On 09/02/2009 11:30 PM, Niklas Klügel wrote: > cunnilinux himself schrieb: > >>> Some people here (more or less) desperately need a similar application for linux. >>> >>> >> off topic, but... >> people in linux audio scene always DESPERATELY need something just >> like a copy of some fancy (commercial) app on win/mac. >> that's the main and only reason why linux is (semi-)deficient in the >> pro audio world. >> >> >> > just to add my 2 cents... > > regarding monolithic vs. modular (across applications): > while the latter (theoretically) allows for more flexibility of > processing, akin to the proven unix-concepts of pipelining (and > therefore the development of something jack-alike for audio/video etc > became an obvious evolution for -primarily- LAU/D), it does not allow > for certain common concepts in the workflow of composition and dsp. > technically - or at least _without hassle_. those include nearly all > operations that: > 1a) allow you to temporarily bounce (aka freezing) parts of the signal > chain (tracks, single processed clips, subchannels) - thus saving cpu > cycles in rather complex arrangements. > 1b) keep sequencing and time-information on > processed/bounced/re-recorded material > 1c) saving disk-space and processing time by recording only the > necessary parts of the bounce while still being a proper/correct bounce. > 2) modifying a group of modules in the signal chain and the sequence > data e.g. cloning, deleting, replacing etc. > 3) exchange meta-information such as the set of notes in a track to e.g. > allow samplers to efficiently just load the samples needed to play the > track, prefetching large chunks of audio-data or sub-track tempi for > sync'd f/x. > 4) limit the amount of organization in 1x) and mixing units > (pre-/post-fx or mixer or sub-channels and modulation sources across tracks) > I am sure you can come up with some more. Those are all points taken > care of in halfway sane, up-to-date DAWs that are monolithic and points > like 1& 2 are basic editing operations that - for me - increase the > efficiency by a factor of 4 in time spent fiddling with the arrangement. > The early versions of Ableton didnt do 1) for example and my time spent > on organizing heavy arrangements (30-50 tracks with lots of automated > f/x) was unbearable, not to mention that the quality of execution of the > sequencing and composition itself suffered due to that. > 5) of course easy recall of chains(+sequence data) etc > These points are of conceptual nature. > > regarding supercollider&csound vs ableton: > the power of sc3&csound lies exactly in their monolithic nature, the > deep integration of sequencing (and processing sequences) and signal > processing. This has nearly nothing to do with the principle of > interconnecting rather autarkic applications needles to say jack. > > I don't want to comment too much on the state of LA and don't want to be > unjust to the devs. From my developer-view most technologies and > libraries are pretty much awesome, technically sound and well-written. > But even if I decided that I did not want to use my (commercial) f/x and > synths anymore and wrote my dsp stuff in supercollider I wouldnt be able > to get even close to the quality and efficiency of a workflow that is > common for me. > > Now, to get to the peak of my flamboyant troll-post: > To ignorantly summarize: there are mainly two opinions of LAD, one is > about scratching your own itch and putting something together as > greatest common divisor that puts all parts into some kind of context. > The other is to create a solution for professional audio/composition and > whatnot. Both offer a solution for music-production (it does not > necessarily matter whether monolithic or modular; modular implies more > communication and specification, though) but the latter involves doing > your homework right. To state more precisely, as a dev you _have_ to > engage with commercial tools to understand the current state of art of > the music-production workflow. In fact ,I wished that most LAD-devs > produced more music that push their but more importantly the commercial > tools to their limits to see what the necessities for such a > professional F/OSS audio-production solution are. Because from judging > from most tools, I see a severe lack thereof - especially emphasizing > the workflow. Otherwise you will always have to face ppl mistaking the > set of tools as professional audio solution and wining about it or the > lack of integration (native, virtualized, whatever) of commercial tools. > Don't take me wrong, I personally don't believe in most commercial tools > as being the peak of music-technology. In fact, even conceptually, I > think that most concepts of visualizing, interacting and processing > musical events is entirely wrong. > > Great post. You have summarised the current state of LA "things" very well.. I would like to add that state of the art is a difficult mark to keep up with especially when you are not being paid to care about it. What I see happening is a gradual expansion of the level of expertise and resources available for development. Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
