LinuxMusicians

Drumfix wrote:You don't know the history of my fight for an external UI extension for VST.

That's true.

Drumfix wrote:The simple idea (also used by Linuxsampler) is to completely separate the GUI code into its own application. Therefor once and for all solving the problem of different GUI toolkits not working together well when used inside the same host.

Such idea has a right to exist.

Drumfix wrote: Unfortuantely host developers refuse to implement it with even the most ridiculous excuses for not doing so. (not scalable, too complicated for plugin developers, "i want my host have control over the window", "i want my host to embedded the your plugin window", you name the bullshit).

That's really bullshit.

Drumfix wrote: So whenever i see some plugin developer again complaining about the toolkit problems and start to code his own i only have a sarcastic LOL.

Such decision is arguable. Different generations of the same framework (like GTK or Qt) can not coexist in the same address space. But developers still want to do nice and beautiful UI for the software, so they can spend more time by implementing toolkit or spend less time by using some another toolkit.

Drumfix wrote: My own plugins use the external UI extension (even though it is not supported by any host but my own proof of concept host) and have a (simple, but not so nice) fallback so they can be used in any linux VST host ever written, from the very first energyXT from 2006 to the lastest ardour/reaper/bitwig ...

It's a good solution. But maybe all is not so bad that we really need to run UI as an external process.

Drumfix wrote: As for the reaper hint: While reaper never calls a plugins "effEditOpen"/"effEditClose" it does call "effEditGetRect" every second time the GUI button is pressed. So a wrapper plugin can use this as the trigger to create a new window and supply it to the "effEditOpen" of the hosted plugin.
Such a wrapper could host LV2 plugins as well of course.

Oh shit... And what do developers of Reaper say about that they don't call effEditOpen/effEditClose?

beck wrote:Thanks for the answer sysrqer.
Yet i still think that it are a (negligible?) few use it. Although in the 'home rap scene' the ratio probably is much bigger.

It seems you have an opinion which are you are going to keep regardless of what anyone else says.
"home rap scene" haha ok I guess you don't know who Timbaland is or who he has produced then? And Eminem? Deadmau5? Steve Duda? BT? Mike Oldfield? These are not small names or home scene of any kind. This was exactly my point about the flexibility of wanting "famous" artists as examples, you may not know who Deadmau5 is but that doesn't mean that he is not a massively successful artist.

beck wrote:Fact is that mac is the leading, which seems like if i look around in practice.

That wasn't the question in point. You didn't think it was possible to use windows on a professional level for music, that was the point.
I'm sure Apple sponsored artists are very glad to preach about how macs are the only option.

Drumfix wrote: My own plugins

Which are your plugins?

skei wrote:are you talking about the (unfinished) linux version?

I thought it would be obvious that i'm talking about the native linux reaper.

sadko4u wrote:so they can spend more time by implementing toolkit or spend less time by using some another toolkit

Or use an external UI and use whatever toolkit they like.

Linuxdsp/OvertoneDSP abandonded linux for the reason of GUI issues with native linux VST hosts. He'd better used external UIs.

sysrqer wrote:Which are your plug

Mainly editors for my external gear. Access calls this "total integration".
I may or may not release them to the public at some point.

beck wrote: Linux just isn't accepted and appreciated for it's qualities. That's the problem.

This is perhaps true as there is a lot of superstition and myths in the audio world, not only about this. And I do agree that many disregarding Linux really didn't take the time to properly explore and understand it.

About this:

beck wrote: That IMHO is the proof that linux is much better for recording. (not bashing. just comparing objective and reasonable out of facts)
Linux just isn't accepted and appreciated for it's qualities. That's the problem.

Please, forgive if I am that guy... I am not really trying to be mean or something... but if you use objective and reasonable facts why is your proof an opinion? Proofs cannot be opinions. If I measure with objectivity that my table is 2 meters long... it's not an opinion at all. An example:

Pizza is circularly shaped = true proposition, fact.
Pizza is shaped like a square = false proposition.
Pizza is good = true? false? Depends on personal taste: opinion.

Opinion jurisdiction is among the sentences for which it is impossible to define a truth value.

Now, to prove that an OS is objectively better one should measure it somehow and compare with others, while seems to me you refer to your personal experience. Experience will never tell much in this regard I am afraid. Think about people that bought a Win laptop to make music. Then they decide to give Linux a go but the sound-card doesn't work properly because incompatibility. And the wifi card too. Or the wifi card produces xruns frenzy and they need to turn it off to make music... In their experience Linux is crap. Experience is not objective, as it cannot represent the complexity of a phenomenon and all the factors involved into it. Experience can only inform us to what variables we recognized existing were correlated to each other when we were observing the phenomenon. And correlation is not causation. That is why in science the tool of knowledge is the experiment, not the experience.

