linuxaudio.org

--001485f724f0c1717904729b298c

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Niklas Kl=FCgel w=

rote:
> cunnilinux himself schrieb:

quoted text
> >> Some people here (more or less) desperately need a similar application

> for linux.

> >>

> >

> > off topic, but...

> > people in linux audio scene always DESPERATELY need something just

> > like a copy of some fancy (commercial) app on win/mac.

> > that's the main and only reason why linux is (semi-)deficient in the

> > pro audio world.

> >

> >

> just to add my 2 cents...

>

> regarding monolithic vs. modular (across applications):

> while the latter (theoretically) allows for more flexibility of

> processing, akin to the proven unix-concepts of pipelining (and

> therefore the development of something jack-alike for audio/video etc

> became an obvious evolution for -primarily- LAU/D), it does not allow

> for certain common concepts in the workflow of composition and dsp.

> technically - or at least _without hassle_. those include nearly all

> operations that:

> 1a) allow you to temporarily bounce (aka freezing) parts of the signal

> chain (tracks, single processed clips, subchannels) - thus saving cpu

> cycles in rather complex arrangements.

>

This could happen if programs could be smart enough not to do audio

processing if there is no input signal and programs are able to trace the

signal path(s) till it(they) terminate(s) (either has no output connections=

,

makes itself to the system output connections (speakers), or back into the

application itself. The application could then connect the terminating

output(s) to the program input - do a synchronised record (already

possible), close off the signal path for the processing version of the trac=

k

and playback the recorded audio instead.
> 1b) keep sequencing and time-information on

quoted text
> processed/bounced/re-recorded material

>

if the solution for 1 is enabled then this should also be possible.
> 1c) saving disk-space and processing time by recording only the

quoted text
> necessary parts of the bounce while still being a proper/correct bounce.

>

this should also be possible. for inter application stuff this would just

require some form of dead air detection. Or am I missing something here.
> 2) modifying a group of modules in the signal chain and the sequence

quoted text
> data e.g. cloning, deleting, replacing etc.

>

Cloning would be an interesting feature to have at the connection and

application management layer.

But providing that the applications are smart enough not to do processing

and that groups of applications could be saved and loaded by the applicatio=

n

that replaces Lash (LADI?)... All this should be possible.
> 3) exchange meta-information such as the set of notes in a track to e.g.

quoted text
> allow samplers to efficiently just load the samples needed to play the

> track, prefetching large chunks of audio-data or sub-track tempi for

> sync'd f/x.

>

This could potentially be done through dbus... and/or as an extension to LV=

2

etc.
> 4) limit the amount of organization in 1x) and mixing units

quoted text
> (pre-/post-fx or mixer or sub-channels and modulation sources across

> tracks)

> I am sure you can come up with some more. Those are all points taken

> care of in halfway sane, up-to-date DAWs that are monolithic and points

> like 1 & 2 are basic editing operations that - for me - increase the

> efficiency by a factor of 4 in time spent fiddling with the arrangement.

> The early versions of Ableton didnt do 1) for example and my time spent

> on organizing heavy arrangements (30-50 tracks with lots of automated

> f/x) was unbearable, not to mention that the quality of execution of the

> sequencing and composition itself suffered due to that.

>

5) of course easy recall of chains(+sequence data) etc

quoted text
> These points are of conceptual nature.

>

This  I  understand is the point of having something like LASH (LADI?)...
Anyways I am glad you brought up those points... It is something severely

lacking in the current modular implementation that we have.

Doing things in a modular way through jackd has a lot of potential but

really requires some application managment features to really compete with

proprietory workflows.
I would love to see a control application that

1) lets you group applications....

2) the ability to remove/restore connections going in or out of  a group.

3) the ability to clone a group.

4) the ability to save/restore groups of applications.
--001485f724f0c1717904729b298c

Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Niklas =

Kl=FCgel <n=

iklas.kluegel@mytum.de> wrote:

cunnilinux himself schrieb:

quoted text
>> Some people here (more or less) desperately need=

 a similar application for linux.

quoted text
>>

>

> off topic, but...

> people in linux audio scene always DESPERATELY need something just

> like a copy of some fancy (commercial) app on win/mac.

> that's the main and only reason why linux is (semi-)deficient in t=

he

quoted text
> pro audio world.

>

>

just to add my 2 cents...

regarding monolithic vs. modular (across applications):

while the latter (theoretically) allows for more flexibility of

processing, akin to the proven unix-concepts of pipelining (and

therefore the development of something jack-alike for audio/video etc

became an obvious evolution for -primarily- LAU/D), it does not allow

for certain common concepts in the workflow of composition and dsp.

technically - or at least _without hassle_. those include nearly all

operations that:

1a) allow you to temporarily bounce (aka freezing) parts of the signal

chain (tracks, single processed clips, subchannels) - thus saving cpu

cycles in rather complex arrangements.This could =

happen if programs could be smart enough not to do audio processing if ther=

e is no input signal and programs are able to trace the signal path(s) till=

 it(they) terminate(s) (either has no output connections, makes itself to t=

he system output connections (speakers), or back into the application itsel=

f. The application could then connect the terminating output(s) to the prog=

ram input - do a synchronised record (already possible), close off the sign=

al path for the processing version of the track and playback the recorded a=

udio instead.

=A0

1b) keep sequencing and time-information on

processed/bounced/re-recorded materialif the solu=

tion for 1 is enabled then this should also be possible.=A0
1c) saving disk-space and processing time by recording only the

necessary parts of the bounce while still being a proper/correct bounce.this should also be possible. for inter application =

stuff this would just require some form of dead air detection. Or am I miss=

ing something here.

=A0

2) modifying a group of modules in the signal chain and the sequence

data e.g. cloning, deleting, replacing etc.Clonin=

g would be an interesting feature to have at the connection and application=

 management layer.But providing that the applications are smart enough =

not to do processing and that groups of applications could be saved and loa=

ded by the application that replaces Lash (LADI?)... All this should be pos=

sible.

=A0

3) exchange meta-information such as the set of notes in a track to e.g.

allow samplers to efficiently just load the samples needed to play the

track, prefetching large chunks of audio-data or sub-track tempi for

sync'd f/x.This could potentially be done thr=

ough dbus... and/or as an extension to LV2 etc. =A0
4) limit the amount of organization in 1x) and mixing units

(pre-/post-fx or mixer or sub-channels and modulation sources across tracks=

)

I am sure you can come up with some more. Those are all points taken

care of in halfway sane, up-to-date DAWs that are monolithic and points

like 1 & 2 are basic editing operations that - for me - increase the

efficiency by a factor of 4 in time spent fiddling with the arrangement.

The early versions of Ableton didnt do 1) for example and my time spent

on organizing heavy arrangements (30-50 tracks with lots of automated

f/x) was unbearable, not to mention that the quality of execution of the

sequencing and composition itself suffered due to that.=A0=
5) of course easy recall of chains(+sequence data) etc

These points are of conceptual nature.This=A0 I=

=A0 understand is the point of having something like LASH (LADI?)...Anyways I am glad you brought up those points... It is somethin=

g severely lacking in the current modular implementation that we have.

Doing things in a modular way through jackd has a lot of potential but real=

ly requires some application managment features to really compete with prop=

rietory workflows.I would love to see a control application that

1) lets you group applications....2) the ability to remove/restore conn=

ections going in or out of=A0 a group.3) the ability to clone a group.<=

br>4) the ability to save/restore groups of applications.
--001485f724f0c1717904729b298c--