Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 10th Aug 2002 05:42 UTC
Multimedia, AV Browsing Freshmeat tonight, the premier online Linux software repository, I came across to these two great (and brand new) applications, ReBorn and ReZound. Reborn, a Rebirth clone that will soon become open source according to the developer, provides a software emulation of three of Roland's most famous electronic musical instruments. It got me thinking as to how much more viable Linux is today as a professional (or semi-professional) audio platform than it used to be two years ago. Update: On a related multimedia notice, WinAMP 3.0 for Windows was released yesterday.
Order by: Score:
Maya for Linux
by my-parents-forgot-to-gave-me-one on Sat 10th Aug 2002 07:48 UTC

>or Maya/Cinema4D/Bryce/etc or a really professional DTP >system, or something with the power of >Illustrator/FireWorks/Freehand.

AFAIK Maya is also available for Linux

Re: Maya for Linux
by Androo on Sat 10th Aug 2002 07:55 UTC

Yep. Maya has been on Linux since Maya 3.

RE: Maya for Linux
by Eugenia on Sat 10th Aug 2002 07:57 UTC

According to their store, they do not sell the Linux version via it (can't find it anywhere). I found an updater for Linux, for an older version of Maya though, and that's all I could find for it. The new version, that also distributes freely as "personal learning edition" is only available for OSX and Windows. Not sure what is the deal with Linux and Maya these days. They do not seem to be proactive anymore about it.

Maya for Linux
by rajan r on Sat 10th Aug 2002 08:37 UTC

Linux is being picked up more and more in studios (Pixar, Dreamworks, even Lucas)...

However, I don't think Maya is that serious about Linux. I don't know why, but for Mac OS X and Windows, it has ample information. Even though Mac OS X has 3.5, while Windows 4.5. Personally, I think AW should take their money from OS X and put it in Linux because there would be more investment returns - Macs as they are right now aren't suitable for professional 3D graphics (e.g. Do they have Quaddro4 or Matrox cards available for the PowerMac?)

Architecture missing
by robUx4 on Sat 10th Aug 2002 08:38 UTC

Well, Linux can be seen as a good platform for network or 3D. But not audio AT ALL ! It's deeply missing 2 key elements of modern audio programs : an equivalent to DirectShow and an equivalent to VST.

So all these guys are always reinventing the wheel, and not concentrating on a real multimedia API that everyone will use...

Gstreamer could be that but relys on GTK too much (who needs a screen for audio ;) . I also have good faith in what OBOS could be : the open multimedia platform. Maybe later the superior API (sort of) could be ported to Linux.

At least it's good to see all these code resources that could be used in a bigger thing someday ;)

I'm not sure
by alexd on Sat 10th Aug 2002 08:39 UTC

I'm not sure if I would consider Rebirth the epitomization of "professional audio." Linux needs better support for pro sound hardware and a lot of work on the software side of things - i.e. a real competitor against Pro Tools, Logic, and Cubase. Audacity and ProTux etc. really don't cut it - they're fine for recording onto a Sound Blaster or whatever, but not for laying down 16 simultaneous tracks of no-latency 24/96 audio along with 8 tracks of MIDI. Linux would make a great audio platform if it had better vendor support; there's no technical reason it couldn't be better than the Mac. But it appears that Digidesign/Steinberg/(Apple/Emagic)/etc. are too busy porting to OS X to give Linux much notice. The lack of pro sound hardware for Linux also leads to a chicken & egg problem: No hardware support means no software to run on that hardware, which means no hardware. Without vendor support, I don't think Linux could ever be a viable option in this field except for the price-conscious. (Of whom there are admittedly many... but they are not the pro users.)

Alex

Alsa...
by Isaac Shaeffer on Sat 10th Aug 2002 09:25 UTC

What exactly are the limitations Of alsa ?

Re: alexd
by stew on Sat 10th Aug 2002 09:25 UTC

Check out Ardour, that one's supposed to be capable of multitrack 24/96 recording.