Epistemology apart, there have been more appropriate measurements of audio capabilities of different OSes. For example this, this and this. They focus on latency and stability. Latency might not be as important as most people think it is, but it is pretty much the only artefact a computer introduces (that and over/underruns). The conclusions show comparable results between different OSes, with the best performing OS varying among Linux, Windows and Mac depending on configuration, drivers, soundcard and system load.

I would say that the evidence points towards uniformity of audio performances really. Now, these papers are a little bit old. I heard many bad things too about Win10. Maybe that's the reason why iZ opted for Win 8.1... But without measurement and hypothesis testing we are just doing critical thinking, which is subjected to our own bias...

Drumfix wrote:

skei wrote:are you talking about the (unfinished) linux version?

I thought it would be obvious that i'm talking about the native linux reaper.

sorry, i got confused..
i am in the middle of reorganizing some of my own cross-platform/format code, and was just looking at those vst eff* opcodes, trying to make sure i handled most of the special cases and weird host behaviour..

beck wrote:Thanks for the answer sysrqer.
Yet i still think that it are a (negligible?) few use it. Although in the 'home rap scene' the ratio probably is much bigger.
Fact is that mac is the leading, which seems like if i look around in practice.

CrocoDuck wrote:It's really from the early 2000s that each desktop operating system under the sun started becoming capable of sustaining professional audio workloads. That's it. If one looks at the technical aspects there is not difference whatsoever between properly configured operating systems running on compatible hardware. This is also largely due to the fact that computers are pretty damn fast nowadays.

I will believe you all. Who am i to doubt your knowledge. And as i really respect that of all of you i will not discus or try to reject anything of what you say. I believe anything of you.

Yet still i have (i think) reasonable doubts.
If all is that good, why does it come that on all home recording forums i'm on or was on win does give lot's of problems like with quick actual latency problems?
Why then is it that many homerecorders have problems recording electrical guitars on overdrive? And more of that stuff.
That's most what i read on several home recording forums. Troubbles and problems (which i don't have and also hardly read about here).

I will agree that it is possible on win too. Did that myself (although less comprehensive than now).
But i want to nuance that with the fact that with linux you don't need 'the newest and quickest pc' to do the same.
For sure if i look to myselve. I record multi (many) track on a pentium 4. On a pc where one can't even get a recent win working on, let alone start recording on it also. Better even ... record things on it which homerecording friend of mine say it's impossible while they didn't get it don on there expensive newest version computer.
Reasonable if you remind that linux itselve uses less memory and clocking, and that were there is not also a virusscanner needed which encumbers the system even more.

That IMHO is the proof that linux is much better for recording. (not bashing. just comparing objective and reasonable out of facts)
Linux just isn't accepted and appreciated for it's qualities. That's the problem.

@beck

My friend you seem to post 'defending Linux' in a lot of threads that are are not questioning it's validity, including my thread simply asking if anyone had tried Windows 10 ...

We are ALL undoubtedly huge fans of Linux here and use it for production, there is NO question if Linux is good for Audio production, it IS!!

If sysrqer (or I) are pointing out facts that Linux is not likely in use for production of mainstream so-called charting 'hit' music (in any genre including Indie), it is simply sharing the actual fact that Linux does not have mainstream acceptance among recording producers and engineers. Just reporting such facts not an attack on Linux or agreement that these producers are dictating the way it SHOULD be.

Linux is great for music production, so are Windows and OSX, ALL can have problems and ALL can be solved to create great music, to say people can't or aren't producing professional charting music on the Windows platform is an overly defensive denial and verges on some kind of 'religious' mania.

Linux succeeds (and MUST succeed) on it's own multiple merits without having to downplay, denegrate or bullshit about other platforms that CLEARLY already have been proven capable of professional music production..

I applaud you enthusiasm about Linux but please stop 'preaching to the choir' here in threads that are not in any way being critical of it..

<trolling>
Somewhere somehow always the "Linux runs great on old hardware" sneaks in.
So if I got new hardware I don't need Linux because my beefy pc with plenty with 16g ram, octacore i7 and ssd can run all that overload of virus scanners, systemtray apps that want to update flash and java etc etc .. (name the bullshit) without problem.

Kinda wrong message.

maybe we should start campaigning that Linux can only be run on high end hardware.

Be elite, run linux.
</trolling>

beck wrote: I think that i can present this as a good comparison and as an actual fact. Objective, without any personal opinion.

