannam · 2004-07-19 01:52 · Score: 5, Informative

> 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... by nmoog · 2004-07-19 00:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Re:Interesting by Tarential · 2004-07-19 00:21 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Re:Thats nice by 13Echo · 2004-07-19 00:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by ignatus · 2004-07-19 00:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

Re:Linux + Guitar by ScottGant · 2004-07-19 00:27 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.

Yes, but... by Ed+Avis · 2004-07-19 00:35 · Score: 3, Funny

Does it run on SuSE?

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com

Re:VSTi support?? by wulfhound · 2004-07-19 00:39 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Editing music without a MIDI keyboard by ElMiguel · 2004-07-19 00:40 · Score: 2, Informative

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?

Close, but no cigar by iamdrscience · 2004-07-19 00:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by Lumpy · 2004-07-19 02:36 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:VSTi support?? by spamatica · 2004-07-19 00:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

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!

Yamaha UX16 USB Midi works w/ Linux by bach37 · 2004-07-19 00:50 · Score: 2, Informative

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:Thats nice by mabinogi · 2004-07-19 00:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Advanced users are users too!

Check out PlanetCCRMA by theManInTheYellowHat · 2004-07-19 02:03 · Score: 3, Informative

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!!!

OT: Linux replacement for Cakewalk by Zebbers · 2004-07-19 02:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Korg Triton Extreme USB Midi and USB Storage by KodaK · 2004-07-19 03:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.

Re:VSTi support?? by soliptic · 2004-07-19 07:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 ;)

Slashdot Mirror

New MusE Release, A Step Toward The Linux Studio

52 of 250 comments (clear)