The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Anyone use Ardour
Old 11th March 2008
  #1
Lives for gear
 

Anyone use Ardour

One of the post house i freelance at wanted to change from PT to Ardour....i think they're nuts. Anyone here tried it ??? What do you think ??? pros and cons as far as using it in a post environment. Thanks
Old 11th March 2008
  #2
Gear Maniac
 

If they are on a Mac: As much as I love Ardour and believe that one day it will (surely, if raising funds does not become a nightmare for the developper) be as powerfull as all those commercial DAW, the Mac version is not ready yet to compete with them (I've been testing the latest beta, and it's still a little buggy and freezes some times : not reliable yet for professionnal use). However, the day it gets stable, incorporates powerful midi editing tools, and speeds up the workflow a little, it will be a hard to beat prrofessionnal product (and a free one, to say).

If they are on a PC: Well, they should install a Ubuntu Studio (or any other Linux distrib) on a HD partition and test extensievly the program prior to switching. On Linux, its very stable and powerfull, and with the exception of some minor worflow issues (like the numberrs of click needed to open a plugin, VST plug compatibility, the way you loop the playback ...), I could work on a daily basis with this one.
If money is not the motivation for sswitching from PT, then they may also try Samplitude ... You won't find any better on PC if your primary work is audio editing.
Old 11th March 2008
  #3
Lives for gear
 

it will be used in a POST PROD environment...therefore, plug ins compatibilies, full OMF support, hardware controller support...etc...can Ardour handle this ???? so are you saying that the Mac version is very buggy ??? how about the supports above on the Mac..does it exist ??? Thanks
Old 12th March 2008
  #4
Gear Head
 

I once tried to get Ardour running on my Mac, and it was a nightmare. However, I hear that it has gotten a lot better since then.

Harrison consoles has a modded version they sell as a destructive stem recorder. Many of their customers in the post world use it successfully, but Harrison's version is modded for that specific purpose.
Old 12th March 2008
  #5
Gear Maniac
 

vudoo, I understand your issues and questions.

Yes, the Mac version is still buggy (the UB v2,3) and not working as good as the Linux version: they won't be able to work flawlessly on Ardour. However, the support service is very strong, and the developpers team (as well as the users) fix bugs really fast and are going much faster than any company (you post your errors or bugs from the terminal, and it can sometimes be fixed the same day). But it's still a beta soft (I mean, real beta, not the one that's on the last run before commercialization), and even Ardour expresses this feeling on their website.

Regarding plugs compatibility, well ... LAPDSA plugs, and AU only.

Regarding hardware controlers, and except for the Harrison which, for obvious reasons, is fully compatible, you may be in trouble. I'll have to double check, but i do not remember it being compatible with controlers such as Euphonix or else. Maybe when midi gets incorporated it will evolve, i don't know.

Regarding OMF, I must say that I didn't pay attention to this detail. So you will have to search the website for this one, or wait till another user gets you the answer.
Old 20th March 2008
  #6
Gear Maniac
 

krucifyx, thanks for your accurate and honest summary of Ardour at the present time (I'm the primary author of ardour). A couple of comments:

Quote:
Originally Posted by krucifyx View Post

Regarding plugs compatibility, well ... LAPDSA plugs, and AU only.
Ardour does have the ability to support win/x86 VST plugins on Linux, but because of Steinberg's wierd licensing of VST ("anyone can get it, but nobody can give it to anyone else") its not possible for anyone to distribute a compiled (ready-to-run) version of Ardour for Linux or OS X that has VST support built in.

Note also that the X11 version of Ardour for OS X cannot support AU's; the "not yet officially release" native version for OS X can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krucifyx View Post
Regarding hardware controlers, and except for the Harrison which, for obvious reasons, is fully compatible, you may be in trouble. I'll have to double check, but i do not remember it being compatible with controlers such as Euphonix or else. Maybe when midi gets incorporated it will evolve, i don't know.
Ardour has supported generic MIDI control for years, which means you can use it with anything that sends generic MIDI CC or NoteOn/Off messages. This includes things like the Novation series, the Behringer BCF series and many more. There is also nominal support for Mackie Control Protocol, although this is still evolving, since Mackie refuses to give us any actual specifications for MCU and it has to be done (in part) by reverse engineering. As usual with Ardour, the story next month may look very different than the story this month.