I got a very similar experience with an amd64 + 512 mb of ram which, by the way, is still running pretty well with Ubuntu Studio 10.04. I totally see what you mean. I was too running XP on it, and I know using Linux improved it a lot. I even had background noise on XP I was thinking to be electromagnetic... it was gone by switching to Linux...

It is true that on average Linux it is lighter (or it can be made lighter) and as such it can make old hardware useful. This can help audio as well. But that's not the point.

The point is that on the base of your assessment, which is done over a particular case, you are inferring that Linux is objectively superior for audio, while in reality it depends on the hardware, the configuration and the load on the system.

Perhaps, the combination of old (and as such very well supported) hardware and a lighter OS make things easier for real. I am not surprised about that. But there is a whole spectrum of user cases that are not exactly like your one in which things can vary a lot.

Think about it. In your case everything works great, so you think you can infer Linux is better. Why that other dude with a brand new Asus laptop from the shelves does not have the right to claim Windows is objectively better if it happens it works better for him? On the same hardware?

beck wrote: Or are clear facts like this only accepted if scientifically approved researched by a official approved scientific research centre?

No, you don't have to make a PhD grade study of your system. Your facts are very clear, but you should understand what they support. They support that on your particular hardware Linux runs better. They might be supporting that older hardware is made more effective by Linux (although you are perhaps confusing responsiveness with speed). They don't support that on hardware which is appropriate to run both OSes (and thus makes the comparison fair) Linux is actually better (for audio), because it is not what you reported right there.

Now, you might be able to tell that when it comes to older hardware Linux wins. If that was the question, we are done and we have an answer. But if the question is "Is Linux any better for audio in every possible situation, i.e. is it superior?" then I am afraid you have not evidence about the totality of possible outcomes of hardware + OS + software combination.

Now, not even the results in the papers I posted are total evidence, but I think are a way better attempt at it as they try to quantify the issue with a method and present a well defined research question. By the way, let me restate what the conclusion of those papers is (pretty much):

Linux, Win and Mac can, in turn, give better audio performances with respect one another when provided with appropriate soundcard and configuration.

Which does not contradict what you see in the slightest, but shows a bigger picture you (and others) were perhaps discarding.

beck wrote: If win was the best option i would be using it. Like i did 20+ years cause i had no better option.
Like i would go using VST if that would be better for me. Who know's i will in the future.

If I found, quantitatively, that my Linux box has inferior performance to the same computer with, say, Hackintosh on it I still wouldn't use Mac OS. The fact is that I don't care if I have 2 ms more of latency or few more occasional glitches. What I care is to have the software I am productive with. I want JACK, I want Ardour, I want Guitarix, I want Calf. But I also want many other non audio related things... And so I want Linux.

Perhaps we drifted too much out of topic, so I hope we are about to come to a conclusion for this discussion.

beck wrote:

rghvdberg wrote:<trolling>
Somewhere somehow always the "Linux runs great on old hardware" sneaks in.
So if I got new hardware I don't need Linux because my beefy pc with plenty with 16g ram, octacore i7 and ssd can run all that overload of virus scanners, systemtray apps that want to update flash and java etc etc .. (name the bullshit) without problem.

That again is not what i'm saying.
If on that computer you mention you put Ubuntu 16LTS the os still uses less capacity of the pc, and you still don't need a virusscanner.
So eventualy Linux again will run faster on the same pc. The difference will be less, but yet there.
So again comparing on the same pc the linux runs faster. And faster is better while slower is nearer to (latency) problems.

Yeah man, I know what you meant.

But I guess the "linux runs faster" is meaningless if your pc runs fine on Windows.

This is a fun thread, but totally derailed

Just two more comments, then I think I will have said all I have to say on this.

First, having MOAR speed doesn't equal to better audio performance (it might help, but if I have IRQ issues it doesn't, for example). KolibriOS is much faster than any Linux out of there, but I am afraid you will never do much music on it (not great audio hardware support and pool of software). Speed =/= audio performance.

beck wrote: Recording electrical guitar and the software Guitarix are good examples.
If you talk with a win man about Guitarix, all say without any doubt "that ain't possible!! Tried that many times. Recording distorted guitar is almost impossible without expensive gear".
Why is it that that thought is so common within win recorders? Where we with linux do it without problems.
Then linux DOES handle sound easier and better? Doesn't it?

