Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily use?

Support & discussion regarding DAWs and MIDI sequencers.

Moderators: khz, MattKingUSA

What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily use?

Ardour
27
42%
LMMS
2
3%
Non-Daw
2
3%
Non-Sequencer
3
5%
OOMIDI/OOM
1
2%
qtractor
13
20%
Rosegarden
4
6%
Traverso
0
No votes
Jokosher
0
No votes
Something else (please mention!)
12
19%
 
Total votes: 64

jeffh
Established Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: East Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by jeffh »

danboid wrote:it'd be a great shame for qtractor, MusE and rosegarden users if you drop DSSI support
But does Euphoria work properly in any of those DAWs? Not last time I checked, Qtractor had a few bugs(including some heap corruption that screws up state-saving) and potential crashes, Muse has stuck notes and/or missed notes and crashes, and Rosegarden crashes quite a lot. You seem to be seeing things my way regarding Muse2, as evidenced by your recent post, and the recent barrage of bug reports you filed in their tracker...

But the reference DSSI host by the DSSI developers always worked, and I created PyDAW based on the reference host and it too hosts Euphoria flawlessly. Therefore, there's no reason to knee-cap my plugins' potential just to preserve compatibility with hosts that have had buggy DSSI support since forever... So the idea is that PyDAW and it's plugins will continue growing rapidly until they become the premier Linux DAW... and there is a huge performance/feature advantage to be had by stripping out DSSI support and making the plugins truly integrated with PyDAW, such as my plans of making individual samples in Euphoria directly routable to busses in the PyDAW mixer. I can do that even more elegantly than Kontakt in Cubase/Reaper/Ableton can because I control the plugins and the DAW.

If it's any consolation, the current PyDAWv1 and it's plugins will be able to be installed in parallel with PyDAWv2, PyDAWv3, etc... but I'm not going to limit my plugins potential in PyDAW as a favor to any of the other DAW developers, sorry... and since it seems that the possibility of you ever adopting PyDAW as your main DAW has not ever crossed your mind, then maybe it's best that you don't get too attached to Euphoria either... DSSI is a dead standard, and I'm replacing it with my own plugin standard that will fix all of it's shortcomings, it's not a matter of "if", but of "when"...

jeffh
Established Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: East Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by jeffh »

The lv2 main author is the one that codes ardour lv2 support, so it has the best possible support.
First of all, I'm no fan of Ardour. They're finally going to release Ardour3 with "MIDI support" even though it's still not stable after so many years of delay...

But more interestingly, Dave didn't just do Ardour, he apparently helped Rui with LV2 in Qtractor and his plugins, implemented LV2 in the CALF pack, and probably also implemented LV2 (or helped) anywhere else it is being used :lol: Did Steinberg have to help anybody implement VST? Heck, Windows developers all complain about the VST format, and yet everybody can still make it work...
We're all just worried that you end up doing something new and totally different, which no host will be able to load (if you're serious about doing your own plugin spec, of course).
PyDAW v1 will not lose DSSI compatibility, so you'll have the current plugins mostly as they are today(with only bug-fix updates, and possibly a port to Qt5 if it's not too much work). However, as I said, I intend to make a truly integrated DAW/plugin experience, so the other DAW developers wanting/needing my plugins is not my concern. They were all offered a chance to collaborate with me and all turned it down, now that I've written my own DAW, they won't get that chance again.
I personally won't use PyDAW, but would use the plugins if they work on a specific plugin spec.
Why should I care about the other DAWs for people with that kind of attitude? PyDAW is still very young, but the hardcore-Linux-audio-afficionados all seem to be dead-set against ever using it, because they have loyalty to other developers, and don't want to ruin those friendships.

What exactly is broken about the current DSSI hosts implementation?
Have you tried them? :lol:
I have my own host (getting it ready for release), and I'm working towards perfect spec support with it.
I do want to make your plugins working perfectly with it, really. I'm open to all kind of suggestions on how to improve it (just need a little time to clean it up).
Test them thoroughly, Valgrind your host until it gives no more memory errors, and don't expect the plugins to magically re-order the MIDI events to their logical order (ie: everything the current hosts didn't do).