Ardour also supports MMC and MTC (master & slave). Several extremely experienced people in the business have commented that Ardour's MTC slaving is better than anything else on the market. We lock to MTC many times faster than ProTools and can track varispeed much more accurately as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krucifyx View Post
Regarding OMF, I must say that I didn't pay attention to this detail. So you will have to search the website for this one, or wait till another user gets you the answer.
We have no plans to support OMF directly - this is a proprietary format, and Digidesign will neither give us the specifications nor allow an open source implementation. There is work going on to support AAF import, but it as yet unfinished. I wish I could offer a timeline for when that will work. We also know that SSL would like to see their recently acquired converter product "ProConvert" support Ardour's session format, which unlike OMF is just human readable XML. My general approach to this is that it appears that a lot of people concerned with DAW-2-DAW session portability just export everything as BWF stems and then import them. Ardour of course supports BWF.

If people have other questions about Ardour, I'd be happy to answer them. Nobody is getting rich from this software, so there's no interest in any marketing BS - we'd just like people to have an accurate understanding what Ardour can (and cannot) do.
Old 23rd March 2008
  #7
Gear Maniac
 

Thanks a lot for taking time to post your answers.

I firts tried Ardour on Linux, and i must admit that once you understand the concept and get used to the way everything works together (having to manually launch and set a server before launching the audio app is not routine for most of us), it's a mighty powerfull software.

However, i do believe that the Mac version is not on par yet with the Linux version (totally understandable), thus I would not recommand the software to someone for any other purpose than the one I did download it from your irq channel: testing.

As you say, and based on your past progresses, Ardour may be to another level within a few months (weeks?). When this day comes, I believe that Ardour will be a serious contender for the commercial solutions as you will offer a similar product as a freeware/donationware. Specifically, I am comming from the PC world and I was working on samplitude from v.4 to v.9, and believe me, I felt that Ardour was the closest DAW to Samplitude to be available on mac/linux platform.

Now:

I totally understand that incompatibility with VST format is not Ardour's decision. It is just annoying (as much as it is in Logic) when you have to buy a third party software to use a format which is widely and freely spread on PC.

Regarding compatibility with midi controlers, that is a real plus. As I mentionned it, I tried Ardour for testing purposes, using some of my "testing" audio projects, and I must admit that I was focusing on the audio editing part of the soft.

Finally, please make Ardour as worflow friendly as a DAW could be ... See Samplitude for specific functions (the crossfade editor, key functions, easy looping play mode, access to plugs on the transport window, more one click functions (depending on where you click), easy track locking ... try avoiding as much as possible scroll menus to get one action done!). If you want, I may be able to take a few days to specify some key functions that will help Ardour's workflow to be more fluid. Because, when you are working 12 hours a day on a project, there is nothing more anoying than to loose time on the editing part (the worst part of the job). And if you are a pro, loosing time means not being time/cost effective for your client !

Ho yeah ... I don't know if this is possible, orr of how hard this would be, but integration of technologies similar to "Vocalign" or "Beat Detective" may be usefull to most of us, I guess.
Old 24th March 2008
  #8
Gear Maniac
 

more info

Quote:
Originally Posted by krucifyx View Post
Thanks a lot for taking time to post your answers.

I firts tried Ardour on Linux, and i must admit that once you understand the concept and get used to the way everything works together (having to manually launch and set a server before launching the audio app is not routine for most of us), it's a mighty powerfull software.
We've been working on "hiding" that requirement, and there is more to come. The real problem is that so many new users don't want to take the time to understand what JACK is or what it can do for them. I've yet to meet one who, once I explain it, does not love it. Its a problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by krucifyx View Post

Finally, please make Ardour as worflow friendly as a DAW could be ... See Samplitude for specific functions (the crossfade editor, key functions, easy looping play mode, access to plugs on the transport window, more one click functions (depending on where you click), easy track locking ... try avoiding as much as possible scroll menus to get one action done!). If you want, I may be able to take a few days to specify some key functions that will help Ardour's workflow to be more fluid. Because, when you are working 12 hours a day on a project, there is nothing more anoying than to loose time on the editing part (the worst part of the job). And if you are a pro, loosing time means not being time/cost effective for your client !
Ardour's *current* workflow has been designed by a professional who has worked with Logic and ProTools for many years, and now teaches other people to use these tools while still working in a studio. He likes ours better than theirs now - no suprise since he designed it. If your experience has been shaped by other DAWs, then his choices are probably not right for you. We welcome suggestions, and can accept entirely new keybinding sets that can chosen between at runtime. At present, there are only two different binding sets - if people start sending us more, we can add them to the list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krucifyx View Post
Ho yeah ... I don't know if this is possible, orr of how hard this would be, but integration of technologies similar to "Vocalign" or "Beat Detective" may be usefull to most of us, I guess.
Some elements of Beat Detective are already in Ardour as "Rythm Ferret". Its currently only using percussive onsets and so it does a better job than BD when you want to key off of percussion, but a worse job when you want general note onsets etc. More functionality will be added the Ferret in the coming months.
Old 25th March 2008
  #9
Gear Maniac
 