The forgotten ones: There are some more MIDI sequencers of different flavors like Brahms or Jazz, aRts is a modular Synthesizer and then there are of course CSound and PD.

As always, I am a little surprised as why those developers don't join their efforts and work on one sequencer instead of ten and why everyone's so focused on Linux when one could write free audio software also for Windows or MacOS, where you already have decent hardware support and software around it (those MIDI sequencers would be a lot more fun if I could use Dynamo with it).

In related news: SuperCollider for MacOS is freeware now, see http://www.audiosynth.com/

Re: Architecture missing
by TonyMontana on Sat 10th Aug 2002 09:32 UTC

robUx4 I think you need to read up on GStreamer. GStreamer uses GObject and the signal/slot mechanism of GTK+ to construct a directed graph where media data is processed.

RE: Maya for Linux
by Fooks on Sat 10th Aug 2002 09:33 UTC

Not sure what is the deal with Linux and Maya these days. They do not seem to be proactive anymore about it.

Don't jump to conclusions that fast. Maya is definitely getting bigger on Linux. Just check out the Maya 4.5 Preview page:

http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/products/maya/whatsnew/v4.5/index....

Of course you should not expect any mention of this on Freshmeat ;-)

fooks

VST equivalent
by Anonymous on Sat 10th Aug 2002 09:39 UTC

A VST equivalent is LADSPA (Linux Audio Developer's Simple Plugin API)

ProTux is an interesting Multitrack recorder. http://protux.sourceforge.net

And the mother of all Linux sound apps page http://sound.condorow.net

Adobe Premier
by KAMiKAZOW on Sat 10th Aug 2002 10:19 UTC

The app is called Premiere, not Premier.
see http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/main.html

shaketracker provides a mod interface for making midifiles
by Taavi Burns on Sat 10th Aug 2002 14:48 UTC

The shaketracker program provides a similar interface to cheesetracker (in fact, they're both written by the same developer), but outputs MIDI files.

Unfortunatly, they don't seem to be standard MIDI files, and Windows Media Player doesn't like them. TiMIDIty renders them perfectly, though.

JACK
by kamikaze on Sat 10th Aug 2002 15:17 UTC

Don't forget The JACK Audio Connection Kit,
mighty handy ;)

http://jackit.sf.net

Bryce alternative
by Joeri Sebrechts on Sat 10th Aug 2002 15:23 UTC

If more people donate to blender it could get gpl'd. Sure, blender isn't the best 3D-design app in the world, but it's not bad.

http://www.blender3d.com/
Only 40k to go.

What about glame????
by Anonymous on Sat 10th Aug 2002 15:34 UTC

I noticed one glaring omission, glame the GNU/LINUX Audio Mechanics. Never used it myself but i dont see how it could not be included in this list.

http://www.bright.net/~dlphilp/linuxsound/

I have used snd for Linux - a bit of a learning curve,
but very powerful.

Cecilia
by Bryan on Sat 10th Aug 2002 16:48 UTC

A lesser known, but truly professional sound creation and manipulation tool is Cecilia - http://www.musique.umontreal.ca/electro/CEC/. It provides a GUI for CSound but goes much much farther than that.

It is suited equally well for "scientific" sound engineering and for Aphex-Twin style mutilations of sampled sound.

a note on doing your research
by Dave Phillips on Sat 10th Aug 2002 17:00 UTC

Thanks for writing an article that brings some focus to Linux audio matters, but:

No mention of LADSPA, no mention of the Linux Audio Developers and Linux Audio Users mail lists, no mention of the Linux Sound & Music Applications Web site. No mention of the Ultramaster RS101 or the (alas, defunct) Freebirth. I'm glad to see some news on the state of Linux audio, but it saddens me to consider how much you missed. A simple Google search on "Linux sound" would have turned up my site very quickly, and you could have been led to considerably more information for your article. A ReBirth clone is hardly the revolution in Linux audio it's touted to be, but you might think so if you're not doing deep enough research. Ardour, ecasound, Jack, Pd, ALSA itself... all these are far more serious developments.

