O'Reilly critique on Linux and audio

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:15:22 +0100, J. P. Morris wrote:

>
> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7421
>
> I realise that this might well spark a flamewar, but I decided to post it
> anyway in the hope that it will be interesting to the few who are actually
> interested in the state of play regarding (semi)pro audio on Linux.

Well, I guess it's one guy's experiences. I would be cautious about
assuming it represents the state of Linux audio. A single request for help
to a mailing list would have told him....

There is a full featured mixer for the Delta 1010.
You can create templates in Ardour the same as Cubase. It's even in the
same 'file' menu.

The rest of the article is rather vague, concentrating on odd
ideas about 'presets' "You could create a new song based on genre",
"Mixing can also have reasonable defaults." "EQ is a science that many
don't understand". The usual installation woes make up the bulk of the
article.

I am in the same situation as the author, running a Win2k Cubase box
alongside Linux ones. However, I use Linux more like outboard hardware.
For what it's worth, I use prepackaged applications, I find Ardour no
harder to use than Cubase, and they both start with a single click. I also
don't try to play back mp3s of a different sample rate at the same time,
so the issues with sound servers are irrelevant.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

Linux is nothing but a huge waste of time and that statment holds true
ten fold for music production.
The disjointed, scattering of tools, alpha level applications and
horrid help systems make Linux an extremely poor choice for audio
production.
For $29.95 a copy or PPG PowerTracks is far better than anything Linux
has to offer and the time you will save trying to make Linux work will
be dedicated to making music instead of compiling low latency kernels.
Linux has at least 10 years to go before it even approaches the level
of functionality that even the least expensive Windows audio program
has.
Karla



J. P. Morris wrote:
> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7421
>
> I realise that this might well spark a flamewar, but I decided to post it
> anyway in the hope that it will be interesting to the few who are actually
> interested in the state of play regarding (semi)pro audio on Linux.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:14:33 -0700, Karla Snodgress wrote:

> Linux is nothing but a huge waste of time and that statment holds true
> ten fold for music production.
> The disjointed, scattering of tools, alpha level applications and
> horrid help systems make Linux an extremely poor choice for audio
> production.
> For $29.95 a copy or PPG PowerTracks is far better than anything Linux
> has to offer and the time you will save trying to make Linux work will
> be dedicated to making music instead of compiling low latency kernels.
> Linux has at least 10 years to go before it even approaches the level
> of functionality that even the least expensive Windows audio program
> has.
> Karla
>
>
>
> J. P. Morris wrote:
>> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7421
>>
>> I realise that this might well spark a flamewar, but I decided to post it
>> anyway in the hope that it will be interesting to the few who are actually
>> interested in the state of play regarding (semi)pro audio on Linux.

So, if you don't like Linux for music production, don't use it. No skin
off my nose. It happens to meet my needs. I also did scientific software
support and development in DOD for 30 years, and it met the need there, as
well.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

Sure you have.
We believe you.
Really we do.

Does it make you feel good to imagine you actually did something in
your life other than asking people if they want fries with that?

Karla Snodgress

P.S. The thought of a complete mental nutjub who is obsessed with Linux
working at DOD is scary at best.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

Karla Snodgress ha escrito:
> Linux is nothing but a huge waste of time and that statment holds true
> ten fold for music production.
> The disjointed, scattering of tools, alpha level applications and
> horrid help systems make Linux an extremely poor choice for audio
> production.
> For $29.95 a copy or PPG PowerTracks is far better than anything Linux
> has to offer and the time you will save trying to make Linux work will
> be dedicated to making music instead of compiling low latency kernels.
> Linux has at least 10 years to go before it even approaches the level
> of functionality that even the least expensive Windows audio program
> has.
> Karla
>
>
>
> J. P. Morris wrote:
> > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7421
> >
> > I realise that this might well spark a flamewar, but I decided to post it
> > anyway in the hope that it will be interesting to the few who are actually
> > interested in the state of play regarding (semi)pro audio on Linux.


