Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools
Hallo, Malte Steiner hat gesagt: // Malte Steiner wrote: > Just a quick note that I contradict the view that point and click == > good user interface. I agree very much with that. However when doing the first steps in a program, exploring with the mouse can be very handy, but I, too, try to learn the keyboard shortcuts as soon as possible. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org__ ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools
Hello, > Basic recording and editing in Ardour can be realised almost without > using the keyboard at all: > Anyway Pd beats both in simplicity by only requiring 6 special > keyboard shortcuts: Ctl-1,...,5 and Ctl-e ;) > Just a quick note that I contradict the view that point and click == good user interface. Additionally I think mouse is a bad unnatural invention but that is because I suffer of carpal tunnel syndrome for years now which I only overcome with the use of graphic tablets but in general the distances you have to go back and forth with mouse is ridiculous and waste of time, particular when making music and having to interact in time. I experienced a high increase of productivity with learning the key shortcuts of applications and thinking about programming a sequencer which doesnt work with mouse anyway (but is not a tracker either, more MPC style). In general I think much about user interfaces and hope to come up with better ideas, point and click is so stoneage and its crazy to fit in all kind of application in this metaphor. Physical hardware user interfaces are one solution, like control surfaces in the audio world. 3D is always a hassle because you usually manipulate 3D on 2D screen. My experience with datagloves is so lala having the bad P5 which is not precise, modelling with it would lead to funny results. And holding up hands in front of the screen is tiresome too. Same was with Lightpen on CRT monitors but both are gone now. I have no experiences with 3D mouses yet... Cheers, Malte -- Malte Steiner media art + development -www.block4.com- next event: 29.feb Notstandskomitee live at Linux Audio Conference Cologne, Germany ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools
Hallo, Pablo Martin hat gesagt: // Pablo Martin wrote: > Maybe mastering it will take less time that blender (as blender has so > many features), but i *really* think it's easier to get used to blender > initially (s, g, r, tab ;)). Not that it matters that much... It's > probably a matter of field of interest, but still, as a simple tool, > mostly everyone i know and cares a little can use blender to a certain > degree (for making small vj videos, or simple props for games), while > they can't use ardour (even though some would really like to learn). I think, it's really a field of interest matter mostly. Blender has much more functionality to present than Ardour, which is natural for the tasks they are targetting. Ardour is just about recording, editing and playing back audio, while Blender is a modeller, animator, renderer and much more. This also becomes obvious by simply comparing shortcut cheat sheets of both: http://ardour.org/files/manual/sn-mouse-and-keyboard-bindings.html http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Blender_3D:_Noob_to_Pro/Hot_Keys Basic recording and editing in Ardour can be realised almost without using the keyboard at all: http://ardour.org/files/manual/sn-user-interface-conventions.html The biggest trouble is getting the audio routing right for the first time and understanding tracks and busses, but when that is done everything falls into place naturally (for audio people at least). Anyway Pd beats both in simplicity by only requiring 6 special keyboard shortcuts: Ctl-1,...,5 and Ctl-e ;) Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org__ ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 19:03 +0100, Pablo Martin wrote: > Frank Barknecht escribió: > > Hallo, > > Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote: > > > > > > > > Uhm, while Blender certainly is great, you aren't seriously trying to > > tell me you really think its shortcuts are intuitive, are you?!? ;-) > > Someone who mastered Blender should have no problems with Ardour, > > given he invests about a tenth of the time to learn it. > > > > Maybe mastering it will take less time that blender (as blender has so > many features), but i *really* think it's easier to get used to blender > initially (s, g, r, tab ;)). Not that it matters that much... It's > probably a matter of field of interest, but still, as a simple tool, > mostly everyone i know and cares a little can use blender to a certain > degree (for making small vj videos, or simple props for games), while > they can't use ardour (even though some would really like to learn). > > Note i don't have anything special against ardour :), but your remark > deserved some kind of action ;). > > Also, i don't imply that blender is perfect in the usability field at > all of course. > > Anyways, lets better forget this happened XD, dont want no holy > usability war me neither. and it was also not my point in comparing blender and ardour in terms of usability, initially. my point was to be appreciative for the makers of elephants dreams decision to use non-free audio software. i highly appreciate softwares like ardour and puredata, but those don't cover everything one needs to do in the field of audio (yet and in my personal opinion, at least). yo, but i shut up now and hope i can come to LAC next year and hopefully see what cool projects people do by using FOSS tools. roman ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools
