Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 14:55 -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Darren Landrum > wrote: > If one were to build a "kernel" to a digital audio workstation > that was > itself a bare-bones LV2 host, could things like audio tracks, > midi > tracks, and mixer channels and the like be built as LV2 > plug-ins? > if you want to understand why this is hard (not impossible, just > hard), go read the ardour source code and find all the places where > *unexpected* inter-object dependencies appear. then figure out how to > remove them. if you can do that, you'll be able to make a modular > system work. if not, you'll at least understand why nobody has else > has been able to do it so far. Exactly as hard as Jack doing transport... Anyway, just because the signal flow aspect of things is patching doesn't mean transport has to be. There's no fundamental reason this is any harder than it is to solve in Ardour. Objects are objects at the end of the day. You could even do it by controlling the transport over wires if you wanted to (messages are messages at the end of the day) but it would be a huge mess you would want to hide from the user anyway, so not a lot of point. There's no technological reason this is infeasible or particularly difficult, it's just a lot of work. -dr ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 14:37 -0500, Darren Landrum wrote: > If one were to build a "kernel" to a digital audio workstation that was > itself a bare-bones LV2 host, could things like audio tracks, midi > tracks, and mixer channels and the like be built as LV2 plug-ins? > > I've been thinking a lot about a comment made a while back about how > monolithic applications are very ill-suited to the open-source method of > development. So I got to thinking about how an operating system works > (at a high level; my meager coding skills are no matches for people > well-versed in operating systems) and began to ask some questions. > > This "kernel" would have to handle things like audio routing, and > message passing between two "processes" (the LV2 plug-ins), and would > jockey the audio in and out of the plug-in graph. It would need to > support the GUI and event extensions, and probably a few others, at the > very least. > > The hope might be that if such a kernel could be made, it might then be > a lot easier for many people to contribute the small pieces that would > make for a usable application. Please feel free to consider this > mindless brainstorming if you'd like. This is a long term goal of http://drobilla.net/software/ingen LV2 was a very large step towards achieving it... GUI is there, events are there, signal flow is there, but having "tracks" brings in a whole host of new issues that are not yet there. ... yet :) -dr ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
[LAD] Tascam US-1641
Well, no response on the user list. Maybe someone here has an idea - does the Tascam US-1641 work with Linux/ALSA? I'm assuming not and have written a nice email to Tascam asking for a little information. I'm assuming they're not going to be very helpful but it's worth a shot. Jan -- Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner http://www.thecfband.com "Microsoft has a new version out, Windows XP, which according to everybody is the 'most reliable Windows ever.' To me, this is like saying that asparagus is 'the most articulate vegetable ever.'" Dave Barry ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Tascam US-1641
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Jan Depner wrote: > Well, no response on the user list. Maybe someone here has an idea - > does the Tascam US-1641 work with Linux/ALSA? I'm assuming not and have > written a nice email to Tascam asking for a little information. I'm > assuming they're not going to be very helpful but it's worth a shot. > > > Jan > > > > -- > Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner > http://www.thecfband.com > > > "Microsoft has a new version out, Windows XP, which according to > everybody is the 'most reliable Windows ever.' To me, this is like > saying that asparagus is 'the most articulate vegetable ever.'" > > Dave Barry > > > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > A quick google shows that it is USB 2.0 - there is no standard for USB 2.0 audio, so chances are no, it will not work with Linux until someone reverse engineers a driver for it. USB 1.0 has a widely adopted standard so almost all USB 1.0 sound cards work with Linux, but it does not have enough bandwidth to do that many channels. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Tascam US-1641
On 2009-02-22T15:57:21, Jan Depner wrote: > Well, no response on the user list. Maybe someone here has an idea - > does the Tascam US-1641 work with Linux/ALSA? I'm assuming not and have > written a nice email to Tascam asking for a little information. I'm > assuming they're not going to be very helpful but it's worth a shot. First hit for the query tascam US-1641 +linux driver: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1051828 Here is the only hit for the query Tascam US-1641 on the alsa user mailing list: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.user/32068/match=tascam+us+1641 Here is Tascam's driver compatibility chart: http://www.tascam.com/products/us-1641;9,15,1056,16.html which suggest to me that the device requires a driver, and according to the alsa projects sound matrix there is none: http://www.alsa-project.org/main/index.php/Matrix:Vendor-Tascam /Allan -- Allan Wind Life Integrity, LLC http://lifeintegrity.com ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Tascam US-1641