unrelated to ardour, but open source magic anyway

btw, if you want to see some really mindblowing technology at work, your mention of "vocalign" reminded me of a new feature in the latest release of Sonic Visualiser (Sonic Visualiser). its not the same as vocalign, its just massively cooler (if you do a certain kind of work, anyway) it can basically be called "feature alignment" but that doesn't begin to address what it can do. in the demo i watched, there were 5 recordings of the same piece of classical music/opera, from the 1920's, 40's, 50's 70's and 90's. each of them by different orchestras, singers and so forth.

Sonic Visualiser could align them all to the point where when you hot-keyed between each recording (listening one at a time), you were at the *exact same note* (or in the case of the arias, the middle of the exact same note) in each piece. Think about what that means. Its hard to really grasp how amazing it is without seeing a demo. SV is doing major analysis on each recording, figuring out all kinds of features of the audio, and then does a really rather clever alignment of each track according to matching features.

Not much use for conventional multitrack work, but ... !!!
Old 27th March 2008
  #10
Lives for gear
 
santibanks's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawhead View Post
We've been working on "hiding" that requirement, and there is more to come. The real problem is that so many new users don't want to take the time to understand what JACK is or what it can do for them. I've yet to meet one who, once I explain it, does not love it. Its a problem



Ardour's *current* workflow has been designed by a professional who has worked with Logic and ProTools for many years, and now teaches other people to use these tools while still working in a studio. He likes ours better than theirs now - no suprise since he designed it.
As an interface designer myself, I have some remarks on the quotes above...

First of all: users wan't to do their tasks and want to do it quick and easy. The big problem with linux has always been the nerd factor of it. That's why it will never be a succes. Users have to know a lot of knowledge to run the system (though that changed over the years but still, it requires more knowledge to run linux and install it then for example a mac). I am pretty nerdy and very high skilled in software but even I didnt want to see what Jack is, what it can do etc.
I just want a DAW that works. Have a track, assign inputs and outputs and hit record. Thats what every DAW should do and it should be as easy as this. No weird routing systems that need some time to understand.
There is one golden rule in Interaction design:

Follow the users mental model, which means that the program should behave the way a user does, not vice versa. Users don't have to think what the program does.
Jack is an example of this. You have to learn jack but also the workflow in Ardour to use it properly. As stated already above, someone with lots of DAW experience can be a bit disorientated on Ardour.

That designer developed the workflow to his own specific needs. However, his needs are probably not the needs of all those other "users" or better said, "potential users". In fact, the way its quoted above tells me that he created a program for hisself and did "Myself centred design" instead of user centred design...
Old 27th March 2008
  #11
Lives for gear
 

Hi rainy-taxi,

I definitely agree with your sentiments, but I think you have a couple of misconceptions in your post.

Regarding "Have a track, assign inputs and outputs and hit record"... this is exactly how Ardour works. The only addition is that JACK allows you to assign inputs and outputs from other programs, not just the hardware I/O.

Regarding the user who defined the current user interface, I think it is a credit to Paul that after 6+ years of development, he is still willing to accept changes from users who are in the trenches.

As an interface designer, this seems like a perfect opportunity for you to design your own, "tweaked" Ardour interface that matches the needs of people like yourself. This was the logic behind the SAE and Harrison versions, each of which are highly optimized for use in their specific markets. You may not even have to do the coding. For example see the contributions that this user has made to the Ardour UI design.

Your thoughts regarding the user's "mental model" are spot-on. I hope to see you in the Ardour forum sometime.

Best Regards,
Ben Loftis
harrisonconsoles.com - Home
Old 28th March 2008
  #12
Lives for gear
 
DrDeltaM's Avatar
 

I find Ardour to be an interesting alternative, but it's not there yet either for me.