I've hinted at my feelings about LV2 before, but I'll share them again :lol:

1. I'm sure he's a really nice guy, but Drobzilla has been in college for over 20 years. He's never held a real job, and he's never finished any piece of software that he has started(as evidenced by the many half-baked-wonders in his personal Git repo). I'm not sure who appointed him to be the standard-barer for plugin format design, and I don't know why everyone sat around and waited 7 years for him to finish LV2, then he's already bumped minor versions twice in less than a year since then, but I'm going to start my own plugin standard to compete with LV2 that will be simpler to use and have a more sensible feature set, and I'll finish it in a fraction of the time and bump versions as little as possible. There's nothing wrong with a little competition, right? and if I do a better job than he did, then everybody wins. However, harsh as this may sound, based on all of this work that I've seen, I have no faith in the man behind the standard, so therefore as long as he owns it, I have no faith in the standard. Of course, you or anybody else are welcome to fork Euphoria into an LV2, or better yet, implement my new standard in their hosts.

2. I intend to do things DSSI can't do, but I also intend to do things that LV2 can't do either. Most Linux audio developers are general purpose developers rather than DSP developers, and most tend to 'recycle' other libre DSP code for their own(not that there's anything wrong with that, but limited understanding of DSP doesn't help them either)... I started out as a DSP developer many years ago, and the core of PyDAW and it's plugins is a high performance/quality DSP library that I wrote myself from scratch. If anybody is qualified to 'get it right' with a plugin/host format, it's me. I think Euphoria is perhaps already one of the best examples of "advanced exotic DSP technique" in all of open source, how many other plugins implement multi-pronged indexing schemes, advanced audio/modulation routing schemes and silly amounts of modularity?

Like this from Euphoria's MIDI processing loop, it's f'ing hardcore to use a 4-dimensional array for an index like this, right? :D The below code is the main reason Euphoria uses <5% CPU at idle instead of 30-40%...

Code: Select all

//Calculate an index of which mod_matrix controls to process.  This saves expensive iterations and if/then logic in the main loop
for(plugin_data->i_fx_grps = 0; (plugin_data->i_fx_grps) < EUPHORIA_EFFECTS_GROUPS_COUNT; plugin_data->i_fx_grps = (plugin_data->i_fx_grps) + 1)
{
    for(plugin_data->i_dst = 0; (plugin_data->i_dst) < (plugin_data->active_polyfx_count[f_voice_num]); plugin_data->i_dst = (plugin_data->i_dst) + 1)
    {
        plugin_data->polyfx_mod_counts[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->active_polyfx[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->i_dst)])] = 0;

        for(plugin_data->i_src = 0; (plugin_data->i_src) < EUPHORIA_MODULATOR_COUNT; plugin_data->i_src = (plugin_data->i_src) + 1)
        {
            for(plugin_data->i_ctrl = 0; (plugin_data->i_ctrl) < EUPHORIA_CONTROLS_PER_MOD_EFFECT; plugin_data->i_ctrl = (plugin_data->i_ctrl) + 1)
            {
                if((*(plugin_data->polyfx_mod_matrix[(plugin_data->i_fx_grps)][(plugin_data->active_polyfx[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->i_dst)])][(plugin_data->i_src)][(plugin_data->i_ctrl)])) != 0)
                {                                        
                    plugin_data->polyfx_mod_ctrl_indexes[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->active_polyfx[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->i_dst)])][(plugin_data->polyfx_mod_counts[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->active_polyfx[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->i_dst)])])] = (plugin_data->i_ctrl);
                    plugin_data->polyfx_mod_src_index[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->active_polyfx[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->i_dst)])][(plugin_data->polyfx_mod_counts[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->active_polyfx[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->i_dst)])])] = (plugin_data->i_src);
                    plugin_data->polyfx_mod_matrix_values[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->active_polyfx[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->i_dst)])][(plugin_data->polyfx_mod_counts[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->active_polyfx[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->i_dst)])])] = 
                            (*(plugin_data->polyfx_mod_matrix[(plugin_data->i_fx_grps)][(plugin_data->active_polyfx[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->i_dst)])][(plugin_data->i_src)][(plugin_data->i_ctrl)])) * .01;