and You the one they call flatfish. Right?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

Karla Snodgress ha escrito:
> Linux is nothing but a huge waste of time and that statment holds true
> ten fold for music production.
> The disjointed, scattering of tools, alpha level applications and
> horrid help systems make Linux an extremely poor choice for audio
> production.
> For $29.95 a copy or PPG PowerTracks is far better than anything Linux
> has to offer and the time you will save trying to make Linux work will
> be dedicated to making music instead of compiling low latency kernels.
> Linux has at least 10 years to go before it even approaches the level
> of functionality that even the least expensive Windows audio program
> has.
> Karla
>
>
>
> J. P. Morris wrote:
> > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7421
> >
> > I realise that this might well spark a flamewar, but I decided to post it
> > anyway in the hope that it will be interesting to the few who are actually
> > interested in the state of play regarding (semi)pro audio on Linux.


and You the one they call flatfish. Right?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

Karla Snodgress ha escrito:
> Linux is nothing but a huge waste of time and that statment holds true
> ten fold for music production.
> The disjointed, scattering of tools, alpha level applications and
> horrid help systems make Linux an extremely poor choice for audio
> production.
> For $29.95 a copy or PPG PowerTracks is far better than anything Linux
> has to offer and the time you will save trying to make Linux work will
> be dedicated to making music instead of compiling low latency kernels.
> Linux has at least 10 years to go before it even approaches the level
> of functionality that even the least expensive Windows audio program
> has.
> Karla
>
>
>
> J. P. Morris wrote:
> > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7421
> >
> > I realise that this might well spark a flamewar, but I decided to post it
> > anyway in the hope that it will be interesting to the few who are actually
> > interested in the state of play regarding (semi)pro audio on Linux.


and You the one they call flatfish. Right?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:30:04 -0700, Karla Snodgress wrote:

> Sure you have.
> We believe you.
> Really we do.
>
> Does it make you feel good to imagine you actually did something in
> your life other than asking people if they want fries with that?
>
> Karla Snodgress
>
> P.S. The thought of a complete mental nutjub who is obsessed with Linux
> working at DOD is scary at best.

I'm sorry you got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. The fact is
that I was initiated into the use of Unix in the early 90's while MS was
still dealing with non-functional Windows systems. It was there, it was
mature, and it worked. I ported our existing digital signal processing
tools from Vax/VMS (which had been ported from PDP-11 running RSX-11) to
DECstation platforms running DEC Ultrix with X-windows. I later ported to
DEC Alpha with Tru-64 Unix, and several years ago to DELL dual Xeon's
running RedHat Linux. Fact of the matter is, at that point, MS was not
able to handle the load. IMHO Linux and X-windows (with appropriate
libraries) is a much better, easier, and more robust solution than MS, and
certainly much more cost effective than MAC. X/Motif is a dynamite
platform, which you'll discover for yourself if you ever have an
opportunity to see quality software running.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

I agree with both Ray and Karla to a point.

As a server Unix/Linux really has some amazing features that Windows
has/does not offer. When building a server that will be up for 3 years
without a scheduled reboot, I don't mind taking 2-3 days to get it
working perfectly and to recompile all the needed applications/libs to
make the system run as quickly as possible. For me, the desktop is an
entirely different story. Windows way ahead of Linux when it comes to
software installation, GUI responsiveness, application launch time, and
configuration. As a developer and (hobbyist) musician, Desktop Linux is
just not there yet.

Sky

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Karla Snodgress wrote:

> J. P. Morris wrote:
>> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7421
>>
>> I realise that this might well spark a flamewar, but I decided to post it
>> anyway in the hope that it will be interesting to the few who are
>> actually interested in the state of play regarding (semi)pro audio on
>> Linux.
>
> Linux is nothing but a huge waste of time and that statment holds true
> ten fold for music production.
>

Looks like the children have woken up.