Frank Barknecht escribió: > Hallo, > Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote: > > > > Uhm, while Blender certainly is great, you aren't seriously trying to > tell me you really think its shortcuts are intuitive, are you?!? ;-) > Someone who mastered Blender should have no problems with Ardour, > given he invests about a tenth of the time to learn it. > Maybe mastering it will take less time that blender (as blender has so many features), but i *really* think it's easier to get used to blender initially (s, g, r, tab ;)). Not that it matters that much... It's probably a matter of field of interest, but still, as a simple tool, mostly everyone i know and cares a little can use blender to a certain degree (for making small vj videos, or simple props for games), while they can't use ardour (even though some would really like to learn). Note i don't have anything special against ardour :), but your remark deserved some kind of action ;). Also, i don't imply that blender is perfect in the usability field at all of course. Anyways, lets better forget this happened XD, dont want no holy usability war Cheers!! Pablo ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools
Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote: > Frank Barknecht wrote: > > Uhm, while Blender certainly is great, you aren't seriously trying to > > tell me you really think its shortcuts are intuitive, are you?!? ;-) > > how do you want to manage hundreds of commands intuitively? I would say > camera rotation is intuitive. Vi is more intuitive. ;) Anyway I never said that Blender's shortcuts were unnecessary or that the should be done in a different way. My point is: If someone can understand Blender's GUI he should have no problems understanding Ardours or any other audio editors GUIs, because these are all much simpler. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org__ ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools (was: sound for blender apricot opensource game)
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 12:51 +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote: > OTOH, LADSPA plugins don't > support customized guis, AFAIK, therefor there is no option to do > something like jamin as a LADSPA plugin. IMHO, most LADSPA plugins might > be good scientific applications, but definitely not for everyday studio > work (no visual feedback, strange scales of parameters). But of course customised GUIs have been available via DSSI (an extension of LADSPA) since 2004, and LV2 (LADSPA version 2) now provides infrastructure for GUIs, units etc. (http://lv2plug.in/) Jamie -- www.postlude.co.uk ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools
Roman Haefeli wrote: >> btw, blender forum has about 30.000 registered users. pd maybe 1000-3000??? > > where do you want to go with this question? i like pd, otherwise i > wouldn't use it. the fact that i like pd for what it is doesn't > automatically turn it into an audio editing suite and i am not > complaining about pd. I only posted the numbers to compare/show why blender gets more money, focus, and has more developers than pd. it is possible that blender will produce 10 more films before pd gets a comparable amount of development money from the European Union (where most of the budget for elephants dream came from...). I am not complaining about Pd at all! marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools (was: sound for blender apricot opensource game)
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 12:14 -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > Ardour is definitely comparable to blender, if not better. I think > it was more a matter of finding someone who was willing to work for > very little money on the project who would use free tools. Being the > Blender Foundation, their focus was the 3D part, understandably, so > it wasn't a big deal to use proprietary software for the audio. Now > that they have proven the model for getting projects done, I think > there is no real excuse not to use all FOSS for the whole project. let me change that to: 'there is no real excuse not to develop FOSS audio tools'. > I talked with Bassam Kurdali, the Director of Elephants Dream, about > this and that's