Sorry if I'm coming off harsh, but I'm annoyed when I see no mention of LAD or LAU. We're not invisible, but it seems like a lot of journalists who write on this really don't do much background research. Btw, there's also no mention that I've already written one book about Linux sound software. A review of that book sits on Freshmeat. I should also point out that I wrote the audio category review for Freshmeat too. I'd like to think you at least noticed those items when you were browsing the site.

So, thanks again for bringing some attention to the Linux audio software scene, but maybe in your next article you'll look a bit further into the community behind it. We'd be happy to point out the software of greatest development and interest.

Agnula
by CuppaJoe on Sat 10th Aug 2002 18:08 UTC

Don't forget about the linux distro being built from the ground up with pro-audio in mind...

http://www.agnula.org

RE: a note on doing your research
by Eugenia on Sat 10th Aug 2002 18:44 UTC

> Btw, there's also no mention that I've already written one book about Linux sound software.

No, there is not a mention of any books, neither I will mention projects that half-work or do not work at all, like FreeBirth.

Also, I tried to cover *applications*, NOT libraries, or architectures like ALSA. Also, I do mention Ardour.

>No mention of LADSPA, no mention of the Linux Audio Developers and Linux Audio Users mail lists

Even if I knew about these, I would still not mention them in that specific article. This article was just a mentioning of applications that someone could download and install and play with them immediately.

This web site is not about audio, it is about operating systems, therefore, when I want to get a bigger breath and do something fun, like this article, you don't have to stick it in my ass. You should even be happy that I did wrote as much as I wrote there, and made the Linux audio more known to a wider audience.

You need to go out more.

GDAM
by Anonymous on Sat 10th Aug 2002 18:47 UTC

You neglected to mention GDAM, an OSS digital dj mixing software package.

http://gdam.sf.net/

GLAME
by Clinton Ebadi on Sat 10th Aug 2002 19:13 UTC

You seem to have forgotten glame at http://glame.sf.net . It is one of the better editors for GNU/Linux. One of the nifty features is that it uses 32 bits per sample instead of 16 (this is supposed to be faster because it doesn't have to split words apart), so when you edit you are editing a copy with more range, so when you down sample you lose less quality from the filters. You can also have an arbitrary number of channels per track and other nice stuff like excellent plugin support (native plugins, LADSPA plugins, and Scheme plugins [yes, it _will_ work with Guile 1.5/6.x and 1.7.x because I sent patches that were accepted a while ago that made it compile and run with Guile 1.5.6 and 1.7.0, while still working with Guile 1.4]). The biggest weakness right now is the timeline--it is basically useless right now. But the rest of it works very well.

You also seem to have left off snd ( http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/software/snd/ ), one of the most powerful audio editors available (it is really difficult to use, although there is a person working on set of Scheme scripts to make it more friendly).

RE: a note on doing your research
by Dave Phillips on Sat 10th Aug 2002 19:50 UTC

> neither I will mention projects that half-work or do not
> work at all, like FreeBirth.

Freebirth does work. Alas, it isn't maintained and it could definitely use a File Save function. But it has great sound and is very easy to use.

> This web site is not about audio, it is about operating
> systems, therefore, when I want to get a bigger breath
> and do something fun, like this article, you don't have to
> stick it in my ass. You should even be happy that I
> did wrote as much as I wrote there, and made the Linux
> audio more known to a wider audience.
>
> You need to go out more.

My apologies, I thought I had written "Thanks" in there somewhere... I also didn't think my message was an ad hominem attack, I'm sorry you took it like that. So, following your advice, I'm going out now.

Did the author actually "use" these applications?
by Anonymous on Sat 10th Aug 2002 19:54 UTC

I don't think the author even tried to run all of the applications that are listed. If he did he would of realized that many of them are not usable. For example:

* Ardour is wonderful in concept but it fails as an end user application. Ardour doesn't really work and it is a major pain to compile and install it. The author of Ardour basically admits that "this is a feature", that the program is in beta, if you aren't leet enough to install it you don't deserve to use it. Talk about serious attitude.