--
JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- jpm@it-he.org
Fun things to do with the Ultima games http://www.it-he.org
Reign of the Just - An Ultima clone http://rotj.it-he.org
d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KAW u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB----
uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy (More info?)

You have got to be kidding me! I have used and still use ALL the mjor
modern distrabutions. Gentoo, Mandrake/Mandriva, Redhat, Fedora
1-2-3-4, Suse, Unbuntu and on and on. They are still nowhere near
windows is ease of use, speed, and software management!

(I just posted the longest reply but it has not show up for some time.
So if you get this twice I'm sorry.)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy (More info?)

What? How on earth did you come to the conclusion that I have never
used a modern distro? I don't mean to be rude but get real! I have
tried them and all would love to see any or one truely meet all my
needs. This has not happened. I won't way it never will, but up to this
point it has not. I have grown accustomed to the responsiveness and
productivity of Windows. Here is a simple test to illustrate my point.
Go to a site that uses alpha blended PNG files, if you don't know of
any try www.myaereus.com, create an account (free like hotmail) and use
the Nova theme. Then open a new browser windows and move around over
the webpage - LAAAGGG. Distrabutions tried, Gentoo, Fedora 1-2-3-4,
Redhat Enterprise Desktop, Suse, Ubuntu, Mandrake/Mandriva, and many
many more. Now try the same test in Windows - the outcome might
surprise you.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

On the comp.os.linux.advocacy meeting for Sunday 24 July 2005 01:38 am,
sky.stebnicki@gmail.com submitted the following proposal...

> For me, the desktop is an entirely different story. Windows way ahead of
Linux when it comes to
> software installation, GUI responsiveness, application launch time, and
> configuration. As a developer and (hobbyist) musician, Desktop Linux is
>just not there yet.

You only say this because you haven't used a modern distro of Linux.
Desktop Linux is here, has been for some time, it's just waiting for the
users to catch up.

--
rapskat - 02:02:43 up 7 days, 7:03, 1 user, load average: 0.14, 0.26,
0.33
"Bother," said Pooh as he struggled with sendmail.cf, "it never
does quite what I want. I wish Christopher Robin was here."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy (More info?)

On the comp.os.linux.advocacy meeting for Sunday 24 July 2005 02:37 am,
DevManager submitted the following proposal...

> You have got to be kidding me! I have used and still use ALL the mjor
> modern distrabutions. Gentoo, Mandrake/Mandriva, Redhat, Fedora
> 1-2-3-4, Suse, Unbuntu and on and on. They are still nowhere near
> windows is ease of use, speed, and software management!

And I have used and still use and support ALL the major releases of Windows
from 3.11 on up, and none of them have anywhere near the power,
flexibility, configurability, software management or stability of major
distros of Linux.

The only thing Windows has got going for it over Linux is greater commercial
vendor support, and we all know why that is.

> (I just posted the longest reply but it has not show up for some time.
> So if you get this twice I'm sorry.)

Yeah, some news servers hiccup on occasion.

<f-ups set to cola>
(BTW, most people announce when they set f-ups, unless they are deliberately
trolling)

--
rapskat - 02:50:28 up 7 days, 7:51, 1 user, load average: 0.52, 0.54,
0.36
"Ironically, DeCSS was published on the Web by a U.S. court (as
evidence) as a result of legal action against people who posted DeCSS on
the Web. Oops."
-- Sandy McMurray
http://canoe.ca/TechNews/column_readme.html