pretty much what he said. I think that they want to > do it all FOSS, they just need people willing to do the work. So > let's do the work! :D do the development work, yes. roman ___ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 13:25 -0500, marius schebella wrote: > Roman Haefeli wrote: > > > yo, those are just a few reasons why the makers of Elephants Dream may > > didn't want to go for FOSS for the sound part. i hope it's only a > > question of waiting some years, until the audio world gets to similar > > level as blender reached in the 3d world. > > > > roman > > Hmm, one more reason: > elephant's dream was a blender project. some of the grant money went > into core development of blender itself to adjust it to production > features. one of the goals of the film was, to see whether blender would > pass the "ready for a real film" exam. > blender people just did not have the budget (and goal) to develop on the > sound side, too. yo, would be nice to see some development/budget going into audio as well, since from my experience it isn't quite possible yet to do real everyday audio work with FOSS tools. > btw, blender forum has about 30.000 registered users. pd maybe 1000-3000??? where do you want to go with this question? i like pd, otherwise i wouldn't use it. the fact that i like pd for what it is doesn't automatically turn it into an audio editing suite and i am not complaining about pd. roman ___ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools (was: sound for blender apricot opensource game)
On Feb 3, 2008, at 6:51 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote: > thanks for mentioning those. we're getting a bit OT now, but just a > few > quick comments: > > -ardour is certainly a great and advanced DAW, no doubt. recording can > be definitely done with FOSS. > > - jamin is cool and powerful software too, but it follows the wrong > strategy: you can only use it in real-time, since it is a jack-plugin. > having to render in realtime is a pain and dangerous in many > situations > (all drop-outs are in the resulting file). OTOH, LADSPA plugins don't > support customized guis, AFAIK, therefor there is no option to do > something like jamin as a LADSPA plugin. IMHO, most LADSPA plugins > might > be good scientific applications, but definitely not for everyday > studio > work (no visual feedback, strange scales of parameters). > > - both ardour, jamin and almost all sound editors i found don't > have an > accelerated gui. scrolling causes high cpu peaks.i don't know any > software on windows, that uses cpu for the gui part. it's sad, that i > have hardware (gpu) in my box, which isn't used at all (but only > when i > do Gem). On Mac OS X, at least, the OS handles moving the GUI drawing to the GPU. I think that's what compiz/beryl is trying to do as well, and I'll bet GNOME is doing some of that too. I'll be Windows does that as well. If you are writing an audio editor, I don't think you should be thinking about the GPU, that's the OS's job. > - i actually appreciate the concept of modularized and specialized > tools, that are connected over a soundsever instead of a monolithic > 'it > can do everything' tool. however, since LASH and its precedessor > LADCCA > don't have the same level support in each software, that could be used > in a studio environment, it's kinda hard to manage projects. > > - there is not audio editor around, that even loosely fulfills my > needs. > probably the makers of Elephants Dream felt the same. Some of them > lack > native jack support, others use very strange sets of shortcuts, or are > pretty raw in general. Every audio app has their own strange shortcuts, Logic is quite strange for example. That's mostly a matter of learning them. It would be nice if they used the standard key commands for the OS tho. > yo, those are just a few reasons why the makers of Elephants Dream may > didn't want to go for FOSS for the sound part. i hope it's only a > question of waiting some years, until the audio world gets to similar > level as blender reached in the 3d world. Ardour is definitely comparable to blender, if not better. I think it was more a matter of finding someone who was willing to work for very little money on the project who would use free tools. Being the Blender Foundation, their focus was the 3D part, understandably, so it wasn't a big deal to use proprietary software for the audio. Now that they have proven the model for getting projects done, I think there is no real excuse not to use all FOSS for the whole project. I talked with Bassam Kurdali, the Director of Elephants Dream, about this and that's pretty much what he said. I think that they want to do it all FOSS, they just need people willing to do the work. So let's do the work! :D .hc > > roman > > > > > On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 09:31 +0100, Georg Holzmann wrote: >> Hallo! >> >>> it's sad, but especially for mastering tasks i still have to >>> stick with >>> proprietary tools on a proprietary operating system, since >>> working with >>> foss tools is still way far from being as efficient as with the >>> tools >>> that are usually used in studios. >> >> Did you try Ardour+Jamin ? >> I did some recording projects with it in summer and it just worked >> quite >> well ... it works similar like a protools setup. >> >> LG >> Georg >> >> ___ >> PD-list@iem.at mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ >> listinfo/pd-list > > > > ___ > Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http:// > messenger.yahoo.de > > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ > listinfo/pd-list Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish.-William Carlos Williams ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools
Frank Barknecht wrote: > Uhm, while Blender certainly is great, you aren't seriously trying to > tell me you really think its shortcuts are intuitive, are you?!? ;-) how do you want to manage hundreds of commands intuitively? I would say camera rotation is intuitive. which other program with a comparable feature set is more intuitive? ok, maybe photoshop... marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools
Roman Haefeli wrote: > yo, those are just a few reasons why the makers of Elephants Dream may > didn't want to go for FOSS for the sound part. i hope it's only a > question of waiting some years, until the audio world gets to similar > level as blender reached in the 3d world. > > roman Hmm, one more reason: elephant's dream was a blender project. some of the grant money went into core development of blender itself to adjust it to production features. one of the goals of the film was, to see whether blender would pass the "ready for a real film" exam. blender people just did not have the budget (and goal) to develop on the sound side, too. btw, blender forum has about 30.000 registered users. pd maybe 1000-3000??? marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools (was: sound for blender apricot opensource game)
sorry, i accidently hit send, while i wasn't finished. On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 13:52 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote: > The actually drawing is accelerated by the graphics card already. > However a tricky question that cannot simply be shovelled to the > gfx-card (so easily) is how to decide which samples to display at all. > For example when zoomed out, you don't need to draw every single > sample. Ardour uses a sophisticated algorithm for deciding things like > that, AFAIK. (IIRC Paul Davis once said that this was one of the > hardest parts in Ardour to get right.) Compare that to Pd, which > doesn't even bother with trying to be smart here, which results in > slowdown when moving arrays with many elements, even when they are > displayed in only a small area. > > All in all to me Ardour doesn't feel slow at all. Audacity OTOH is > slow (and all around terrible for my taste anyway) as was the last > version of SoundForge for Windows, that I had to run at work - though > I admit that this was some years ago. But Ardour feels very snappy and > quick here. you're right, that it doesn't feel slow, however, whether it's related to hardware acceleration or not, it causes peaks when simply scrolling the timeline (no zooming). many linux softwares do that, whereas no audio editor or daw for windows i know does cause peaks while scrolling. so there is still room for improvements, whether it's hardware acceleration related or not. and after all, ardour is a bad example, since it's probably the best software in that respect and in terms of usability. > > - there is not audio editor around, that even loosely fulfills my needs. > > probably the makers of Elephants Dream felt the same. Some of them lack > > native jack support, others use very strange sets of shortcuts, or are > > pretty raw in general. > > Uhm, while Blender certainly is great, you aren't seriously trying to > tell me you really think its shortcuts are intuitive, are you?!? ;-) no, but i wouldn't compare the complexity of sound-editing to the one of creating animated 3D-environments. many softwares in the proprietary world have proven, that sound editing can be easy, where at the same time there is no (this is my personal opinion, of course) no usable audio editor for linux around and yet no plugins or plugin architecture, that would allow mastering. blender might be not easy to learn, but it has proven, that it can be used for very complex projects as rendering animated movies. > Someone who mastered Blender should have no problems with Ardour, > given he invests about a tenth of the time to learn it. yeah roman ___ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools (was: sound for blender apricot opensource game)