Running the Linux version is no real option, as indeed there is much more OS knowledge needed, too geeky ;-) And I also wonder about soundcards running well under Linux?

The native OSX version is the most promising as I'm no fan of X11 (again, extra layer, too geeky, can't have all OSX normal shortkeys etc). It solves the OS problem and it takes the soundcard concerns out of the equation. It also supports AU plugins now (tho that didn't actually work on my setup), but I guess implementation will improve over time. Having access to the standard plugins is almost a must to make a DAW useful and succesful.
Too bad the native version isn't quite as stable yet as it should be for real world use.

Another thing is defenately complexity of user interface. Adding a plugin for example, is a whole lot more complex then in any other DAW... Of course, it doesn't look too sexy either, but that's not the main concern, they can improve that later on I'm sure. Functionality and ease of use is more important.

Anyway, I check back on Ardour now and then, to see where the developement is going. Lots of potential for sure, and am looking forward to the day it's ready to actually be used in a professional setting on OSX.
Old 28th March 2008
  #13
Lives for gear
 
santibanks's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenLoftis View Post
Hi rainy-taxi,

I definitely agree with your sentiments, but I think you have a couple of misconceptions in your post.

Regarding "Have a track, assign inputs and outputs and hit record"... this is exactly how Ardour works. The only addition is that JACK allows you to assign inputs and outputs from other programs, not just the hardware I/O.

Regarding the user who defined the current user interface, I think it is a credit to Paul that after 6+ years of development, he is still willing to accept changes from users who are in the trenches.

As an interface designer, this seems like a perfect opportunity for you to design your own, "tweaked" Ardour interface that matches the needs of people like yourself. This was the logic behind the SAE and Harrison versions, each of which are highly optimized for use in their specific markets. You may not even have to do the coding. For example see the contributions that this user has made to the Ardour UI design.

Your thoughts regarding the user's "mental model" are spot-on. I hope to see you in the Ardour forum sometime.

Best Regards,
Ben Loftis
harrisonconsoles.com - Home
I never tried ardour because I used jack on some linux distro (aimed at audio and multimedia, I think it was dynabolic or something like that) and couldn't get the thing working.

Visited the website and subscribed to the developers list as Im certainly interested at designing the interface. I visited the website a few years ago when ardour was "small" and more linux aimed (there was no mac version then) but after looking back yesterday, it shows up like a very good DAW (like reaper).

That said, Jack does make sense now (its more a big hub/patchbay) though I think its graphics are poor and unusable (as the lines are very thin and like on the screenshots, a lot of lines from 1 track to another makes it difficult to follow which line is which).

I only have skills in designing programs wireframe based (omni graffle, illustrator). I can't code a single line of the interface (as Im more web oriented but find this kind of programs very challenging and fun!) but if that's no problem at all, I'd be happy to share my thoughts, vision and give some serious input and help on the developers board. So you will see me there very soon !

(Hey cool I might have found a good alternative for DP and the likes)
Old 30th March 2008
  #14
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeltaM View Post
The native OSX version is the most promising as I'm no fan of X11 (again, extra layer, too geeky, can't have all OSX normal shortkeys etc).
Though I've given up trying to push the X11 version (given how badly Apple have handled X11 in Leopard (i.e. they now install it by default, but hey, guess what ... to get a working version you have to go to a non-apple website and install a whole new copy ... sigh), just a couple of corrections: X11 actually doesn't add any more layers to the software stack that an app that uses Cocoa. And X11 apps can use all the same shortcuts as a normal Mac app. What they can't do at present is get a top menu bar or get drag-n-drop with other Mac apps. And guess whose decision that behaviour is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeltaM View Post
It solves the OS problem and it takes the soundcard concerns out of the equation. It also supports AU plugins now (tho that didn't actually work on my setup),
My guess is that you were using a PPC mac. I do all my OS X development on an Intel system, and only discovered a couple of weeks ago that PPC macs require the host to set an extra flag in order to get plugins to work. This works in the versions we announce in the IRC channel now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeltaM View Post
Another thing is defenately complexity of user interface. Adding a plugin for example, is a whole lot more complex then in any other DAW...
i'd really appreciate a description of which parts of adding a plugin seems more complex to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeltaM View Post
Of course, it doesn't look too sexy either, but that's not the main concern, they can improve that later on I'm sure. Functionality and ease of use is more important.
Not only that, but you damn users ( can never agree on what's sexy, let alone what is functional or easy to use. We have users who love Ardour's appearance over other DAWs, but think its hard to use; others who think its easy to use but looks ugly; others who like both; yet more who think its ugly and hard to use. Who to listen to?