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

ray wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:14:33 -0700, Karla Snodgress wrote:
>
> > Linux is nothing but a huge waste of time and that statment holds true
> > ten fold for music production.
> > The disjointed, scattering of tools, alpha level applications and
> > horrid help systems make Linux an extremely poor choice for audio
> > production.
> > For $29.95 a copy or PPG PowerTracks is far better than anything Linux
> > has to offer and the time you will save trying to make Linux work will
> > be dedicated to making music instead of compiling low latency kernels.
> > Linux has at least 10 years to go before it even approaches the level
> > of functionality that even the least expensive Windows audio program
> > has.
> > Karla
> >
> >
> >
> > J. P. Morris wrote:
> >> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7421
> >>
> >> I realise that this might well spark a flamewar, but I decided to post it
> >> anyway in the hope that it will be interesting to the few who are actually
> >> interested in the state of play regarding (semi)pro audio on Linux.
>
> So, if you don't like Linux for music production, don't use it. No skin
> off my nose. It happens to meet my needs. I also did scientific software
> support and development in DOD for 30 years, and it met the need there, as
> well.

Ten years ago it also fitted the needs. If everybody is like you, linux
wouldn't improve anything at all.

GFIA!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

Karla Snodgress wrote:

> Sure you have.
> We believe you.
> Really we do.
>
> Does it make you feel good to imagine you actually did something in
> your life other than asking people if they want fries with that?
>
> Karla Snodgress
>
> P.S. The thought of a complete mental nutjub who is obsessed with Linux
> working at DOD is scary at best.
>


Lighten up. This isn't that important.

So have you ever heard "Gregary Peccary" in it's entirety?
*That* is important.

Ms. Snodgrass?

--
Les Cargill

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy (More info?)

On the comp.os.linux.advocacy meeting for Sunday 24 July 2005 03:01 am,
DevManager submitted the following proposal...

> What? How on earth did you come to the conclusion that I have never
> used a modern distro?

From your comments.

> I don't mean to be rude but get real! I have
> tried them and all would love to see any or one truely meet all my
> needs.

Which needs would those be? Unless they are very specialized, I truly doubt
that you haven't been able to find a distro that is capable of fulfilling
them.

> This has not happened. I won't way it never will, but up to this
> point it has not. I have grown accustomed to the responsiveness and
> productivity of Windows.

I have grown accustomed to the stability and performance of Linux, not to
mention security and many other things. Windows falls flat in comparison.

> Here is a simple test to illustrate my point.
> Go to a site that uses alpha blended PNG files, if you don't know of
> any try www.myaereus.com, create an account (free like hotmail) and use
> the Nova theme. Then open a new browser windows and move around over
> the webpage - LAAAGGG. Distrabutions tried, Gentoo, Fedora 1-2-3-4,
> Redhat Enterprise Desktop, Suse, Ubuntu, Mandrake/Mandriva, and many
> many more. Now try the same test in Windows - the outcome might
> surprise you.

No, it wouldn't suprise me at all. The "lag" you refer to is the time it
takes to download and display these rather large graphics. IE uses
pre-caching by default, so while you're looking at one page, it's in the
background pre-loading the graphics for the next so that they appear to
load and display faster. This is common knowledge, and you can do the same
on Linux if you want to with a caching proxy server (which is what we use
at my shop).

You should take a peek at your cache settings for IE and see what they're
set to if you really want a surprise. Now try completely dumping the
cache, setting it to something much lower, and then browse to that site
again. Talk about lag!

See, Windows is chock full of little tricks like that to give the appearance
that it's quick and fast, but it's all just smoke and mirrors to fool the
public from what's really happening behind the scenes. Another one is it's
appearance to boot up so fast. What it does is put the GUI initialization
as high as possible on the boot priority, while putting other tasks
afterwards.

So you see a desktop, you think it's fully booted, but really it's not, it's
still chugging away loading core services & drivers in the background, so
it may be a while before you are at a *ready* desktop. With Linux, OTOH,
by the time my desktop is loaded, it's completely and fully loaded and
ready to use.

--
rapskat - 03:37:16 up 7 days, 8:38, 1 user, load average: 0.51, 0.46,
0.34
"We grow a little every time we do not take advantage of
somebody's weakness."
--Bern Williams

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy (More info?)