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 13:52 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote: > Hallo, > Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote: > > > thanks for mentioning those. we're getting a bit OT now, but just a few > > quick comments: > > > > -ardour is certainly a great and advanced DAW, no doubt. recording can > > be definitely done with FOSS. > > > > - jamin is cool and powerful software too, but it follows the wrong > > strategy: you can only use it in real-time, since it is a jack-plugin. > > having to render in realtime is a pain and dangerous in many situations > > (all drop-outs are in the resulting file). OTOH, LADSPA plugins don't > > support customized guis, AFAIK, therefor there is no option to do > > something like jamin as a LADSPA plugin. IMHO, most LADSPA plugins might > > be good scientific applications, but definitely not for everyday studio > > work (no visual feedback, strange scales of parameters). > > LADSPA plugins don't have a GUI at all, so every GUI you get is a > customized one. LADSPA-plugins itself are perfectly able to be run in > non-realtime. For example if you render an Ardour session with LADSPA > plugins in it to file, this is done in non-realtime fashion. Often > it's done faster than realtime. yeah, that is what i am saying: LADSPA plugins can be rendered offline, but don't have a visual feedback, whereas tools as jamin have visual feedback, but cannot be rendered offline and therefor are not drop-out save. > > - both ardour, jamin and almost all sound editors i found don't have an > > accelerated gui. scrolling causes high cpu peaks.i don't know any > > software on windows, that uses cpu for the gui part. it's sad, that i > > have hardware (gpu) in my box, which isn't used at all (but only when i > > do Gem). > > The actually drawing is accelerated by the graphics card already. > However a tricky question that cannot simply be shovelled to the > gfx-card (so easily) is how to decide which samples to display at all. > For example when zoomed out, you don't need to draw every single > sample. Ardour uses a sophisticated algorithm for deciding things like > that, AFAIK. (IIRC Paul Davis once said that this was one of the > hardest parts in Ardour to get right.) Compare that to Pd, which > doesn't even bother with trying to be smart here, which results in > slowdown when moving arrays with many elements, even when they are > displayed in only a small area. > All in all to me Ardour doesn't feel slow at all. Audacity OTOH is > slow (and all around terrible for my taste anyway) as was the last > version of SoundForge for Windows, that I had to run at work - though > I admit that this was some years ago. But Ardour feels very snappy and > quick here. > > - there is not audio editor around, that even loosely fulfills my needs. > > probably the makers of Elephants Dream felt the same. Some of them lack > > native jack support, others use very strange sets of shortcuts, or are > > pretty raw in general. > > Uhm, while Blender certainly is great, you aren't seriously trying to > tell me you really think its shortcuts are intuitive, are you?!? ;-) > Someone who mastered Blender should have no problems with Ardour, > given he invests about a tenth of the time to learn it. > > Ciao ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools (was: sound for blender apricot opensource game)
Hallo, Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote: > thanks for mentioning those. we're getting a bit OT now, but just a few > quick comments: > > -ardour is certainly a great and advanced DAW, no doubt. recording can > be definitely done with FOSS. > > - jamin is cool and powerful software too, but it follows the wrong > strategy: you can only use it in real-time, since it is a jack-plugin. > having to render in realtime is a pain and dangerous in many situations > (all drop-outs are in the resulting file). OTOH, LADSPA plugins don't > support customized guis, AFAIK, therefor there is no option to do > something like jamin as a LADSPA plugin. IMHO, most LADSPA plugins might > be good scientific applications, but definitely not for everyday studio > work (no visual feedback, strange scales of parameters). LADSPA plugins don't have a GUI at all, so every GUI you get is a customized one. LADSPA-plugins itself are perfectly able to be run in non-realtime. For example if you render an Ardour session with LADSPA plugins in it to file, this is done in non-realtime fashion. Often it's done faster than realtime. > - both ardour, jamin and almost all sound editors i found don't have an > accelerated gui. scrolling causes high cpu peaks.i don't know any > software on windows, that uses cpu for the gui part. it's sad, that i > have hardware (gpu) in my box, which isn't used at all (but only when i > do Gem). The actually drawing is accelerated by the graphics card already. However a tricky question that cannot simply be shovelled to the gfx-card (so easily) is how to decide which samples to display at all. For example when zoomed out, you don't need to draw every single