                    plugin_data->polyfx_mod_counts[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->active_polyfx[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->i_dst)])] = (plugin_data->polyfx_mod_counts[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->active_polyfx[f_voice_num][(plugin_data->i_dst)])]) + 1;
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

alex stone
Established Member
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:39 am

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by alex stone »

Jeffh,

What do you have in mind for a universal linux plugin format instead of lv2?

Alex.

EDIT: Ok, i've read again and you seem to be ok with DSSI. Any plans to contribute, improve it, add new features, etc?

jeffh
Established Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: East Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by jeffh »

alex stone wrote:EDIT: Ok, i've read again and you seem to be ok with DSSI. Any plans to contribute, improve it, add new features, etc?
I'm glad you asked... Rather than some overbearing behemoth of a plugin format with 20 different components like LV2, I'm going to fork my standard from DSSI, but with the following improvements:

1. Liblo/OSC is out for GUI->plugin communication, in favor of either DBus, pipes, or sockets...(which ever I find most reliable and robust)
2. The back-end will have better ways to send messages to the UI
3. Both host and plugin will get an actual API/library to make implementation easier, rather than an SDK and a few reference designs to copy like DSSI..
4. Better audio routing options
5. A more sensible way of creating control ports that doesn't cause re-ordering to break backwards compatibility
6. Event-driven control processing, instead of costly table scans(Euphoria has over 1100 controls to scan, believe it or not)...
7. More options for the type of value to send, rather than just casting everything to a typedef'd float and having to cast it back to int or whatever.
8. Plugin delay compensation reporting

..and otherwise, it will be kept as simple as possible. DSSI mostly got it right(once the Liblo networking bugs got worked out, not their fault though), it just needed a bit more work to modernize it.

jeffh
Established Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: East Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by jeffh »

falkTX wrote: I never turned down a chance to collaborate with you (...did I?).
No, but you did pretty much say that I was an arrogant prick who boasts too much, which isn't going to make for very good relations between us :lol:
falkTX wrote: You'll be "hurting" other developers and users that are not guilty of this.
I'm not concerned about other developers. I'm developing my own stack of applications, so I don't have a need for their applications.
falkTX wrote: I've seen you rant a lot about current DAWs, but your plugins have probably have some flaws as well.
*probably* aka: you're not sure because you haven't really used them :lol: There are only a couple of flaws that I know of, and I haven't fixed them because frankly, they're not that important. But I have Valgrind'ed (Valground?) the entire suite to death, and wrote a test bed to play back an entire PyDAW project disconnected from ALSA/Jack through GDB or Valgrind(including simulating external MIDI events), and can say with absolute certainty that everything is free of buffer overflows, conditional-move-or-jump-depends-on-unitialized-values and so on... Maybe you should give PyDAW a try, it's unbelievably stable for a DAW that's less than 4 months into development... There may still be bugs lurking around with such new code, but with my commitment to both automated and manual QA/testing, I will hunt them down and squash them sooner rather than later.
falkTX wrote: The last release you made of libmodsynth didn't load in Renoise at all (and that is a pro-grade DAW, err tracker, not a toy).
LOL, Renoise is still a very small player compared to Cubase/Reaper/Ableton/ProTools(/Sequoia/AcidPro/MicrosoftSongSmith)... Show me a real "pro" who uses Renoise, then we can give it "pro" status... My plugins work in jack-dssi-host , the reference DSSI host design, therefore they should work anywhere DSSI plugins are hosted... But they didn't, so I wrote my own host based on jack-dssi-host, and everything "just works".
falkTX wrote: What attitude?
That you switching to PyDAW is never going to be an option.
falkTX wrote: Some people have just criticized you a little bit, but mostly because of tend to get overzealous about your software.
I don't get this...
Richard Stallman also catches a lot of flack for the same thing :lol:
falkTX wrote:drobilla did finish a lot of his projects (Raul, Flowcanvas, Patchage, the whole lv2 stuff).
Patchage wasn't very stable when I tried it, I don't call that "finished".
falkTX wrote: why are you so quick to rant people?
I don't know, I've been like this since I was 5 y/o...