I am not sure I understand this point. There is plenty of good amp/effect modelling software for all platforms. Guitarix is my favourite, but it is not that AmpliTube sucks. It is expensive sure, but there are many little free jems in the Win world too. I am not sure why the fact we have a good Open Source amp/effects simulator makes the OS handling audio better? The way the OS handles audio... is related to the OS itself, not Guitarix... Maybe you are thinking about low latency that allows you to play realtime? By the way, what's the problem with people claiming that? There is plenty of people the use Guitar Rig in the same fashion of Guitarix on Win... Why the fact that people on Windows don't have good Open Source software (supposing that's true) makes Windows internally handling audio in a worse way? I don't think I get this, sorry.

beck wrote: Does win have no problems at all with hardware and drivers? Does that alway's work well?
When you want win to record you don't have to watch the specs and capacities, and it alway's immidiatly does what you want?
...

Yes, I always struggled with Win. So? You could repeat all those statements with Linux or Mac instead of Windows and they would hold true in many cases. I never had a computer I did not need to deeply tune to be able to make music. Not even when it was an OpenBox system. In fact, for similar reasons you listed there, I moved from Ubuntu to Arch. I found Ubuntu to be too bloated and unstable for audio (I needed to reinstall it from scratch every year, just like XP). I decided to live on a OS that makes somewhat easier to tune deeply the system, so I can squeeze the performance I need. Does it make Arch better? Nope. I just think Arch is good for me and my computers and I will never think it is superior to another distro. There isn't a superior distro.

I always had to struggle a bit to get good audio performance out of Linux. Still, I don't think that other OSes are superior. For one, I always had to struggle with Win and Mac too (good luck uh?). Second, when I get the audio performance I want I think they are perfect. Third, I still enjoy more doing this tuning on Linux as it is the OS I like and makes me much more able and free to experiment. Plus, it runs my favourite software (audio and not). And I like FLOSS.

I am not claiming that Win or Mac are better or easier. They are not. Nor is Linux. Or BSD, or openindiana... Maybe BeOS was it... now it's old. Let's keep an eye on Haiku who knows... But I am not claiming whatsoever that there is a better audio OS or distro, for the matter, and I tried to supply some reason for it.

I once told a friend of mine, that does music on Mac, that I use Linux. He said "Oh cool! If it works for you, more power to you!". A cool guy that doesn't need to convince the world he has the finest and greatest...

Anyway, from me on this subtopic EOF.

beck wrote:What i mean. Almost all win users complain that real time recording a 'amp distorted guitar' is hard to record nicely.

This is not true. As has already been mentioned, many windows users record guitar with realtime monitoring using Amplitube or Guitar Rig. I've done it myself.

beck wrote: Like i said: many (all?) win users say that the way i record ain't possible and never ever can give good sound. On new computers.

I think the reality is that very, very few Windows users say this. The very fact that Guitar Rig has done so well and is so popular is proof that this claim is false.

beck wrote: So is it that wrong to say that if i can do easily what others with win can get done very difficult, that linux is easier?

Yes, because you're basing your facts on a limited personal experience versus a falsified and projected opinion of all Windows users. Said opinion is plainly false and has next to no basis of objective truth. So yes, it is very wrong indeed.

beck wrote: And were it's about Guitarix. All guitarix users state it works great with very good sound, where almost each win user say's that way of using/recording is impossible!
???

Both of these statements are false. I have heard quite a few people say they are not happy with guitarix's sound. I've never in my life heard anyone say that this way of recording is impossible on any OS, because it's not impossible and people do it all the time.

beck wrote: 96khz on 24bits. Most win don't reach that quality. The all say their system then crashes.

Please stop this, it's just silly. Plenty of people record in 96Khz/24 bit, and sometimes higher, on windows.

beck wrote: I did try it and it worked. Again, on a pentium 4. Ok, not all that smooth, but the system could handle it.
Yet again i'm comparing an old pentium 4 with recent pc's. NOT comparing A with B. Where my pentium 4 wins. Again.
And if it is fast on a p4, it is even faster on a recent pc.

I don't know what kind of stuff you do with music but mixing a song on a core2duo quickly became painful in ardour on my last machine. Crappy old hardware is crappy old hardware. I certainly felt my old machine getting slower and slower as the years passed running linux, the same way you described Windows. I think that is a general trend for software regardless of OS, it tends to get heavier and need more power/ram.

beck wrote: And you talk about guitar rig. That's not what i mean.
I talk about recording amp distortion right into DAW.

So you're saying that it is impossible to record an audio signal in windows basically?
Whether you're talking about line in or microphone, both are most definitely possible in windows.

beck wrote:

sysrqer wrote:So you're saying that it is impossible to record an audio signal in windows basically?

At first, NOT audio, but by amp distorted guitar(s).

And i just explained.
It's not what I say!
It's what i read and hear all the time while MANY OTHERS (far more than one. MANY) say that repeatingly. On several forums and even in my own studio.
I'm just constating that.

Come on man. Please stop discussing about things i didn't even said.

Spreading misinformation isn't helping anyone.