One closing remark: before I started working on OS X, I admit that I had placed Apple on a pedestal. I have always been impressed by their user interface designs, their marketing and the apparent quality of their engineering. Since actually having to get down into the nuts and bolts of developing software for OS X (and I've had to get *really* down and dirty in order to help get the native version of GTK working correctly), my attitude has changed significantly. I used to dream of the day when Ardour was "ready for pro use on OS X". I don't do that any more. Linux impresses me much more in every way except for its new user experience. Ardour on Linux is faster, more responsive, more stable, more of just about everything except plugin-izable than any other DAW on any other platform. I know I'm the lead author, so my opinion may not count for much. However, I am really amazed at some of the kludgy designs, poor performance and workarounds that I've had to deal with on OS X to get things working correctly. Its not that Linux doesn't have its fair share of those (some of which are actually my fault), but every day I continue to be amazed at how much better Ardour (and audio in general) performs on Linux than OS X. I'm not going to advocate that you all switch platforms - I'm just letting you know that as someone who has been forced to have a foot in both worlds, its really clear to me which one actually works better.
Old 30th March 2008
  #15
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainy-taxi View Post
That designer developed the workflow to his own specific needs. However, his needs are probably not the needs of all those other "users" or better said, "potential users". In fact, the way its quoted above tells me that he created a program for hisself and did "Myself centred design" instead of user centred design...
I feel that its necessary to correct this. I don't want to get into naming names, but let me just point out that the person who designed the current editing model is the head of the audio engineering division at a professional media education institute, and teaches dozens-to-hundreds of new students every year, as well as continuing to work with other engineers in several commercial studios in the large city where he resides. He has already had many new students test out the workflow, and most of these students already have experience on existing DAWs. His ideas were filtered by the broader Ardour user community and by myself. You can read a relatively short description of it (or more accurately, the changes we made) here: Editing and UI changes in Ardour | ardour
Old 30th March 2008
  #16
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainy-taxi View Post
A I am pretty nerdy and very high skilled in software but even I didnt want to see what Jack is, what it can do etc.
I just want a DAW that works. Have a track, assign inputs and outputs and hit record. Thats what every DAW should do and it should be as easy as this. No weird routing systems that need some time to understand.
rainy-taxi, i very much appreciate your comments. however, i believe you are missing something very fundamental about what JACK is. your existing DAW is designed around two key ideas: (a) the single-application ghetto, where you are expected to do all your work with a single tool (albeit with the aid of plugins) (b) audio i/o happens via a hardware audio interface. JACK is designed to remove the limits created by both of these design ideas. By allowing you to consider other applications as potential sources and destinations for audio, it removes the requirement that all your work be done inside a single application. At the same time, it also creates the possibility to route audio to places other than your audio interface.

We have worked hard to try to minimize the confusion/complexity this causes for the user; as Ben mentioned, using a track in ardour still consists of "Add track, connect inputs and outputs, hit record (or just drag-n-drop) and go". The difference is that the inputs+outputs can potentially include any other CoreAudio application.

Now, we are aware that there are a few users who tell us "I don't need this, I don't want this, don't make me think about this". There will be a version of Ardour in the future that merges JACK into Ardour itself, so that there is no reason to think about running a separate program at all, and we will likely attempt to even hide the possibility for inter-application audio routing from this version. I think its a shame to limit one's possibilities in this way, but given that Ardour is a user-driven effort, I imagine it will happen anyway.
Old 30th March 2008
  #17
Lives for gear
 
