Reddit: what OS you use to produce music

[tavasti]

They were 1. Pro Tools 2. Logic 3. Ableton. UA have their own DAW, Luna, so that suggests that UA's focus is getting the UA hardware and software to integrate well with a DAW, the OS the DAW runs on is a secondary consideration.

Crystal ball gazing is notoriously unreliable, but the big three DAWs are not going to be ported to Linux this week, or this year.

Would we even need porting of them? Right now, Ableton, FL Studio and Mixcraft at least run in linux with wine, but latency is horrible. So would need fixing that, and I suppose that is doable on wine/jack/pipewire area. But sure, would need someone to work with it. How big would that work be? How much donations would that need?

[Gps]

In the good old days Cubase had two versions, one for mac, one for Atari ST. ( same cpu or at least same family)

No dos, no windows version.

When I was at school, the music room had an Atari ST with Cubase on it and also a Roland JV 1080 . Trouble was, they were put in by the previous teacher and the current ones were classical musicians with zero idea what to do with them. So they remained unconnected and unused. I could have had years playing with those if I knew what I found out after.

I think the Atari ST was and is the only computer that came by default, with a midi in and midi out port.
A CPU that internally was 32 bit, but the connection to the outside was 16 bit. (ST )

One of the things that went wrong at Atari, it took them way to long to come up with a follow up to the ST.
Then a new computer was promised, who would have a 68040 cpu.
But when the falcon came out it had an 68030 cpu.

What was that song ? Too much to little to late....to ever try again.

But even Apple lost that battle, because Intel. In the beginning that motorola cpu was better then the pc cpu from that time.
But intel fixed that relative fast, and motorola could not keep up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_TT030

The Atari TT030 is a member of the Atari ST family, released in 1990. It was originally intended to be a high-end Unix workstation, but Atari took two years to release a port of Unix SVR4 for the TT, which prevented the TT from ever being seriously considered in its intended market.

The TT was ment as a "serious computer", were the ST was aimed at home use.

Atari Corporation realized that to remain competitive as a computer manufacturer, they needed to begin taking steps to exploit the power offered by more advanced processors in the Motorola 68000 series. At that time, the highest performance member was the 68020. It was the first true "thirty-two bit bus/thirty-two bit instruction" chip from Motorola. Unlike the 68000 used in the original STs, the 68020 was capable of fetching a 32-bit value in one memory cycle, while the older STs took two.

Fatboy slim used an ST for Rockafeller Skank

Back to today, I try to stay positive.
I remember a time were LMMS, Rosegarden and Ardour were the only 3 daw for Linux.

[bluzee]

UA is tackling the challenges of audio processing in Windows by off loading it to their dedicated hardware interfaces. At some point I expect the entire process will be running on their hardware as they can use specialized SOC that operate at a fraction of the latency of Windows on Intel or AMD.

My granddaughter does all her home work on her cell phone. She will type out an entire essay. So I also expect desktops and laptops will fade into history.

I don't care what OS others use and I'm not interested in converting Windows users. I've been watching the adverts for a half decent used laptop to replace my ancient one. Of course all the laptops come with Windows, not a problem however 90% of those are owned by people who are unable to determine the CPU model, amount of ram or even the hard drive installed. I think best to leave these people where they are.

Linux has always had everything I need and I am grateful to all who provide the code. My ancient laptop won't even boot Windows any more but it will run single digit round trip latency for a guitar rack that is bullet proof enough to use live with Linux.

[GMaq]

UA is tackling the challenges of audio processing in Windows by off loading it to their dedicated hardware interfaces. At some point I expect the entire process will be running on their hardware as they can use specialized SOC that operate at a fraction of the latency of Windows on Intel or AMD.

My granddaughter does all her home work on her cell phone. She will type out an entire essay. So I also expect desktops and laptops will fade into history.

I don't care what OS others use and I'm not interested in converting Windows users. I've been watching the adverts for a half decent used laptop to replace my ancient one. Of course all the laptops come with Windows, not a problem however 90% of those are owned by people who are unable to determine the CPU model, amount of ram or even the hard drive installed. I think best to leave these people where they are.

Linux has always had everything I need and I am grateful to all who provide the code. My ancient laptop won't even boot Windows any more but it will run single digit round trip latency for a guitar rack that is bullet proof enough to use live with Linux.