On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 17:26 -0500, Allan Wind wrote: > On 2009-02-22T15:57:21, Jan Depner wrote: > > Well, no response on the user list. Maybe someone here has an idea - > > does the Tascam US-1641 work with Linux/ALSA? I'm assuming not and have > > written a nice email to Tascam asking for a little information. I'm > > assuming they're not going to be very helpful but it's worth a shot. > I had seen this one: > First hit for the query tascam US-1641 +linux driver: > http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1051828 > Somehow I missed this one but it's not a lot of help: > Here is the only hit for the query Tascam US-1641 on the alsa user > mailing list: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.user/32068/match=tascam+us+1641 > I had seen this one: > Here is Tascam's driver compatibility chart: > http://www.tascam.com/products/us-1641;9,15,1056,16.html I'd seen this one also: > which suggest to me that the device requires a driver, and according to > the alsa projects sound matrix there is none: > http://www.alsa-project.org/main/index.php/Matrix:Vendor-Tascam > In other words, yes, I searched the web. I was hoping there was some evil genius floating around out there who had already performed the magic ;-) Jan -- Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner http://www.thecfband.com "Microsoft has a new version out, Windows XP, which according to everybody is the 'most reliable Windows ever.' To me, this is like saying that asparagus is 'the most articulate vegetable ever.'" Dave Barry ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
Ingen works well on my setup, but the idea of adding midi and audio tracks as 'plugins' sounds rather appealing. (Would be cool to simply add tracks, and have them autoorganise into a neat arrangement in the GUI. Starting from the top down?) Given the multi layer framework of Ingen, i would think there are many advantages to this. (Strings on patch layer 1, Woodwinds on patch layer 2, etc..) Sounds like a worthy direction as a 'complete' modular system too. Would future Ingen include a LASH component, either working with the current LASH app, or as 'the' LASH app in its own right, with the ability to save settings from LASH capable external apps? Alex. On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 10:50 PM, David Robillard wrote: > On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 14:37 -0500, Darren Landrum wrote: > > If one were to build a "kernel" to a digital audio workstation that was > > itself a bare-bones LV2 host, could things like audio tracks, midi > > tracks, and mixer channels and the like be built as LV2 plug-ins? > > > > I've been thinking a lot about a comment made a while back about how > > monolithic applications are very ill-suited to the open-source method of > > development. So I got to thinking about how an operating system works > > (at a high level; my meager coding skills are no matches for people > > well-versed in operating systems) and began to ask some questions. > > > > This "kernel" would have to handle things like audio routing, and > > message passing between two "processes" (the LV2 plug-ins), and would > > jockey the audio in and out of the plug-in graph. It would need to > > support the GUI and event extensions, and probably a few others, at the > > very least. > > > > The hope might be that if such a kernel could be made, it might then be > > a lot easier for many people to contribute the small pieces that would > > make for a usable application. Please feel free to consider this > > mindless brainstorming if you'd like. > > This is a long term goal of http://drobilla.net/software/ingen > > LV2 was a very large step towards achieving it... > > GUI is there, events are there, signal flow is there, but having > "tracks" brings in a whole host of new issues that are not yet there. > > ... yet :) > > -dr > > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > -- Parchment Studios (It started as a joke...) ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 01:00 +0200, alex stone wrote: > Ingen works well on my setup, but the idea of adding midi and audio > tracks as 'plugins' sounds rather appealing. (Would be cool to simply > add tracks, and have them autoorganise into a neat arrangement in the > GUI. Starting from the top down?) > Given the multi layer framework of Ingen, i would think there are many > advantages to this. > (Strings on patch layer 1, Woodwinds on patch layer 2, etc..) It's extremely unlikely anything would be better than the existing graphviz arrangement (short of some kind of limitations on routing between tracks to enforce this 'layer' model which is completely out of the question for obvious reasons) The whole point/advantage of using something like Ingen for this is no specifics need to be built in to the system. This will be really cool for some things and open up new possibilities... but probably not very good for traditional recording regardless. There's always Ardour if you want a traditional timeline, and the two play nicely together. > Would future Ingen include a LASH component, either working with the > current LASH app Yes, just havn't gotten around to it. The release will have LASH support. > or as 'the' LASH app in its own right, with the ability to save > settings from LASH capable external apps? ... and a kitchen sink too! Most definitely not ;) -dr ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