falkTX wrote: I understand that you know your way around computers, coding and DSP, but your PR skills need some work...
I'm not concerned about PR or playing politician, I think the best PR is a killer product that's too good not to use... PyDAW isn't there yet, but I think it would compare favorably to any DAW or plugin suite, free or commercial, that's so early into development(by a single person, in his spare time, much less). In a couple of weeks, it will be the one-year-anniversary of me beginning work on my project. At this time next year, I expect to have taken it completely to the next level, now that I have a solid foundation and a focused project. Let's look at other software developers who are dicks:

Native Instruments: dicks
Steinberg: dicks
M-Audio/Avid/Protools: dicks

...and yet everybody still gives them money and uses their software :lol:
falkTX wrote:I still haven't gave up on LV2, because it will hurt users.
Linux is a democracy of competing projects and standards. How many times has a component of the Linux kernel been replaced by a superior competing project? It's evolution and natural selection, the cream almost always rises to the top, so this will be a competition between me and Drobilla. May the best man win...
falkTX wrote: anyway, I hope you the best, and happy holidays btw.
Don't let my words hurt you, that's not my purpose.

I just want a happy community here. :D
Same to you, buddy :)

jeffh
Established Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: East Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by jeffh »

falkTX wrote: But you'll get much much less users that way, although I suspect that's what you want...
I'm not concerned about total user count, but I am aiming to attract new users from Windows/OSX to Linux, rather than fighting over the same 20 people who post on LM... I'm aiming to grow the pie with something unique and compelling, rather than stealing somebody else's slice of the pie...

danboid
Established Member
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:28 am
Location: England

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by danboid »

I totally agree with F on your total lack of respect for other devs Jeff and that if you carry on it will only harm your project. Despite what you might like people to think you've not developed pydaw in some bubble without any outside aid as it obviously depends upon Qt, python, gcc and god knows how many other projects. I hope you don't go slagging these other devs off as much as you to the other (Linux) audio devs - it does you no favours and the sooner you realise it and stop calling everyone dicks the better. FLOSS flourishes through collaboration and mutual respect but your current attitude will do a fantastic job of keeping other devs (and users) away from using and helping improve pydaw.

There are plenty of pro musicians who use Renoise and many are signed to labels - there's a whole list of 'em on the renoise site. Granted, if you're not into electronica then I'd suspect many will not appeal to you. However, I suspect Renoise wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is if it didn't have VST support and hence access to a wide range of pro-quality synths and other plugins. Non-insular software is good!

Once pydaw has audio support on a par with qtractor or muse and you've wrote a synth that compares well to noisemaker or Aspect - then I'll start taking interest. Until then its fighting with OOM as the premier example of how not to run an open source project.
Are you new to Linux Audio? This manual explains how to install KXStudio, set up and use JACK, mimimize latency, lists the best Linux AV apps and much more all in a concise and easy to understand format.

http://wiki.linuxaudio.org/wiki/kxstudio_manual

jeffh
Established Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: East Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by jeffh »

danboid wrote:I totally agree with F on your total lack of respect for other devs Jeff
Pfffft... They disrespected me first, but that was before your time, n00b.
danboid wrote:and that if you carry on it will only harm your project. Despite what you might like people to think you've not developed pydaw in some bubble without any outside aid as it obviously depends upon Qt, python, gcc and god knows how many other projects.


