linuxaudio.org

--00163649a65103ac53048527681a

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
********************************************
2010/4/26 J=C3=B6rn Nettingsmeier 
> On 04/26/2010 08:47 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:

quoted text
> > Hey guys!

> >

> > I was wondering about the following.

> > On Windows we have lots and lots of plugins and synthesizers and effect

> > racks. On Linux the selection is much less variable.

> >

> > However, am I correct in understanding that the variety of the Windows

> > synths and plugins merely means that people take several core modules a=

nd

quoted text
> > just rearrange them into different GUIs?

> > Am I correct in understanding that there are only several major

> algorithms

> > for things like filters, delays, reverbs and choruses?

>

> in my view, the situation is mixed. there is a lot of utter bullshit

> going on, eqs and "mastering" compressors seem to have the greatest

> voodoo factor. then some people sell you simple convolvers as

> oh-so-great emulators of vintage stuff... i think it's justified to say

> that these basic building blocks are widely understood, with little room

> for ground-breaking improvements.

>

> it's either in great user interfaces or cutting-edge (and patented)

> technology that proprietary stuff kicks our collective asses (which is

> fine in my book).

>

> there are many truly revolutionary algorithms and interface designs that

> have no free software equivalent, nor will they for the forseeable

> future. stuff like ableton live or the waves reverbs come to mind, or

> (gasp!) melodyne. or advanced restauration tools like really good

> denoises and declickers. then there's adaptive convolvers that can

> tackle non-linear stuff (like the "liquid" gear marketed by focusrite) -

> no ready-to-use free equivalents exist for this. whether you need it or

> not is another question. as it stands now, we can't emulate an UREI, the

> closed source folks can. but sampo s. is hot on their tracks :)

>

> the audio fundamentals (controlling spectrum, delay, frequency response,

> and space), i.e. the basic things you mentioned that you need to get a

> mix done, is all there, in varying degrees of usability and slickness,

> and i have never looked back.

>

> then again, i'm not tied into a workflow that needs maximum efficiency.

> stuff like protools does have its uses - it's hard to envision an

> environment where a seasoned engineer could be faster and more

> productive. but often, all that you get for your money is a fake brushed

> aluminum widget with huge, wasteful and incorrectly modelled VU meters

> and fake rack ears... caveat emptor.

>

> but in all fairness, open source is covering ground in this area, too. :-=

D

quoted text
>

> best,

>

> j=C3=B6rn

>

>

> ******************************

>

HI j=C3=B6rn
I totally agree here.
We can,  and do produce music that is a s good as any thing in the comercia=

l

sector.

We may work a different way to some of the more commercial offerings but we

still achieve the same level of professional sounding music.
Cheers

Bob
 _______________________________________________

quoted text
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list

> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

>

--00163649a65103ac53048527681a

Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
********************************************2010/4/26 J=C3=B6rn Nettingsmeier <nettings@folkwang-hochschule.de>=
On 04/26/2010 08:=

47 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:

quoted text
> Hey guys!

>

> I was wondering about the following.

> On Windows we have lots and lots of plugins and synthesizers and effec=

t

quoted text
> racks. On Linux the selection is much less variable.

>

> However, am I correct in understanding that the variety of the Windows=

> synths and plugins merely means that people take several core modules =

and

quoted text
> just rearrange them into different GUIs?

> Am I correct in understanding that there are only several major algori=

thms

quoted text
> for things like filters, delays, reverbs and choruses?

in my view, the situation is mixed. there is a lot of utter bullshit

going on, eqs and "mastering" compressors seem to have the greate=

st

voodoo factor. then some people sell you simple convolvers as

oh-so-great emulators of vintage stuff... i think it's justified to say=
that these basic building blocks are widely understood, with little room

for ground-breaking improvements.
it's either in great user interfaces or cutting-edge (and patented)

technology that proprietary stuff kicks our collective asses (which is

fine in my book).
there are many truly revolutionary algorithms and interface designs that

have no free software equivalent, nor will they for the forseeable

future. stuff like ableton live or the waves reverbs come to mind, or

(gasp!) melodyne. or advanced restauration tools like really good

denoises and declickers. then there's adaptive convolvers that can

tackle non-linear stuff (like the "liquid" gear marketed by focus=

rite) -

no ready-to-use free equivalents exist for this. whether you need it or

not is another question. as it stands now, we can't emulate an UREI, th=

e

closed source folks can. but sampo s. is hot on their tracks :)
the audio fundamentals (controlling spectrum, delay, frequency response,

and space), i.e. the basic things you mentioned that you need to get a

mix done, is all there, in varying degrees of usability and slickness,

and i have never looked back.
then again, i'm not tied into a workflow that needs maximum efficiency.=
stuff like protools does have its uses - it's hard to envision an

environment where a seasoned engineer could be faster and more

productive. but often, all that you get for your money is a fake brushed

aluminum widget with huge, wasteful and incorrectly modelled VU meters

and fake rack ears... caveat emptor.
but in all fairness, open source is covering ground in this area, too. :-D<=

br>
best,
j=C3=B6rn
******************************HI j=C3=B6rnI totally agree here.We can,=C2=A0 and do produce music that is a =

s good as any thing in the comercial sector.We may work a different way=

 to some of the more commercial offerings but we still achieve the same lev=

el of professional sounding music.

CheersBob

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lis=

ts.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
--00163649a65103ac53048527681a--