Re: [LAU] off topic (was: Re: ableton live in vmware)

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.

niklas

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Wed Sep 2 20:15:01 2009