ALSA, Jack, sndfile and liblo, but that's pretty much it... but when did I ever have anything bad to say about those other than I'd eventually like to dump Jack and Liblo from my project? :lol:
danboid wrote:I hope you don't go slagging these other devs off as much as you to the other (Linux) audio devs


If I wanted to slag them, Linux development would not be the career for me :lol:

Besides, what are you suggesting? That Guido Van Rossum would bake secret quirks into the next Python2.7 release to sabotage my project? :lol: I'm sure Guido would have the same stance as me: "Don't like Python? F' off and use another language"
danboid wrote:it does you no favours and the sooner you realise it and stop calling everyone dicks the better.
Hey stupid: I know you just came to slag me and defend your developer buddies interests, and quickly glanced over my post trying to find troll-bait, but maybe you should try re-reading that part and see who I was calling a dick.
danboid wrote: FLOSS flourishes through collaboration and mutual respect but your current attitude will do a fantastic job of keeping other devs (and users) away from using and helping improve pydaw.
No, there's plenty of infighting between projects in the Linux community. I'm doing the most constructive thing of all: instead of trolling the internet about how much the Linux audio ecosystem sucks, I'm making an entirely new Linux audio ecosystem to compete with the existing one. It doesn't get more constructive than that, right?

In less than a year, I've written:

A DAW
2 synthesizers
A sampler
A 16-in-one effects unit
A vast library of DSP, MIDI and general purpose audio framework goodies

Now, your stance is that the current ecosystem is great. If that's the case, they should have no problem squashing my ecosystem like a bug, right? I mean, I'm just one person, I'm sure plenty of them could also write all of that stuff in less than a year, from scratch, in their spare time... They could also just fork my work and make it work with their stuff, but apparently it should be my responsibility to take on that burden whether I want to or not... Right?
danboid wrote:There are plenty of pro musicians who use Renoise and many are signed to labels - there's a whole list of 'em on the renoise site.
Like who? I'm expecting big names, you know how to copy and paste, right? If not, I can provide instructions.
danboid wrote:Granted, if you're not into electronica then I'd suspect many will not appeal to you.
Once again proving that you don't really read anything I post... Otherwise you would have noticed that PyDAW+it's plugins are meant specifically for electronic music.
danboid wrote:However, I suspect Renoise wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is if it didn't have VST support and hence access to a wide range of pro-quality synths and other plugins. Non-insular software is good!
You really want the future versions of Euphoria, don't you? :D

Reason by Propellerheads has had more big names use it than Renoise, and Reason epitomizes the walled garden approach. Furthermore, Reason isn't even that good(other than it's legendary stability and low CPU usage that comes with the walled garden approach), and plenty still use it, if the plugins and sequencer in Reason were awesome, I suspect it would dominate the entire world.
danboid wrote:Once pydaw has audio support on a par with qtractor or muse and you've wrote a synth that compares well to noisemaker or Aspect - then I'll start taking interest. Until then its fighting with OOM as the premier example of how not to run an open source project.
Were Muse and Qtractor usable just 4 months into their development, let alone half as good as PyDAW already is already? Audio tracks aren't a high priority for me, which is why they aren't there yet... Whenever I do get around to that, I anticipate it will take me a whopping 2 weeks to get them done right, and stable. All I have to do is shoehorn in Euphoria's engine, make a UI, then some LibRubberband or Soundtouch action. Too easy, right? I already did all of the hard work for audio tracks when I wrote Euphoria.

However, I would like ask you, Danboid, not to ever use or ever try any of my software, ever again... My self esteem isn't tied to my total user count, and having to spend time arguing against your half-baked rants is counterproductive towards the development of PyDAW. I don't need or want you as a user, but I'd be willing to bet you'll pout, then come back and try Euphoria again later when it's vastly improved yet again in an impossibly short time period, then you'll start whining about how I need to make it work with MuseTractor all over again...