I think in addition to what you're saying, to a smaller degree now larger microSD and SD Cards will also move people away from needing PC's to record. Last year I bought a Zoom LiveTrak L-20 and now I record sessions to a 256Gb SD Card within the mixer itself (although in fairness it doubles as a USB interface). I no longer need to be concerned about whether the computer supports the interface or not... a prospective post-production mixing computer/device just needs to be able to read an SD Card and run a DAW/Plugins for post-production, the OS is more of a side consideration now. I'm sure the next gen Raspberry Pi will be more than up to that challenge. I'm quite relieved to be free of worrying about interface support and sweating over getting lowest possible latencies etc.

[tseaver]

@GMaq

I no longer need to be concerned about whether the computer supports the interface or not...

ISTM that means you have chosen never to record "through" software at all then? I.e.,

• No effects racks, no virtual synths?
• No verb to soothe a temperamental diva's ego?
• No lush sampled string sections (in said diva's cans, of course)?

"Nice work, if you can get it." I'm envious, fershure.



Tres.

[tavasti]

My granddaughter does all her home work on her cell phone. She will type out an entire essay. So I also expect desktops and laptops will fade into history.

My kids (they are my kids, even 2/3 are now adults) all have been on technology oriented class at age of 12-15 (yongest is still) , where they have iPads, and most of the books as e-books or similar, most of the home work is done on iPad. All are really fluent with mobile devices. All of them prefer real computer, big screens, real keyboard and mouse, possibly wacom for drawing, writing, video editing, etc. Two of them have wanted to have desktop computer, instead or addition of laptop.

I am not expecting that computers are disappearing from hands of humans who like to get things really done, done in the way they want instead way that limited UI provides possibility. Sure big masses just consuming mass etentertainment and social media will be ok with mobile devices.

[folderol]

The death of desktop computing has been predicted pretty much as soon as they arrived.
I'm happy to say they are still here

[merlyn]

They were 1. Pro Tools 2. Logic 3. Ableton. UA have their own DAW, Luna, so that suggests that UA's focus is getting the UA hardware and software to integrate well with a DAW, the OS the DAW runs on is a secondary consideration.

Crystal ball gazing is notoriously unreliable, but the big three DAWs are not going to be ported to Linux this week, or this year.

Would we even need porting of them? Right now, Ableton, FL Studio and Mixcraft at least run in linux with wine, but latency is horrible. So would need fixing that, and I suppose that is doable on wine/jack/pipewire area. But sure, would need someone to work with it. How big would that work be? How much donations would that need?

No, we don't need porting of them. The thread where UA on Linux was discussed is here :

https://uadforum.com/general-discussion ... ers-3.html

Paul Davis gets involved, and one of his points is that the technical aspects of Linux are not why plugin developers/hardware manufacturers/big audio companies don't support Linux. A lot of plugin developers use JUCE, so a Linux version would simply involve ticking a box, but developers don't tick it.

He doesn't say exactly why, but my interpretation is along the lines of marketing/you get what you pay for/big name endorsements/a penguin makes the company look a bit geeky.

There's some real cavemen on that thread who want to trash Linux and use the fact that they've spent $5000 on UA hardware to credential their argument. If you think that doesn't make sense, you'd be right.

The idea of eh ... bribing software companies to support Linux has come up before, and I think it's futile. If we were to use crowdfunding an idea might be crowdfunding Linux compatible interfaces.

[GMaq]

@GMaq

I no longer need to be concerned about whether the computer supports the interface or not...

ISTM that means you have chosen never to record "through" software at all then? I.e.,

• No effects racks, no virtual synths?
• No verb to soothe a temperamental diva's ego?
• No lush sampled string sections (in said diva's cans, of course)?

"Nice work, if you can get it." I'm envious, fershure.



Tres.

I'm talking mostly Audio track recording up front but your whole list can be added in any DAW on any Platform (I obviously would prefer Linux) in post-production. I didn't say I don't need a DAW or wouldn't use a DAW, of course I would for the mixing mastering stage and to add Virtual instruments. I'm saying when I can record Audio within the interface itself the connectivity and hardware support limitations are not a showstopper. And no, I would not record through any software en route to the Audio track, In my case it's a mic into interface and everything else is done post..

