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

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