However, it is flattering that you all are apparently losing sleep over the possibility of having to compete directly against little old me, you've got me outnumbered 100 to 1 :lol:

Alwaysanewb
Established Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:04 pm

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by Alwaysanewb »

From a non programers and from someone whos main recording technics don't include midi or samples. I'm just looking for an alternative to ardour. Don't get me wrong ardour is a great program and pretty much has all the features I want. I'm just not so big on how the dev does things. I'm pretty sure ardour is open source but if you went to his website you wouldn't be able to tell that. I've tryed qtractor it's just really buggy. It also makes it really hard to record anything besides 2 channel master other wise i would just switch to it. I don't mind audacity but it kind of just does what it does and that's it. I honestly don't even need plug in support.

I know it's not that big of deal and I honestly think devs should be paid for there work. I just don't like the way the guy from ardour does things. I also know a lot of musicians do mostly midi or sample based stuff on here and it seems they have plenty of options. I would just like to see more options for daws that record anolog to digital signal not just midi or samples.

User avatar
karm
Established Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:25 am
Location: Cracow, Poland

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by karm »

Oh it's the Ego problem again...
Only birds fly first class
Archlinux on desktop pc.

jeffh
Established Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: East Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by jeffh »

karm wrote:Oh it's the Ego problem again...
Yes, it's "ego"... and a "problem"... I should just be doing whatever everybody else thinks I should be doing... For their collective benefit, of course...

Rather than taking the conversation on a turn towards "humble men always demand humility in others", or discussing your accomplishments and contributions to Linux audio (or lack thereof), the value of an armchair quarterback's opinion, etc... I'm going to take the high road and do something very constructive...

Remember, when I had my big feigned outrage and "quit" Linux audio? A careful examination of my Git repository reveals that I never stopped working on my project. In fact, forks of Qtractor, Muse2 and Seq24 made brief cameo appearances in my Git immediately after... Sadly, after a month of trying to fix them, I decided it would be best just to start from scratch with my own DAW, a decision that I'm glad I made... One could draw the conclusion from my Git logs that this was entirely premeditated back to before I let my feelings about the other developers be known... Thankfully I'm my own man and don't feel the need to win any popularity contests, it's helped me accomplish a lot in life :lol:
Alwaysanewb wrote:I've tryed qtractor it's just really buggy.
^^^This epitomizes the current state of Linux DAWs, and what the average Linux n00b experiences when they spend a day trying Linux, and leaving with the impression that Linux sucks without ever providing feedback to Linux developers. For every 1 Linux audio user, there are 10000 people who tried it and thought it sucked, and wrote Linux off forever. All of the Linux DAWs seem to be fundamentally broken, because they have no proper separation of the UI from the audio/MIDI engine, and almost none seem to understand why using big, bloated Qt classes like QList for audio path stuff is a bad idea. Then there's the lack of commitment to proper testing and milestone-driven development, features are continually piled on top of existing buggy features until there's no hope of ever fixing it all... Contrast with PyDAW, which in <4 months has been developed from scratch with a strong focus on testing and small, manageable, milestone-driven releases... I know that half of PyDAW's critics haven't even tried it, but those that have would surely notice that it's incredibly stable, and already has a solid feature set for MIDI-lovers...

But enough with the valid criticisms, I did say I was going to do something constructive: I just released PyDAW 12.12-11. This is the last release of PyDAW v1. I'm going to start working on PyDAW v2 now; The following features will be added:

* PyDAW Live CD/Live USB Image (plain Ubuntu, with PyDAW, not some buggy custom kernel and a hodge-podge of antiquated abandonware preinstalled. PyDAW doesn't need a special kernel, just like Windows DAWs don't need one, proper coding technique FTW)
* a unique and robust audio tracks implementation, including effects and bussing/grouping
* external audio recording
* Plugin format improvements (No more DSSI compatibility)
* plugin features and improvements I've been holding back on to preserve backwards compatibility(m0ar kn0bz plz)
* a few minor bug fixes/improvements I've been holding back on to preserve backwards compatibility
* and some very special surprises...