Do plugins have any more sense of time than your average herd of cows? In goes sunlight and green grass, and out comes a healthy amount of milk and fresh manure .. The only kinds of "plugins" that has a sense of time in our world are those who are recording either audio or midi, and these are those we would normally prefer to define as our toplevel hosts. /j On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 15:46 -0500, David Robillard wrote: > On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 14:55 -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Darren Landrum > > wrote: > > If one were to build a "kernel" to a digital audio workstation > > that was > > itself a bare-bones LV2 host, could things like audio tracks, > > midi > > tracks, and mixer channels and the like be built as LV2 > > plug-ins? > > > > if you want to understand why this is hard (not impossible, just > > hard), go read the ardour source code and find all the places where > > *unexpected* inter-object dependencies appear. then figure out how to > > remove them. if you can do that, you'll be able to make a modular > > system work. if not, you'll at least understand why nobody has else > > has been able to do it so far. > > Exactly as hard as Jack doing transport... > > Anyway, just because the signal flow aspect of things is patching > doesn't mean transport has to be. There's no fundamental reason this is > any harder than it is to solve in Ardour. Objects are objects at the > end of the day. You could even do it by controlling the transport over > wires if you wanted to (messages are messages at the end of the day) but > it would be a huge mess you would want to hide from the user anyway, so > not a lot of point. > > There's no technological reason this is infeasible or particularly > difficult, it's just a lot of work. > > -dr > > > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
Just to be pedantic for a moment, every audio plugin needs to be intimately familiar with time, because sound is a time bound phenomena, you almost always need to have an incremental (even if looped) index into an array somewhere, or some concept of a phase, and also frequency usually plays a role as well, and frequency is a measurement in the domain of time. Actually almost everything an audio plugin does is time dependent. On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Jens M Andreasen wrote: > Do plugins have any more sense of time than your average herd of cows? > In goes sunlight and green grass, and out comes a healthy amount of milk > and fresh manure .. > > The only kinds of "plugins" that has a sense of time in our world are > those who are recording either audio or midi, and these are those we > would normally prefer to define as our toplevel hosts. > > /j > > > On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 15:46 -0500, David Robillard wrote: >> On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 14:55 -0500, Paul Davis wrote: >> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Darren Landrum >> > wrote: >> > If one were to build a "kernel" to a digital audio workstation >> > that was >> > itself a bare-bones LV2 host, could things like audio tracks, >> > midi >> > tracks, and mixer channels and the like be built as LV2 >> > plug-ins? >> >> >> > if you want to understand why this is hard (not impossible, just >> > hard), go read the ardour source code and find all the places where >> > *unexpected* inter-object dependencies appear. then figure out how to >> > remove them. if you can do that, you'll be able to make a modular >> > system work. if not, you'll at least understand why nobody has else >> > has been able to do it so far. >> >> Exactly as hard as Jack doing transport... >> >> Anyway, just because the signal flow aspect of things is patching >> doesn't mean transport has to be. There's no fundamental reason this is >> any harder than it is to solve in Ardour. Objects are objects at the >> end of the day. You could even do it by controlling the transport over >> wires if you wanted to (messages are messages at the end of the day) but >> it would be a huge mess you would want to hide from the user anyway, so >> not a lot of point. >> >> There's no technological reason this is infeasible or particularly >> difficult, it's just a lot of work. >> >> -dr >> >> >> ___ >> Linux-audio-dev mailing list >> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org >> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 18:51 -0800, Justin Smith wrote: > Actually almost everything an audio plugin does is time dependent. But not to the wall clock! /j ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