DrDeltaM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawhead View Post
Though I've given up trying to push the X11 version (given how badly Apple have handled X11 in Leopard (i.e. they now install it by default, but hey, guess what ... to get a working version you have to go to a non-apple website and install a whole new copy ... sigh), just a couple of corrections: X11 actually doesn't add any more layers to the software stack that an app that uses Cocoa. And X11 apps can use all the same shortcuts as a normal Mac app. What they can't do at present is get a top menu bar or get drag-n-drop with other Mac apps. And guess whose decision that behaviour is?
Yeah, the extra 'layer' was more the impression from a user perspective. Last time I used X11, the standard Apple shortkeys like Apple-Q/W/... reacted on X11 self, so Ardour had to use workaround keys using alt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dawhead View Post
My guess is that you were using a PPC mac. I do all my OS X development on an Intel system, and only discovered a couple of weeks ago that PPC macs require the host to set an extra flag in order to get plugins to work. This works in the versions we announce in the IRC channel now.
Correct, it was on my G5, and was indeed more then a couple weeks ago, so I haven't tried the version with the fix yet, sure will give it a try.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dawhead View Post
i'd really appreciate a description of which parts of adding a plugin seems more complex to you.
I'll look at this again when I give the new version a try. From what I remember, it simply uses too much windows and mouseclicks. I'm used to click once to get a dropdown pluginlist(organised per kind/brand) and a 2nd click to select the plugin of choice out of that list.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dawhead View Post
Not only that, but you damn users ( can never agree on what's sexy, let alone what is functional or easy to use. We have users who love Ardour's appearance over other DAWs, but think its hard to use; others who think its easy to use but looks ugly; others who like both; yet more who think its ugly and hard to use. Who to listen to?
I feel you there, it's impossible to do good for everybody. I found the Ardour edit window easy in use and giving good overview, while I found the mixer to be unfriendly in use, and not the best overview either (purely a graphical thing I guess)

Could you give us some insight about audio interface support on Linux? Thanks
Old 30th March 2008
  #18
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeltaM View Post
Could you give us some insight about audio interface support on Linux? Thanks
The best overviews in terms of lists are here:

General PCI/USB interface support: Matrix:Main - AlsaProject

Firewire device support: Device support database | ffado.org

My comments would be that in general, pro/prosumer Linux users are very keen on RME HDSP and M-Audio Delta interfaces on the PCI side. We retain a healthy level of skepticism about using USB for anything more than cheap consumer audio (or experimental stuff like the New York Times lobby with its hundreds of tiny linux devices), though they work pretty well and are useful for laptops. We are happy to see Firewire support improving, but waiting anxiously for the release of FFADO 1.0 and wishing that more manufacturers would get on the bus (luckily for us, TC Electronics who make the now popular DICE-II firewire audio chipset, are keen to see linux support improve because quite a few high end manufacturers want embedded linux support for things like mixing consoles and other media devices).

Finally, I can say with confidence as the guy who wrote the first ALSA drivers for the RME Hammerfall and HDSP devices: there is one and only reason that an audio interface does not have Linux drivers: the manufacturer has prevented it. In some cases, its laziness or ignorance. In a few cases (hello MOTU!) its outright hostility and actual rudeness towards the Linux community's attempts to add support. The situation with RME has been odd - they were very supportive and helpful of my work on the Hammerfall and HDSP drivers, but they have absolutely refused (so far) to make a Fireface driver possible.

So, the overall situation is that its certainly possible to build high end, mid and low-range systems with linux, but its also true that not every device works and its best to check before purchasing.
Old 30th March 2008
  #19
Lives for gear
 
DrDeltaM's Avatar
 

Well, RME PCI cards with digital I/O is the main one you need anyway. Good to see TC is jumping onboard with the DICE chip too thumbsup

So, there are good option for audiocards, the only issue that remains are plugins...

It's not like you need TONS of them, but some plugins at same or better soundquality level as on other platforms, and with a nice user interface, are a must to raise real interest. But which known manufacturer is gonna do the effort for a (currently) near unexisting market?
Old 30th March 2008
  #20
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeltaM View Post
It's not like you need TONS of them, but some plugins at same or better soundquality level as on other platforms, and with a nice user interface, are a must to raise real interest. But which known manufacturer is gonna do the effort for a (currently) near unexisting market?
If I told you the answer, they'd have to kill me However, consider that one candidate already has all of its plugins running on Linux, just in a context that you probably haven't thought about.

Smart plugin developers do these things: (a) their DSP code is platform neutral and doesn't make system calls (b) their GUI code is independent from their DSP code (c) their GUI code is platform neutral. If you actually do these things, which is to say not sprinkling all your code with Microsoft-only or OS X-only system calls and not assuming that your GUI has special access to internals of the DSP, porting a plugin to Linux is pretty easy. We're fairly busy in linux-audio land coming up with a system for them to port it to, too.
Old 30th March 2008
  #21
Lives for gear
 
santibanks's Avatar
@dawhead:

I downloaded the native Mac OS X version and tested it. I noticed some very good things in the program which I really liked (like the big timers when you do something in the edit screen).