* LAoE doesn't work on my machines. It is a Java program and it fails to even startup on my Linux box with Sun's Java. I'm sure it works for someone but none of my friends can get it to run either.

I think there is a serious problem with the quality of Linux software reviews. I think since most everything is open source and free the journalist's feel bad if they criticize. So we end up with fluff and vapor that really don't help Linux win over users.

Re:Agnula
by m on Sat 10th Aug 2002 20:26 UTC

>>
Don't forget about the linux distro being built from the ground up with pro-audio in mind...
>>

It seems like AGNULA is not an standalone Linux distro, but a RedHat based one ------> the RedHat ReHMuDi Linux distro.


Quote (http://www.agnula.org/news/project/deliverables_and_documents/1.2.2...):

"The ReHMuDi distribution will stick as close as possible to a standard distribution, and the set of AGNULA tools will be bundled in an Anaconda.

The installation will therefore be performed thru the classical Red Hat graphical interface, and the default/recommended installation mode will imply the default selection of the AGNULA - Anaconda package.

Selecting the 'choose packages' option will allow the more experienced user to individually select specific components, having inter application dependencies still
automatically resolved.

...

Kernel

Some patches have to be applied to the kernel, in order to get the low latency capabilities.
Sound processing applications require a high degree of real time performance.
This is done by reducing the time interval at which interrupts are checked and granted, so that system/kernel critical tasks gain access to ressources more quickly
and see an increase in their effectiveness.

A known problem of stock Linux kernels with respect to real-time performance is the latency peaks that can occur under heavy load condition. This is highly problematic within the context of AGNULA because it prohibits efficient use of the real-time audio applications that will be packaged (JACK, Ardour, jMax, PD...).

A solution to this problem have been developped and exists as a number of patches to the Linux kernel, known as the žlow-latencyÓ patches.
A whitepaper (written by Clark Williams) exists on this very specific topic, and many contributors to this feature are Red Hat employees.
This whitepaper is attached after this document in the email.
Patched kernels have already been packaged as RPM and will be included in ReHMuDi.

The ReHMuDi installer will install low-latency patched kernel as well as standard kernels. The GRUB boot loader will be configured in order to propose at boot time
choice between the low-latency patched kernel and the standard kernel.

The inclusion of low-latency patched kernel in the distribution will require carefull
tests of this kernel, as it has not been used yet as a base for Linux distribution."


So if I haven't missunderstood, the AGNULA distribution is more exactly the RedHat ReHMuDi distribution with the AGNULA packages in. Not an OS by itself but another RedHat flavour, though all opensource projects will benefit:

Libre Software Copyright/Licensing recommendations (http://www.agnula.org/news/project/deliverables_and_documents/1.3.1...):

"2 Rules in the AGNULA distribution.

Software licenses may vary radically with regard to issues of copyright, distribution, and even usage. Therefore the AGNULA project distinguishes between four softwarelicensing
categories:

1. Free Software under a GPL-compatible Copyleft license approved by the Free Software Foundation.
2. Free Software under a GPL-compatible non-Copyleft license approved by the FSF.
3. Free Software under a GPL-incompatible license approved by the FSF.
4. Proprietary Software.

...


2.1 Rules for including software in the AGNULA distribution.

AGNULAís primary definition of Free Software is that of the Free Software Foundation.
Software licensed under categories 1 to 3 may be included without legal issue in the core AGNULA distribution although category 1 will be preferred. For documentation,
categories 1 and 2 are acceptable for inclusion in AGNULA.


3 Copyright Rules

The aim of the AGNULA project is to provide two GNU/Linux distributions, entirely based on Free Software. To ensure persistence and longevity of the work within the AGNULA IST project, it will be important to provide adequate measures to protect this work."