sample. Ardour uses a sophisticated algorithm for deciding things like that, AFAIK. (IIRC Paul Davis once said that this was one of the hardest parts in Ardour to get right.) Compare that to Pd, which doesn't even bother with trying to be smart here, which results in slowdown when moving arrays with many elements, even when they are displayed in only a small area. All in all to me Ardour doesn't feel slow at all. Audacity OTOH is slow (and all around terrible for my taste anyway) as was the last version of SoundForge for Windows, that I had to run at work - though I admit that this was some years ago. But Ardour feels very snappy and quick here. > - there is not audio editor around, that even loosely fulfills my needs. > probably the makers of Elephants Dream felt the same. Some of them lack > native jack support, others use very strange sets of shortcuts, or are > pretty raw in general. Uhm, while Blender certainly is great, you aren't seriously trying to tell me you really think its shortcuts are intuitive, are you?!? ;-) Someone who mastered Blender should have no problems with Ardour, given he invests about a tenth of the time to learn it. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org__ ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools
Hallo! > - jamin is cool and powerful software too, but it follows the wrong > strategy: you can only use it in real-time, since it is a jack-plugin. > having to render in realtime is a pain and dangerous in many situations Yeah that's true - would be nice to do that offline ... But this is also how it works in studios, you have your mastering-hardware and bounce it in rt (I am not such a studio expert, but at least in the studios I was it was done like this). However, this should be no excuse ... > (all drop-outs are in the resulting file). OTOH, LADSPA plugins don't > support customized guis, AFAIK, therefor there is no option to do > something like jamin as a LADSPA plugin. IMHO, most LADSPA plugins might > be good scientific applications, but definitely not for everyday studio > work (no visual feedback, strange scales of parameters). Yes, that's the second problem. It took me quite some time to find some good sounding plugins (and some I had to fix) - but they exist. Better visual feedback would be great too - maybe the upcoming LV2 can solve this ... Okay, that's maybe a little bit OT now ;) LG Georg ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] [OT] FOSS audio tools (was: sound for blender apricot opensource game)
thanks for mentioning those. we're getting a bit OT now, but just a few quick comments: -ardour is certainly a great and advanced DAW, no doubt. recording can be definitely done with FOSS. - jamin is cool and powerful software too, but it follows the wrong strategy: you can only use it in real-time, since it is a jack-plugin. having to render in realtime is a pain and dangerous in many situations (all drop-outs are in the resulting file). OTOH, LADSPA plugins don't support customized guis, AFAIK, therefor there is no option to do something like jamin as a LADSPA plugin. IMHO, most LADSPA plugins might be good scientific applications, but definitely not for everyday studio work (no visual feedback, strange scales of parameters). - both ardour, jamin and almost all sound editors i found don't have an accelerated gui. scrolling causes high cpu peaks.i don't know any software on windows, that uses cpu for the gui part. it's sad, that i have hardware (gpu) in my box, which isn't used at all (but only when i do Gem). - i actually appreciate the concept of modularized and specialized tools, that are connected over a soundsever instead of a monolithic 'it can do everything' tool. however, since LASH and its precedessor LADCCA don't have the same level support in each software, that could be used in a studio environment, it's kinda hard to manage projects. - there is not audio editor around, that even loosely fulfills my needs. probably the makers of Elephants Dream felt the same. Some of them lack native jack support, others use very strange sets of shortcuts, or are pretty raw in general. yo, those are just a few reasons why the makers of Elephants Dream may didn't want to go for FOSS for the sound part. i hope it's only a question of waiting some years, until the audio world gets to similar level as blender reached in the 3d world. roman On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 09:31 +0100, Georg Holzmann wrote: > Hallo! > > > it's sad, but especially for mastering tasks i still have to stick with > > proprietary tools on a proprietary operating system, since working with > > foss tools is still way far from being as efficient as with the tools > > that are usually used in studios. > > Did you try Ardour+Jamin ? > I did some recording projects with it in summer and it just worked quite > well ... it works similar like a protools setup. > > LG > Georg > > ___ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