Did some research on Jack and its potential is indeed pretty high. I like the concept behind it, though visually its a bit poor I think (but hey, a change for me to think about it and develop something "better")

I have mixed feelings about Ardour its presence. I;m not really judging by ugly or not (colors are a matter of taste...) but I can see some improvements in the color scheme, functional wise. I think contrasts can be pretty low at some times.

Well anyways, I already have been converted to the developers side for Ardour so some of you might see me there in the future...

@DrDeltaM: Dice2 chipset gives a lot of instabilityproblems @ presonus... Their firestudio 26 has lots of issues regarding the Dice 2 chipset (CPU spikes)...
Old 30th March 2008
  #22
Lives for gear
 
DrDeltaM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawhead View Post
If I told you the answer, they'd have to kill me However, consider that one candidate already has all of its plugins running on Linux, just in a context that you probably haven't thought about.

Smart plugin developers do these things: (a) their DSP code is platform neutral and doesn't make system calls (b) their GUI code is independent from their DSP code (c) their GUI code is platform neutral. If you actually do these things, which is to say not sprinkling all your code with Microsoft-only or OS X-only system calls and not assuming that your GUI has special access to internals of the DSP, porting a plugin to Linux is pretty easy. We're fairly busy in linux-audio land coming up with a system for them to port it to, too.
Good news I'm sure some developers are running their software EQs/comps/... already on Linux in an embedded system (doesn't always have to be XP Embedded :D ). Curious to see what will come out, and by who
Old 31st March 2008
  #23
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawhead
If I told you the answer, they'd have to kill me
Now you're making suspense ... Hummm ... Based on what you said and Paul's previous experiences, I would guess ... Ho no, please don't tell us (as I may regret buying both Logic and a DSP unit from the brand I'm thinking of lol)

Regarding the workflow, this was not to underestimate Paul's work or ideas, it's just that it can sometimes lack fluidity yet. Jack is something (however, when you understand how powerfull the routing possibilities are, you don't mind ... and anyway, you can set Jack to automatically launch on startup), the plugins too (more click to add a plug, no filing folders for the plugins, i like to find a Duende plugin in my "Duende" folder directly from the plugin windows), and the audio editing (looping is not as fluid as it should be, crossfades are fine but their edit should be easier ... these are just some exemples that comes in mind). But to make a list, it would take a substantial amount of hours (I could do it, but not right now).

I understand that everyone is going to have an opinion, but when you are working with audio material (more than with midi), there are few functions that will make you save tons of time during the editing part.

And even though every one has a personal opinion, I have yet to find someone who has ever complain of the workflow in Samplitude (you may want to as someone who works on samplitude to make you a demo, you will understand): very powerfull and fluid workflow. And the aforementioned also applied to v4 (10years ago).

However, don't misunderstand me: I believe in Ardour. I will keep supporting it and will abandon my "commercial" programs for it as soon as I feel confident to work with it on a daily basis.

Furthermore, I did'nt had any material to try your Rythm Ferret, but that really is a good news. And the Sonic Visualiser and Vamp plugins look very impressing by their specs. Will have to try that out too !
Old 31st March 2008
  #24
Lives for gear
 
DrDeltaM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by krucifyx View Post
And even though every one has a personal opinion, I have yet to find someone who has ever complain of the workflow in Samplitude (you may want to as someone who works on samplitude to make you a demo, you will understand): very powerfull and fluid workflow. And the aforementioned also applied to v4 (10years ago).
I'm the first one you'll find then Samplitude uses too much windows to do simple tasks. And worse was that I found those windows to be unorganised, giving a bad overview. I haven't checked v10 yet tho, last I checked was v9.
Old 11th April 2008
  #25
Lives for gear
 
DrDeltaM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawhead View Post
i'd really appreciate a description of which parts of adding a plugin seems more complex to you.
Just installed Ardour 2.4 PPC OSX. AudioUnits do work now, tho I found 2 issues related to them, which I reported on mantis.