Concerning the speed issue and the tests performed using websites.
Unfortutately I with I could blame it on IE. Unfortunately, I was using
firefox with the exact same settings. I even tried installing the same
fonts on Linux to see if it was on cance a font issue. Same exact
results (and same exact cache size!)

Not only that, launching google maps with a direct link peggs my CPU at
100% for way too long. It seems XML processing within firefox is really
slow. I might blame this on the application but I am reserved in doing
so because it works so very well in windows.

I have performed this very test in Ubuntu, Redhat, Fedora (practically
the same thing), and Gentoo.

If you can speed this up I am all ears!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

You must be a total idiot if you can't make Linux work for basic
recording needs.I am using Linux every day to make my recordings mostly
because i do not have the money to spend on commercial programs. I am
using a Celeron 350 with 256mmemory and with Slackware I am able to get
24 tracks of audio in Ardour before I start to get stuttering of sound.
I don't even think this boxen would load Windowsxp and I'm certain I
could not run a Protools farm on it.
It took me about a month to set up Linux and get everything to work but
with help from the alsa mailing list and the agnula project I was able
to customize Slackware to run a light kernel and give me excellent
performance on my somewhat underpowered hardware. So Linux takes a
little time to get going? I fail to see the big deal here because once
it's configured it stays that way.
I have found that I can use what little money I have to treat my room
and purchase decent microfones instead of having to spend it on
software. Plus I don't have to worry about serial numbers, dongles and
stuff like that because Linux is free.
I would suggest that the people who are dissing Linux, try Linux and
see for themselves. Give yourself a month or so to get the system up
and running and I think you will be impressed at what you can
accomplish with Linux and a little internet research.
chow_4_now
Oksana



Karla Snodgress escreveu: > Linux is nothing but a huge waste of time
and that statment holds true
> ten fold for music production.
> The disjointed, scattering of tools, alpha level applications and
> horrid help systems make Linux an extremely poor choice for audio
> production.
> For $29.95 a copy or PPG PowerTracks is far better than anything Linux
> has to offer and the time you will save trying to make Linux work will
> be dedicated to making music instead of compiling low latency kernels.
> Linux has at least 10 years to go before it even approaches the level
> of functionality that even the least expensive Windows audio program
> has.
> Karla
>
>
>
> J. P. Morris wrote:
> > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7421
> >
> > I realise that this might well spark a flamewar, but I decided to post it
> > anyway in the hope that it will be interesting to the few who are actually
> > interested in the state of play regarding (semi)pro audio on Linux.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

You must be a total idiot if you can't make Linux work for basic
recording needs.I am using Linux every day to make my recordings mostly
because i do not have the money to spend on commercial programs. I am
using a Celeron 350 with 256mmemory and with Slackware I am able to get
24 tracks of audio in Ardour before I start to get stuttering of sound.
I don't even think this boxen would load Windowsxp and I'm certain I
could not run a Protools farm on it.
It took me about a month to set up Linux and get everything to work but
with help from the alsa mailing list and the agnula project I was able
to customize Slackware to run a light kernel and give me excellent
performance on my somewhat underpowered hardware. So Linux takes a
little time to get going? I fail to see the big deal here because once
it's configured it stays that way.
I have found that I can use what little money I have to treat my room
and purchase decent microfones instead of having to spend it on
software. Plus I don't have to worry about serial numbers, dongles and
stuff like that because Linux is free.
I would suggest that the people who are dissing Linux, try Linux and
see for themselves. Give yourself a month or so to get the system up
and running and I think you will be impressed at what you can
accomplish with Linux and a little internet research.
chow_4_now
Oksana