-------------------------------------------
CONCLUSIONS (1 out of 5?)
-------------------------------------------
- RedHad+AGNULA=ReHMuDi
- ReHMuDi=mostly GPLed software
- Mostly GPLed software=That is always Free Software
- Free Software=only RedHat can figure out how to make that profitable.
- Only RedHat can figure out how to make that profitable=I'm downloading ReHMuDi 1st day it's released.

thinking it over
by m on Sat 10th Aug 2002 21:43 UTC

AGNULA will be shipped with RedHat's ReHMuDi as the project test base distro, but looking at the software licensing rules nothing prevents any other distro from taking the AGNULA packages and directly make their low-latency Linux media OS with those: MaNMuDi?, SuSuDi? (hey, Sushi Linux), ...

Re: Architecture missing
by Anonymous on Sat 10th Aug 2002 22:07 UTC

>>>robUx4: "Gstreamer could be that but relys on GTK too much (who needs a screen for audio ;) ."

Wrong! Gstreamer relies on glib which is the foundation of gtk+ as well but has by itself nothing to do with a "screen".
BTW if you want to do audio processing with a computer you better think twice if you ommit the screen 8)

RE: thinking it over
by CuppaJoe on Sat 10th Aug 2002 22:11 UTC


> AGNULA will be shipped with RedHat's ReHMuDi as the project test base distro, but looking at the
> software licensing rules nothing prevents any other distro from taking the AGNULA packages and
> directly make their low-latency Linux media OS with those: MaNMuDi?, SuSuDi? (hey, Sushi Linux), ...

I don't see why one could not take all the appropriate packages and a low-latency kernel and beat AGNULA
to the punch. In fact, the AGNULA team has another test base distro, DeMuDi (based on Debian) for those
who prefer debs over rpm. What might be really interesting would be if someone could get some of this software
running on the so-called hobby os's, such as Atheos or Cosmoe.

RE: thinking it over
by CuppaJoe on Sat 10th Aug 2002 22:12 UTC


> AGNULA will be shipped with RedHat's ReHMuDi as the project test base distro, but looking at the
> software licensing rules nothing prevents any other distro from taking the AGNULA packages and
> directly make their low-latency Linux media OS with those: MaNMuDi?, SuSuDi? (hey, Sushi Linux), ...

I don't see why one could not take all the appropriate packages and a low-latency kernel and beat AGNULA
to the punch. In fact, the AGNULA team has another test base distro, DeMuDi (based on Debian) for those
who prefer debs over rpm. What might be really interesting would be if someone could get some of this software
running on the so-called hobby os's, such as Atheos or Cosmoe.

what makes linux so cool?
by kyle on Sat 10th Aug 2002 22:25 UTC

ok, enough is enough. why are people constantly talking about how linux is for this, or how rad it is for that. something tells me that you could run audio software on linux, bsd, macos, windows, whatever, and it would sound exactly the same. what makes linux so awesome? i think that linux has turned into more of a buzzword than anything else, OH MY GOD IT'S LINUX IT MUST BE GOOD. REVERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! give me a break. linux is an operating system. one might argue that it's better for server's than it is for desktops (and i would agree) or that it's the os of the future, but in the end, there's a reason that windows has almost a 100% market share. no, it's not because of the EVIL EMPIRE or because bill is greedy, it's because anyone can install windows, and anyone can get online and check their e-mail using it. it just works, you don't need to read binary and sh*t c++ to get it to boot. linux has it's place, it really does make a nice server. IF you know how to get it going.

RE: what makes linux so cool?
by Eugenia on Sat 10th Aug 2002 22:29 UTC

I never said that Linux is great. I am not a great fan of Linux anyway. I personally preffer FreeBSD. And for audio in general, I like BeOS much better, thank you very much.

The article is called "Professional Audio Closer to Linux" not "Professional Audio is better on Linux".

You are way off topic and out of sync in your comment and I suggest you take a big breath.

RE: what makes linux so cool?
by m on Sat 10th Aug 2002 22:44 UTC

kyle, Linux is hackable to the maximum >> it is mostly opensourced, some distros a 100%. It's getting quite usable in more platforms than you may know. And sometimes free of any charge.

No one here has said about Linux any of the things you have pointed out so histerically. People here use Linux, Windows, DOS, BSDs, BeOS, Amiga, MacOS, OSX, ...any OS. So clear your ideas, read the topic and ***most*** important: cool yourself a bit.