So there is our answer: one extra input on every "timeline" dependent plugin, telling it the logical transport time/state. That plus a gui with pretty pictures of waveforms or midi notes or automation lines gives us what we have been talking about, right? Or am I missing something? On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Jens M Andreasen wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 18:51 -0800, Justin Smith wrote: >> Actually almost everything an audio plugin does is time dependent. > > But not to the wall clock! > > /j > > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
Yes you are missing that, either we would have an intelligent host commanding an unruly herd of time time-tracks, or we would just have a single master pretty much in terms with its own inconsistencies. In a fight between a single 24 track Studer and an array of synchronized Nagra's, I know what combination of poison I would pick :-D /j On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 19:01 -0800, Justin Smith wrote: > So there is our answer: one extra input on every "timeline" dependent > plugin, telling it the logical transport time/state. That plus a gui > with pretty pictures of waveforms or midi notes or automation lines > gives us what we have been talking about, right? Or am I missing > something? > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Jens M Andreasen > wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 18:51 -0800, Justin Smith wrote: > >> Actually almost everything an audio plugin does is time dependent. > > > > But not to the wall clock! > > > > /j > > > > ___ > > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > > > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
What is a Studer, and what is a Nagra? On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Jens M Andreasen wrote: > Yes you are missing that, either we would have an intelligent host > commanding an unruly herd of time time-tracks, or we would just have a > single master pretty much in terms with its own inconsistencies. > > In a fight between a single 24 track Studer and an array of synchronized > Nagra's, I know what combination of poison I would pick :-D > > /j > > On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 19:01 -0800, Justin Smith wrote: >> So there is our answer: one extra input on every "timeline" dependent >> plugin, telling it the logical transport time/state. That plus a gui >> with pretty pictures of waveforms or midi notes or automation lines >> gives us what we have been talking about, right? Or am I missing >> something? >> >> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Jens M Andreasen >> wrote: >> > >> > On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 18:51 -0800, Justin Smith wrote: >> >> Actually almost everything an audio plugin does is time dependent. >> > >> > But not to the wall clock! >> > >> > /j >> > >> > ___ >> > Linux-audio-dev mailing list >> > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org >> > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev >> > >> ___ >> Linux-audio-dev mailing list >> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org >> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 19:17 -0800, Justin Smith wrote: > What is a Studer, and what is a Nagra? They are both famous Swiss made tape-recorders. The Nagra was used in the field by pretty much every radio station and in film synchronized with camera (using real film, not video.) using EBU/SMPTE. It weighs way too much to be truly portable. I have a never ending love/hate relation to it ... The 24 track Studer was one of the more expensive multitrackers of its time. We instead used danish Lyrec, giving equalent quality for half the price. /j ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 03:40 +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote: > The only kinds of "plugins" that has a sense of time in our world are > those who are recording either audio or midi, and these are those we > would normally prefer to define as our toplevel hosts. Um... no. -dr ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 23:49 -0500, David Robillard wrote: > Um... no. Ehh ... I see time relative to the wall clock. What time is yours? /j > > -dr > > ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 05:58 +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote: > On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 23:49 -0500, David Robillard wrote: > > Um... no. > > Ehh ... > > > I see time relative to the wall clock. What time is yours? That there are several possible timebases (all of which, by the way, are relevant in audio depending on context) is not an argument that plugins have nothing to do with time. -dr ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Dumb Idea #27: LV2 host as kernel?
Dave, just askin'. :) Alex On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:56 AM, David Robillard wrote: > On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 05:58 +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 23:49 -0500, David Robillard wrote: > > > Um... no. > > > > Ehh ... > > > > > > I see time relative to the wall clock. What time is yours? > > That there are several possible timebases (all of which, by the way, are > relevant in audio depending on context) is not an argument that plugins > have nothing to do with time. > > -dr > > > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > -- Parchment Studios (It started as a joke...) ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