Karla Snodgress escreveu: > Linux is nothing but a huge waste of time
and that statment holds true
> ten fold for music production.
> The disjointed, scattering of tools, alpha level applications and
> horrid help systems make Linux an extremely poor choice for audio
> production.
> For $29.95 a copy or PPG PowerTracks is far better than anything Linux
> has to offer and the time you will save trying to make Linux work will
> be dedicated to making music instead of compiling low latency kernels.
> Linux has at least 10 years to go before it even approaches the level
> of functionality that even the least expensive Windows audio program
> has.
> Karla
>
>
>
> J. P. Morris wrote:
> > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7421
> >
> > I realise that this might well spark a flamewar, but I decided to post it
> > anyway in the hope that it will be interesting to the few who are actually
> > interested in the state of play regarding (semi)pro audio on Linux.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

On 23 Jul 2005 14:30:04 -0700, Karla Snodgress
<karla_snodgress@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> P.S. The thought of a complete mental nutjub who is obsessed with Linux
> working at DOD is scary at best.
>

Actually, DoD uses (among other things) Linux.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:05:34 -0400, rapskat wrote:

> On the comp.os.linux.advocacy meeting for Sunday 24 July 2005 01:38 am,
> sky.stebnicki@gmail.com submitted the following proposal...
>
>> For me, the desktop is an entirely different story. Windows way ahead of
> Linux when it comes to
>> software installation, GUI responsiveness, application launch time, and
>> configuration. As a developer and (hobbyist) musician, Desktop Linux is
>>just not there yet.
>
> You only say this because you haven't used a modern distro of Linux.
> Desktop Linux is here, has been for some time, it's just waiting for the
> users to catch up.

And there are whole distros just devoted to music/media production, boh
Live CD and installable, like Agnula/DeMuDi.

--
Kier

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

On 24 Jul 2005 13:04:43 -0700, "Oksana" <oksana_linux_girl@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>You must be a total idiot if you can't make Linux work for basic
>recording needs.I am using Linux every day to make my recordings mostly
>because i do not have the money to spend on commercial programs.
<snip>

I may be a total idiot, too, but I can't get any audio interface to
input 24-bit audio into any Linux recording software.

Using the Linux core to record 16-bit 44.1K is all fine and dandy and
works just great. Rosegarden is particularly cool. But some of us
(actually, the vast majority of audio recordists) need 24-bit and
higher sampling rates.

If you Linux gurus know of any audio interface or Linux recording
program that work together and record 24-bit and/or sample rates
beyond 44.1K, please let me know.

Until then, it's Win Xp and Tiger for me.

- TR

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

Any money wasted on home computer music production is just that.
Gonna make your millions recording your whiney-ass boyfriend crying
into a microphone?
You're sad.
Now take your toys and post to some childrens group.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

Oh, really?

--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:24:05 -0700, Citizen Ted wrote:

> On 24 Jul 2005 13:04:43 -0700, "Oksana" <oksana_linux_girl@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>You must be a total idiot if you can't make Linux work for basic
>>recording needs.I am using Linux every day to make my recordings mostly
>>because i do not have the money to spend on commercial programs.
> <snip>
>
> I may be a total idiot, too, but I can't get any audio interface to
> input 24-bit audio into any Linux recording software.
>
> Using the Linux core to record 16-bit 44.1K is all fine and dandy and
> works just great. Rosegarden is particularly cool. But some of us
> (actually, the vast majority of audio recordists) need 24-bit and
> higher sampling rates.
>
> If you Linux gurus know of any audio interface or Linux recording
> program that work together and record 24-bit and/or sample rates
> beyond 44.1K, please let me know.
>
> Until then, it's Win Xp and Tiger for me.

What audio interface do you have?
You really should use Jackd and Ardour for this kind of thing.
Jack will default to 32bit audio, then try 24bit and then 16 if the others
don't work.

Try starting qjackctl, clicking on 'setup' and changing the sample rate.
Start Jack and it will refuse if the sample rate is not supported.