and, I now intend to release PyDAWv2 by the end of January, months ahead of my previous plans. PyDAW v1 will continue to be available with DSSI compliant plugins(and able to be installed in parallel), but those will not receive any new features, just bug fixes for use in PyDAW or standalone if any bugs are discovered, and packaging for future Ubuntu releases. Those wanting next generation plugin awesomeness will have to upgrade to PyDAW. But, the main selling point of PyDAWv2 will be that it can be reasonably used to record a band, or similar activities, so PyDAW should be adequate for anybody's needs.

But don't look in the linuxmusicians.com "Linux News" forum for an announcement, I won't be making one there. I'm so confident in my work that I'll be taking PyDAWv2 straight to a broader audience of current Windows/Mac users to try as a "studio on a stick", places like normal musician forums. Because I'm in the unique position of having complete control over my entire application stack to deliver a stable, production-ready experience, I'll be in an equally unique position to market myself to normal people who don't have degrees in computer science. Even non-techie types are capable of making a LiveUSB key if they are provided instructions, and many would love to have a virus-proof, DRM-free audio PC that they can take anywhere and run on any PC, and make unlimited backups of, that only costs as much as the flash-drive they pick to put it on... but mine will be unique from competing solutions because it will be everything you need, stable, with nothing you don't need. A 3GB ISO full of mostly unstable, mostly unmaintained applications? Nope, perhaps 850MB at most, and the audio applications stack will have been thoroughly tested to work together perfectly... Nor am I going to gut out the existing Ubuntu install, it will still be perfectly suitable for browsing the internet and editing word documents, it might even convince people that they don't need Windows anymore...

Of course, I'm sure that you all will appreciate the beauty of my plan, and wish my project the best, because there are no small, petty men on this forum. Right? FalkTX has stated that Linux audio is awesome just like it is, and that LinuxSampler is soooooo much better than Euphoria... So those not liking my walled-garden approach are free to get "superior" solutions from KX Studio, enjoy...

tux99
Established Member
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:42 am
Contact:

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by tux99 »

jeffh wrote:
falkTX wrote: But you'll get much much less users that way, although I suspect that's what you want...
I'm not concerned about total user count, but I am aiming to attract new users from Windows/OSX to Linux, rather than fighting over the same 20 people who post on LM... I'm aiming to grow the pie with something unique and compelling, rather than stealing somebody else's slice of the pie...
Jeff that's the right attitude, but there is no point in competing/fighting/arguing among ourselves, Linux and FOSS are all about collaboration not competition at least within the FOSS world, but we should aim at competing with the legacy software world (Windows and OS X).

Of course even within the FOSS/Linux world people have different opinions, tastes and needs so there is plenty space for various similar projects but we should stay friendly with each other.
Can you (Jeff) and Falk please conclude this discussion amicably?
The last thing we need is feuds and infights.

brummer

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by brummer »

falkTX wrote:I'll patiently wait what jeffh can do for his own internal plugin spec.
After all, I'm doing a similar thing myself
I guess nearly any host developer do a similar thing, we do it as well for guitarix, for example:
http://sourceforge.net/p/guitarix/git/c ... x_plugin.h

And most developers believe that they have the best specs :lol:
Well, that is mostly true for there very own special purpose, :wink:
it becoming harder when the specs become more general, to be used in several different hosts from different developers with different meanings and needs.
Then, the fight will begin :twisted:

User avatar
dednikko
Established Member
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:47 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by dednikko »

I, for one, am all for the approach being taken by jeffh with PyDAW, as well as the one taken by falkTX via KXStudio.

I really want one thing first in my musical performance/production arsenal, and that is stability. I think PyDAW (particularly the Euphoria bit) is going to be the key to me playing live with a FOSS toolbox.