Steps to insert a plugin on Ardour:
- rightclick in plugin field in mixer, which opens a plugin/insert/send menu
- leftclick on "New Plugin...", which opens a Plugin section window
- scroll and/or search a long list of plugins till you find the plugin you want
- click on pluginname, then click on add (or simply double click), which adds the plugin to the list on the bottom of this window
- then click 'Insert plugin(s)' on bottom right of this window, which will put the plugin onto the mixer, in bypass and without opening the plugin GUI.
- doubleclick on the plugin in the mixer to open the GUI
- click on "Bypass" to make it active
- start tweaking!

Steps to insert a plugin on Logic:
- click on an insert slot, which gives a pulldown menu with all available plugins (organised by manufacturer in a tree structure)
- navigate to the plugin you want
- click on it, which loads the plugin (not bypassed) and opens the GUI for you
- start tweaking!

Other DAWs, such as ProTools, work in a similar way as Logic. I can see the advantage of Ardour to load a series of plugins at once, but even then, it's not really worth it IMO.

Also, it's logical to show the plugin GUI and have the plugin active at once when you load it, because the reason you load a plugin is that you want to use it at that moment.

Hope this helps!
Old 11th April 2008
  #26
Gear Maniac
 

thanks for the feedback.

after this thread started, it occured to me that ardour's plugin-adding design is partially based on the idea that a person will have a large number of plugins (ardour OS X comes with 117 LADSPA plugins, and there are more than 200 free LADSPA ones out there). LADSPA plugins also come in large sets, with a single author producing a lot of plugins, and the typical user has all of them. this is why we never adopted the "group by manufacturer" approach - it really isn't all that useful for the Linux/LADSPA case. however, its clear to me now that the "add more than one at a time" approach is not necessarily good for other categories of users. If you have only a dozen or so plugins, or they come from many different makers, the menu approach is much more sensible.

i plan to add the option to switch between the current approach and the kind of menu-driven style used by PT and Logic before 2.5 is released. There will also be an option to have plugins enabled by default when they are added (the SAE version does this already).
Old 11th April 2008
  #27
Gear Maniac
 

thanks for the feedback.

after this thread started, it occured to me that ardour's plugin-adding design is partially based on the idea that a person will have a large number of plugins (ardour OS X comes with 117 LADSPA plugins, and there are more than 200 free LADSPA ones out there). LADSPA plugins also come in large sets, with a single author producing a lot of plugins, and the typical user has all of them. this is why we never adopted the "group by manufacturer" approach - it really isn't all that useful for the Linux/LADSPA case. however, its clear to me now that the "add more than one at a time" approach is not necessarily good for other categories of users. If you have only a dozen or so plugins, or they come from many different makers, the menu approach is much more sensible.

i plan to add the option to switch between the current approach and the kind of menu-driven style used by PT and Logic before 2.5 is released. There will also be an option to have plugins enabled by default when they are added (the SAE version does this already).
Old 11th April 2008
  #28
Lives for gear
 
DrDeltaM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawhead View Post
i plan to add the option to switch between the current approach and the kind of menu-driven style used by PT and Logic before 2.5 is released. There will also be an option to have plugins enabled by default when they are added (the SAE version does this already).
Cool, thanks

BTW, AU plugins show up as mono and as stereo versions in the current list (as those are seperate plugins actually afaik). Would be handy if it only showed the plugins relevant to the channel-type, as loading the wrong version obviously results in a channel number error.

For the LADSPA plugins, some kind of organisation in categories in the planned menu-structure would be handy too, there's indeed rather some of them
Old 11th April 2008
  #29
Gear Maniac
 

if you look at the i/o config info on the right side of the plugin selector, you will notice that these plugins, whether named "mono" or "stereo", are provided by the plugin maker with information stating that the plugin i/o preference is 100% flexible.

i don't know why waves and others haven't followed the clear intent of AU to get rid of channel-count-specific versions (probably the work involved to do so). as it stands, only the name of the plugin (e.g. foobar (s)) provides any clue as to the channel preference, and i'm not adding hacks like that (which are maker-specific too, as far as i can see).

it would be nice if all AU plugin manufacturers/authors would either provide accurate channel config info or make their plugins as channel-count-independent as the plugin info suggests.
Old 11th April 2008
  #30
Where do I download the latest native UB version?
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 4 views: 1784
Avatar for Geert van den Berg
Geert van den Berg 29th August 2009
replies: 2637 views: 511850
Avatar for JSchlomo
JSchlomo 13th September 2019
replies: 295 views: 58173
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 1296 views: 155004
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump