Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ardour & snd: the saga begins
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Mon May 15 2000 - 05:32:38 EEST
>> i mean come on: put the pieces together: quasimodo, softwerk,
>> hammerfall driver, ardour (+ snd): what is it you think i'm doing
>> here, eh ?
>
>Well, there is a subtle distinction. You're working from the studio
>angle; I'm dreaming from the performance angle. The one piece from
>your puzzle that obviously fits right into mine is Quasimodo. And
>the portability requirement constrains my hardware options quite a
>bit.
well, thats true right now. but i started writing this stuff for my
own music/sound creation activities, with a total emphasis on live
performance. i view my work with rittenhouse recording as, other than
a chance to hang out with a good friend of mine, a way to get a focus
on the process that doesn't come from building "bedroom apps". jim
(who owns the studio) is used to using equipment by people like
mackie, alesis, focusrite, eventide, lexicon, tascam - he's not going
to approve of something that doesn't work. on the other hand, he
understands that software gets developed over time and has plenty of
bugs/design gotchas for quite a while: he can provide encouragement
that is needed, and space for the stuff to grow as well.
>I want a box that is sturdy and reliable enough to haul around in a
>rack with my bass amp. I don't know *what* kind of interface it
>would have! I've thought of doing it as a laptop with a USB audio /
>midi interface, but I'd rather have a rackmount... I just don't
>trust laptops that much.
Rackmounts are great. I use cases from appro.com. Extremely solid
(1/8" steel) construction. I've hauled "dhin", my own machine around
in the car, it goes in and out of racks, and its doing fine. I don't
think that any computer can ever be as sturdy as a non-surface mounted
electrical device, but this is pretty good. Damn heavy though.
one other option that makes a certain amount of sense is to an
external drive case, and don't put any disks in the rackmount
chassis. then you can get a 1U or 2U chassis, and just keep the disks
in their own tower (or chassis, but these tend to cost).
> So then some sort of monitor & control is
>needed.
The monitor is a weak link. Presumably an LCD screen would be best,
but they tend to be small, and very costly in terms of
$/unit-of-viewing-area. your laptop idea has some appeal.
appro do make a rack mount monitor-(case?), but its not light weight,
and not particularly small.
>If this type of system could be done well for under, say, $3,000 I
>think there would be a substantial market for it.
Not under $3K. dhin cost me around $5K, and the studio system was
about the same if you factor out the 60GB of disk space. If you want
good components, ie. stability, reliability, you have to pay for it.
the CPU cost was a small fraction of that: a good motherboard (dual is
key), 10Krpm SCSI disks, a big monitor ... these are the cash-eaters.
but look: an 8-track Alesis M20 ADAT costs $3-5K street, and the new
HDR system from Mackie costs $4k street. We're talking about a system
that can do all that, and run emacs, for a bit more. Also, the Mackie
system doesn't include the monitor, if i recall correctly.
>One thing I just thought of: Commercial FX boxes don't have to run
>fsck every time a drunk guy trips over the power cord. I guess
>there's nothing to be done but add a UPS to the requirements for my
>system...
yup. vital for live situations.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon May 15 2000 - 06:17:15 EEST