That said, Claudia, Cadence and the rest of KXStudio give me some of my OTHER favorite things. Vast repositories (that I could add to the PyDAW install) as well as KDE and a swiss army knife of audio manipulation.

THAT said, I'm writing this from a DreamStudio install (Thanks Dick McInnins!) that has been my testbed for experimental software (Triceratops, PyDAW and Ardour3B5). I love that this community of developers has created something so useful to me and I fight to pouplarize it by showing it off to my audio pals.

I use tools from all of you developers/musicians. From my invested but (hopefully) not biased perspective, I see differing methods of forwarding Linux audio production capabilities. I think that all approaches should be taken so that we can get the most out of each developer's talents. If jeffh works best flying solo and a rock solid performance and production beast come out of the other end, I don't care if he's snarky to me or anyone. I'm not using his personality when I sit down to create some EDM. I'm using his code.

I don't think any developer is an island, so he will cause some ripples. Hopefully his projects stay open source and we can learn from his coding successes and/or failures. Finally, I do think this entire conversation (even this very post) have taken valuable time away from coding on (some of ) your end, and music production on mine. I appreciate all your perpectives, yes, but not nearly as much as the hours you've put into these projects. I thank you for all of that, I really do, and I've donated to many of your projects, and bought nearly all of LinuxDSP's plugins. Still, I don't think that this clash of personalities is going to get any one of us anywhere. Can we just move on? Pwease? (<---- that was on purpose)
Think like a gun.

jeffh
Established Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: East Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Poll - What recorder and/or sequencer do you primarily u

Post by jeffh »

tux99 wrote: Of course even within the FOSS/Linux world people have different opinions, tastes and needs so there is plenty space for various similar projects but we should stay friendly with each other.
Can you (Jeff) and Falk please conclude this discussion amicably?
The last thing we need is feuds and infights.
I don't see why it really matters, or why you're bothered by it. I doubt that the Cubase developers send the Protools developers Christmas cards... If anything, perhaps if my project takes off in a meaningful way, it will either motivate the "other side" to fix some of their problems, or it will make me the new standard-barer, and lead to a better Linux ecosystem. I would argue that the current big, happy family of Linux audio developers who are afraid to rock the boat has not been nearly as productive as a competitive bunch of bum-holes might have been...
dednikko wrote:I, for one, am all for the approach being taken by jeffh with PyDAW
...
I really want one thing first in my musical performance/production arsenal, and that is stability. I think PyDAW (particularly the Euphoria bit) is going to be the key to me playing live with a FOSS toolbox.
...
If jeffh works best flying solo and a rock solid performance and production beast come out of the other end, I don't care if he's snarky to me or anyone. I'm not using his personality when I sit down to create some EDM. I'm using his code.
Thank you very much, dednikko... I think you've summarized perfectly what the average user's feelings are towards the software they choose. No real user is going to care whether I'm mean to the other Linux developers, to suggest so is just silly...
dednikko wrote:Hopefully his projects stay open source and we can learn from his coding successes and/or failures.(<---- that was on purpose)
Let's make one thing very clear: I never suggested that I would make my project closed source, FalkTX was the one that said that. I did take it offline for a little while, but that was a strategic move so that I could begin working on my own DAW without everybody knowing what I was up to... It also didn't matter much at the time because the existing DSSI hosts were so broken that they hardly usable anyways.. but there won't ever be a need to do that again...

Also, I have probably the least amount of profit motive of anybody here, so there's little possibility of ever trying to directly monetize PyDAW,... You may notice that I'm one of the very few people who not only doesn't ask for donations, but doesn't even have a donate button :lol:
dednikko wrote:Finally, I do think this entire conversation (even this very post) have taken valuable time away from coding on (some of ) your end, and music production on mine.
I agree... As I said, I'm going back under my bridge for a little while, then I'm going to make some really big announcements(on some other website).

Post Reply