Or, in console style... For a working input at the highest bit depth the
card supports, you should see something like this. (Gina-20)

"[philicorda@philus ~]$ jackd -d alsa -d hw:2
jackd 0.100.1
Copyright 2001-2005 Paul Davis and others.
jackd comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; see the file COPYING for details

JACK compiled with System V SHM support.
loading driver ..
creating alsa driver ... hw:2|hw:2|1024|2|48000|0|0|nomon|swmeter|-|32bit
control device hw:2
configuring for 48000Hz, period = 1024 frames, buffer = 2 periods
nperiods = 2 for capture
nperiods = 2 for playback"

For something like a soundblaster, it'll like like this:

"[philicorda@philus ~]$ jackd -d alsa -d hw:0
jackd 0.100.1
Copyright 2001-2005 Paul Davis and others.
jackd comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; see the file COPYING for details

JACK compiled with System V SHM support.
loading driver ..
creating alsa driver ... hw:0|hw:0|1024|2|48000|0|0|nomon|swmeter|-|32bit
control device hw:0
configuring for 48000Hz, period = 1024 frames, buffer = 2 periods
Note: audio device hw:0 doesn't support a 32bit sample format so JACK will try a 24bit format instead
Note: audio device hw:0 doesn't support a 24bit sample format so JACK will try a 16bit format instead
nperiods = 2 for capture
Note: audio device hw:0 doesn't support a 32bit sample format so JACK will try a 24bit format instead
Note: audio device hw:0 doesn't support a 24bit sample format so JACK will try a 16bit format instead
nperiods = 2 for playback
"

If the card supports 24bit and 96k, then it should work.

>
> - TR

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy (More info?)

On the comp.os.linux.advocacy meeting for Sunday 24 July 2005 12:32 pm,
DevManager submitted the following proposal...

> Concerning the speed issue and the tests performed using websites.

Is Google incapable of quoting text? I would think not as others that use
Google to post seem to be able to do so.

Why do you remove all quotes from your responses? It makes it harder to
follow the discussion and besides seems very disrespectful to the person
you are replying to.

> Unfortutately I with I could blame it on IE. Unfortunately, I was using
> firefox with the exact same settings. I even tried installing the same
> fonts on Linux to see if it was on cance a font issue. Same exact
> results (and same exact cache size!)

My experiences with IE are different. If you remove the advantage of the
massive cache that it defaults to, it is no faster in loading pages than
any other browser.

> Not only that, launching google maps with a direct link peggs my CPU at
> 100% for way too long. It seems XML processing within firefox is really
> slow. I might blame this on the application but I am reserved in doing
> so because it works so very well in windows.

I'm don't see this on Linux. Unless there is a java applet or some other
media content, CPU stays well below 100% loading sites.

> I have performed this very test in Ubuntu, Redhat, Fedora (practically
> the same thing), and Gentoo.

Sorry, I am unable to duplicate these results here.

> If you can speed this up I am all ears!

Too many variables to reliably say, though I can say that I am not
experiencing what you claim to.

--
rapskat - 01:44:40 up 1:17, 2 users, load average: 0.13, 0.18, 0.17
A 'good' landing is one from which you can walk away. A 'great'
landing is one after which they can use the plane again.
-- Rules of the Air, #8

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

Citizen Ted <enoid801DUMP@THIScomcast.net> writes:

>On 24 Jul 2005 13:04:43 -0700, "Oksana" <oksana_linux_girl@yahoo.com>
>wrote:

>>You must be a total idiot if you can't make Linux work for basic
>>recording needs.I am using Linux every day to make my recordings mostly
>>because i do not have the money to spend on commercial programs.
><snip>

>I may be a total idiot, too, but I can't get any audio interface to
>input 24-bit audio into any Linux recording software.

>Using the Linux core to record 16-bit 44.1K is all fine and dandy and
>works just great. Rosegarden is particularly cool. But some of us
>(actually, the vast majority of audio recordists) need 24-bit and
>higher sampling rates.