Re: Architecture missing
by mimo on Sat 10th Aug 2002 23:35 UTC

Hey dude,
you are missing the point. ALSA is by far a better system than let's say VST or DirectX. Just that you don't know it can't be an excuse...
(ever done some audi programming yourself? - never seen Qbase crash?)

Steinberg has never been known to ship rock solid software.

Well, maybe Cubase on the Atari ST was pretty solid, back when programmers were intelligent.

I haven't heard anything about Cubase SX yet.

#m

ReBorn a rebirth clone
by YNOP on Sun 11th Aug 2002 06:54 UTC

How is it that they are getting away with this. I recall that a few years back there was another app (Bamboo) that was also a 'clone' of rebirth and the company threatend to sue them if the released it.

If i remember right bamboo was pritty much full featured but never released.

XRS on BeOS kicks a**
by Rebirth/Reborn on Sun 11th Aug 2002 10:05 UTC

Ive tride Rebirth and done some professional work on the Windows platform, and the BeOS Platform. What ive heard about the linux system is that all the servers can make you cry.

There is a really neat tool for BeOS called XRS, its actually better then Rebirth (Dont look that nice though).
But you can load drumsamples(or any samples) and add effects, change tempo etc. You can also use VST 2 plugins, a VST instrument (Very nice sounding, and free)..
If you want to play/make some nice music Try XRS on the BeOS Platform.
/Konrad

Re: RE: what makes linux so cool?
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Aug 2002 10:23 UTC

>>>Eugenia: "I am not a great fan of Linux anyway. I personally preffer FreeBSD."

I can't see how you could make a difference between these two unless you're doing systems programming. Most user apps are available under both--so for the user it doesn't matter much. In my opinion a statement like this is ridiculous here.

lack of hardware support?
by Andrew Duhan on Sun 11th Aug 2002 15:58 UTC

Linux needs better support for pro sound hardware

The finest digital multitrack interface known to the computer world is *fully* supported under linux (even can with linux drivers in the box)....

The RME Hammerfall DIGI96/52.

24 simultaneous tracks of 24/96 input, full AISO support, realtime monitoring.....

It's great. I have one. I have been forced to install Win2K on another partition, just to run Nuendo (a superior product to ProTools IMO.. it's just a computer-mixing-board and nothing else) and the RME card + Nuendo is amazing.

In Linux, where I live 95% of the day, I have the kernel module installed, I can get and recieve data from the card perfectly... but there's really no app that can even touch Nuendo's excellent abilities.

I've tried every linux multitracker/mixer I can find (about 25-30 apps) and they are all ok for amateurs, but certainly none of them would be fun to use after you have seen Nuendo.

So, the hardware support is there. We need multitracking apps! Ardour is looking good, but it's got a long way to go... Broadcast (now it has a new name) was ok for assembling pre-existing tracks, but it definitely didn't make the process much easier... ProTux has potential, but I can't get it to do anything really useful yet...

I would spend the $1,000 *again* on Nuendo if they had a Linux version.

Re:lack of hardware support?
by stew on Sun 11th Aug 2002 16:06 UTC

I would spend the $1,000 *again* on Nuendo if they had a Linux version.

Why don't you just get over it and use it on Windows? What would be the benefit of running Nuendo on Linux that is worth $1000 to you?

Re: RE: what makes linux so cool?
by Eugenia on Sun 11th Aug 2002 18:24 UTC

>I can't see how you could make a difference between these two unless you're doing systems programming.

KDE launches and behaves faster on FreeBSD 4.5 than on any of my Linxes on the same machine. That is enough for me to know which one I want to use each time.

> In my opinion a statement like this is ridiculous here.

Not in my experience.