This won't work for everyone and it doesn't need to... there are 100 ways to do it and do it right.. For my workflow I'm relieved to not have to worry about these things as much as I used to..

[folderol]

The answer is what I've done in a quite primitive way with the Yoshimi Pi. A stand-alone synth module that gives good quality, is relative inexpensive and plug-and-play. Without any real advertising I've sold 7 of these and there is interest from a Windows guy for number 8.

[tseaver]

@GMaq

I'm talking mostly Audio track recording up front but your whole list can be added in any DAW on any Platform (I obviously would prefer Linux) in post-production. I didn't say I don't need a DAW or wouldn't use a DAW, of course I would for the mixing mastering stage and to add Virtual instruments. I'm saying when I can record Audio within the interface itself the connectivity and hardware support limitations are not a showstopper. And no, I would not record through any software en route to the Audio track, In my case it's a mic into interface and everything else is done post..

I got that you don't need to apply any software effects / VSTs on the way into recording, and I apologize if I seemed to be throwing stones: I only meant to signal my envy that you could make such righteous tracks without needing to trouble the latency monsters.

I don't (currently) have the gear to record that way: I find I *must* record through (e.g.) Guitarix, as well as using VSTs such as Pianoteq / setBFree, where I trade off between recording the audio output (better feedback to the performance, versus my inferior playing chops).

Tres.

[Linuxmusician01]

I'm talking mostly Audio track recording up front but your whole list can be added in any DAW on any Platform (I obviously would prefer Linux) in post-production. I didn't say I don't need a DAW or wouldn't use a DAW, of course I would for the mixing mastering stage and to add Virtual instruments. I'm saying when I can record Audio within the interface itself the connectivity and hardware support limitations are not a showstopper. And no, I would not record through any software en route to the Audio track, In my case it's a mic into interface and everything else is done post..

This won't work for everyone and it doesn't need to... there are 100 ways to do it and do it right.. For my workflow I'm relieved to not have to worry about these things as much as I used to..

I take it that you do not have to synch the tempo of your audio tracks and the virtual instruments you add in post in the DAW? Many people nowadays use a combination of hardware (e.g. a sequence from a synth) and software. As far as I know you need an audio interface for your computer for that. You're lucky that you do not have to synch computer stuff with hardware stuff.

[GMaq]

I'm talking mostly Audio track recording up front but your whole list can be added in any DAW on any Platform (I obviously would prefer Linux) in post-production. I didn't say I don't need a DAW or wouldn't use a DAW, of course I would for the mixing mastering stage and to add Virtual instruments. I'm saying when I can record Audio within the interface itself the connectivity and hardware support limitations are not a showstopper. And no, I would not record through any software en route to the Audio track, In my case it's a mic into interface and everything else is done post..

This won't work for everyone and it doesn't need to... there are 100 ways to do it and do it right.. For my workflow I'm relieved to not have to worry about these things as much as I used to..

I take it that you do not have to synch the tempo of your audio tracks and the virtual instruments you add in post in the DAW? Many people nowadays use a combination of hardware (e.g. a sequence from a synth) and software. As far as I know you need an audio interface for your computer for that. You're lucky that you do not have to synch computer stuff with hardware stuff.

Well no, so that is true. I don't really do 'on-grid' stuff but there is nothing to prevent me from having the drummer track with a metronome and then syncing it in post or a more tedious option would be to use the tempo ramping feature of the DAW if i really needed to glue virtual instruments to the tempo after recording. Virtual instruments depending on their use also can be tracked without sticking to gridlines but of course time-based Instruments and effects could be pretty dicey in that case.

Anyway what works for me in live band context with a dedicated recorder is going to differ from the other 99 ways people make music with PCs, I'm just saying tech like the Zoom LiveTrak and similar products can be liberating in a way for certain workflows and don't lock you into a particular OS just for the hardware support, this could be good for Linux Audio and people who are interested in trying it because the hardware is not tied to the OS.

[tseaver]

@GMaq

I just watched Warren Huart's "ride-along" with a young band recording "Come Together" to a Tascam Model 24 in the Village Studio:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC0NHzpP8YM

and thought of your description. That seems like a fascinating workflow.