24 bit is NOT a sampling rate. 24 bits comes pretty close (ie exceeds)
overkill since that is sampling noise threshold or -135dB and no analog
microphone/amplifier/whatever can give you that kind of noise floor.
But OK. Now the question is why you cannot get that when others can?
Of course if y9ou are trying to use a classical soundblaster soundcard to
do so, you will have trouble.



>If you Linux gurus know of any audio interface or Linux recording
>program that work together and record 24-bit and/or sample rates
>beyond 44.1K, please let me know.

>Until then, it's Win Xp and Tiger for me.

>- TR

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

Unruh wrote:

> Citizen Ted <enoid801DUMP@THIScomcast.net> writes:
>
>>Using the Linux core to record 16-bit 44.1K is all fine and dandy and
>>works just great. Rosegarden is particularly cool. But some of us
>>(actually, the vast majority of audio recordists) need 24-bit and
>>higher sampling rates.
>
> 24 bit is NOT a sampling rate.

I don't want to get embroiled in this mess, but what I think he meant was
24 bits AND higher sampling rates than 44100hz, e.g. 24/96 or 24/192.

When I last tried this, most of the audio tools I had couldn't cope with
playing back the 24 bit PCM .wav files I had recorded on Windows.
That was with Fedora 2.. now I have installed Ubuntu, most of the tools now
have support for it. I haven't yet tried 24-bit recording, though.

--
JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- jpm@it-he.org
Fun things to do with the Ultima games http://www.it-he.org
Reign of the Just - An Ultima clone http://rotj.it-he.org
d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KAW u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB----
uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:50:43 +0100, "J. P. Morris" <jpm@it-he.org>
wrote:


>I don't want to get embroiled in this mess, but what I think he meant was
>24 bits AND higher sampling rates than 44100hz, e.g. 24/96 or 24/192.

Exactly. Thank you.

>When I last tried this, most of the audio tools I had couldn't cope with
>playing back the 24 bit PCM .wav files I had recorded on Windows.
>That was with Fedora 2.. now I have installed Ubuntu, most of the tools now
>have support for it. I haven't yet tried 24-bit recording, though.

That's the problem. I should have been more specific. I can't find a
vendor driver that works properly under Linux to provide anything but
16-bit 44.1K. I'm very impressed at how stable the 16-bit 44.1K native
support is in Rosegarden. No problems. Works good, stays lit, sounds
fine.

Audio/MIDI under Linux is not bad; it's as robust as, say, Garageband.

But until a Linux build emerges with native support for advanced
audio, Linux will not be the choice for a serious DAW. I'm not
counting on vendors developing advanced drivers for Linux. It's the
old saw at work: not enough people use Linux, so we won't develop
drivers for Linux. Linux is not penetrating the market because there's
not enough Linux users (because there's not sufficient vendor
support).

On and on it goes.

It's sad, but it's true.

- TR
- back to work.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc (More info?)

Karla Snodgress (flatfish) wrote:

>(snip troll)

*plonk*

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:00:26 -0700, Citizen Ted wrote:

> But until a Linux build emerges with native support for advanced
> audio, Linux will not be the choice for a serious DAW. I'm not
> counting on vendors developing advanced drivers for Linux. It's the
> old saw at work: not enough people use Linux, so we won't develop
> drivers for Linux. Linux is not penetrating the market because there's
> not enough Linux users (because there's not sufficient vendor
> support).

That's bogus. If the card supports 24/96, and has an ALSA driver, then
you should get 24/96. ALSA is the native driver for any modern distro, no
special build required.

There is nothing 'advanced' about higher sample rates/bit depths, people
have been using them with Linux for years. I think some Creative
Soundblaster cards don't work at higher rates, but that's not a huge
problem.

To use higher bit rates, start jack at 96k, start Ardour, hit record.
Ardour only records at 32bit float to disk, so you are stuck with the
highest bit depth your card supports whether you like it or not.


>
> On and on it goes.
>
> It's sad, but it's true.
>
> - TR
> - back to work.