$1000
by Anonymous on Mon 12th Aug 2002 07:42 UTC

Perhaps $1000 would make Ardour more competitive more quickly, if you put it in a brown paper bag and give it to the right person. (Not me, I'm too busy and too expensive)

You were kind of vague about why Ardour falls short. Were you just concerned that it's not finished ? Or are there things Nuendo does for you that aren't on Ardour's TODO list ? I personally don't know much about audio, I spent a few hours tinkering with CE2K to get a feel for what's expected at the low end, but the high end is mostly a mystery to me.

Portable library
by Steve Lhomme on Mon 12th Aug 2002 08:03 UTC

If Linux want to succeed in the (pro) audio field, there definitely should be some unification of a multimedia architecture. The OBOS Media Kit could be an option soon (but hardcore Linux fans won't like it since it's sh*t C++).

Also keep in mind that no developper has the time/money to do a plugin for DirectShow, VST and 10 other incompatible architectures. So until someone gets done in the audio community (someone mentioned some mailing lists), nothing will come from the big names. And so the "progress" in audio softwares will be done out of Linux. (while all the rest is focusing on Linux now)

1 good sequencer
by Daniele on Tue 13th Aug 2002 00:37 UTC

That's what is badly needed. In the list there's only a mention to alpha projects like Rosegarden 4. In these comments people mentioned Jazz++ (defunct project), Brahms (dead at release 1.0.2, nobody is answering to the mailing list for months) - Anthem, muse etc. is all in pre-development stages.
A good solid unified project for a serious MIDI sequencer will pose the foundations for the Linux audio. Without this, why anybody doing music with a PC should even think of Linux for his work/hobby ?
This is the sad reality - not to mention the fact that it's even hard to find a good MIDI player, not a sequencer ... In fact, only PMIDI, a command line utility, until now gives me full access with good quality to my MIDI devices:
Port Client name Port name
64:0 External MIDI 0 MIDI 0-0
65:0 Emu10k1 WaveTable Emu10k1 Port 0
65:1 Emu10k1 WaveTable Emu10k1 Port 1
65:2 Emu10k1 WaveTable Emu10k1 Port 2
65:3 Emu10k1 WaveTable Emu10k1 Port 3
72:0 External MIDI 1 MIDI 1-0
73:0 Emu8000 WaveTable Emu8000 Port 0
73:1 Emu8000 WaveTable Emu8000 Port 1
73:2 Emu8000 WaveTable Emu8000 Port 2
73:3 Emu8000 WaveTable Emu8000 Port 3
74:0 OPL3 FM synth OPL3 Port
80:0 External MIDI 2 MIDI 2-0


re: what makes linux so cool?
by rain on Tue 13th Aug 2002 02:37 UTC

something tells me that you could run audio software on linux, bsd, macos, windows, whatever, and it would
sound exactly the same. what makes linux so awesome?


something tells me that you haven't tried making music in windows.
while it probably _sounds_ the same on all of the systems (given it's the same app and identical driver) it doesn't work the same in practice.
Why do you think that workarounds like GSIF exists on the windows platform? Because the OS couldn't provide latency low enough. Fine, so they got a workaround. well, the problem is that the driver for your card has to support it, which can make it troublesome to use many apps with the same outputs. It's also a pain for the driver developers that has to support several different interfaces, which for the user means that he has to wait longer for drivers.
To me, making music in Windows is pure hell. Even something as simple as MIDI can make me bash my head into the wall because it just doesn't work like it's supposed to.
That said, there is currently no other OS on the x86 platform that will let me make good recordings. But I'm trying to do something about it, because I can't stand working in windows. I want something that "just works" and to me, that's BeOS (and please don't tell me that BeOS is dead, bla bla, we've all heard that too many times). Linux still has to many issues to be a good system for audio production in my opinion. But it has potential. If someone could make and easy-to-use distro with quality apps and no xfree then I'm all for it.
But for now, I'm trying to make BeOS (and later on OBOS) my OS for audio production. It's been my dream since R4 and I'm not going to let it go to easily. unless something better comes in my way. (yes I'm keeping an eye on Amiga)

Anyway, the OS matters a whole lot when it comes to audio production. And that's a fact. Everything from the kernel, driver interface and filesystem to the user interface matters. Not to mention the stability.