What would make you switch to Linux?

[ghettosynth]

There is really some condescending stuff here, is the thing. Glokraw wants us to prove eg., Reaktor has better approaches to what are some things we take for granted but 'Linux' - an Operating System, through itself - does it all. Come on.

I asked ghettosynth to name 4 reaktor ensembles/instruments that are
equivalent to the four linux apps I mentioned, since --> he mentioned reaktor,
as a reason for avoidingaudio use of linux. He has yet to do this.

And I won't, you're completely missing the point. You presented a laundry list of features that you thought were great. At no point did I say to you "oh boy, do I wish that my environment of choice had an effects processor that did this or that." I challenged you to present a compelling argument to me as to why I would use linux for audio, you have failed to do that. I don't care what you think is useful. I gave you a tongue in cheek answer, Reaktor, it can do everything you named. My effects ensemble in Reaktor isn't available anywhere so naming it won't help you.

With reaktor I can have as many effects and as many instances as my CPU allows. Same with Guitar Rig. But, really, who gives a shit about that? There are hundreds of effects available for Windows/OSX and you can load as many of them in your DAW as CPU allows. Your list was no different than one of those stupid "feature charts" that marketeers like to use to try to sell what they have and the competition doesn't, never mind that nobody asked in the first place.

I'm not looking for replacements for the software and hardware that I use, even replacements that have "the same" features. I use THOSE SPECIFIC tools and the only operating systems that will work for me are those which support the SPECIFIC tools that I choose to use, period. You are coming at this with the attitude that people would want to use linux for audio and would be willing to make compromises in order to do that, I disagree. I think that most users want to choose their hardware and software based on the specific features and quality of those tools and then choose the OS that works with those tools. This is how I choose linux for some tasks but not others.

[ghettosynth]

I happen to use Linux live boot DVD - Kali. Its great as it has a lot of SDR (software defined radio) stuff. I wouldn't use it music tho. That's the point in this thread. Horses for courses.

Yes, if you haven't been following, I do not advocate linux for audio. I use linux every day for work. The OS itself does have some general advantages, and I'm highlighting those.

PS: I know what SDR is, I've been playing with a few RTL-SDR dongles and I got a bit more serious about it and picked up a USRP. Sorry, I won't rattle off my call here, maybe we'll run into each other elsewhere.

[glokraw]

Now a specific synth comparison, yoshimi has additive, subtractive
and formant synthesis, and the unique Padsynth (code is free to other devs).

It has 16 layers, with separate outputs, selectable midi channels,
and multi fx per track, and on the master. You can save/load your multis.
It is actively developed, but not by a pro team, but by one willing to learn
better coding. It's a branch of zynaddsubfx, the sound is wonderful,
perhaps a thousand presets are out there. (My bank folder has 1972 items,
but there are some duplicates, readme files etc).

I think to get this function and sound, outside of linux,
you're in Omnisphere territory. The $479 Omni probably has a better preset collection,
but routing the 16 outputs freely, might be easier in yoshimi, and doing that
in Omni might require a commercial daw, another $60 to $600.

Some people who are skint for the $500, but would love a powerhouse synth,
can have it, at the price of learning to burn and boot a linux iso,
learn a few commands, a few ubiquitus config file settings, and some GUIs
which are there on youtube at ones convenience.
(posted for future googlers!)

[UltraJv]

I happen to use Linux live boot DVD - Kali. Its great as it has a lot of SDR (software defined radio) stuff. I wouldn't use it music tho. That's the point in this thread. Horses for courses.

Yes, if you haven't been following, I do not advocate linux for audio. I use linux every day for work. The OS itself does have some general advantages, and I'm highlighting those.

PS: I know what SDR is, I've been playing with a few RTL-SDR dongles and I got a bit more serious about it and picked up a USRP. Sorry, I won't rattle off my call here, maybe we'll run into each other elsewhere.

Cool - Im a ham. Not afraid to rattle my call - 2E0BSL I have a nice collection of HAM Transceivers as well as the RTL.

[ghettosynth]

Now a specific synth comparison, yoshimi has additive, subtractive
and formant synthesis, and the unique Padsynth (code is free to other devs).

I think to get this function and sound, outside of linux,
you're in Omnisphere territory. The $479 Omni probably has a better preset collection,
but routing the 16 outputs freely, might be easier in yoshimi, and doing that
in Omni might require a commercial daw, another $60 to $600.

So, I'm no fan of Omnisphere, but a big selling point is not only that it has some thousands of presets, but that many of those presets were designed by "celebrity sound designers." Another important point factor is that Omnisphere is easy to use. I'm not going to bother setting up a linux DAW just to get first hand experience, but, this video suggests that yoshimi is far from being comparable to Omnisphere on those fronts. That UI is terrible.

Some people who are skint for the $500, but would love a powerhouse synth,
can have it, at the price of learning to burn and boot a linux iso,
learn a few commands, a few ubiquitus config file settings, and some GUIs
which are there on youtube at ones convenience.
(posted for future googlers!)

You haven't yet supported that this is comparable to any $500 synth. It's certainly not comparable to Omnisphere in ease of use or quality of patches. That video alone should convince you of that.

I'm sure that it's fine, and I'm sure that a lot of people have a lot of fun with it. But if you really want to do music on the cheap, frankly, there are much better free tools available for windows and OS/X. Just in terms of time alone, my prescription would run rings around yours. 1) Download Reaper, fork over $60 if/when you can, be annoyed until then, 2) Buy a copy of CM magazine, install magware.

Money is not a compelling reason to use linux for audio in most cases.

BTW: I find this entire routing discussion quite a bore, it's a DAW level feature. I don't need any single synth to provide all of the layers of the sound, it's dead easy on almost every environment to send midi to multiple synths and apply effects either to their individual outputs or to the group.

[trimph1]

It seems as if some here have issues with the idea that not everyone is interested in going over to an OS that, while interesting on certain levels, simply does not have the software necessary to produce a workable alternative to what a lot of us already have.

None of this has really impressed me as a potential end user...

[SampleScience]

It seems as if some here have issues with the idea that not everyone is interested in going over to an OS that, while interesting on certain levels, simply does not have the software necessary to produce a workable alternative to what a lot of us already have.

None of this has really impressed me as a potential end user...

Indeed, a quick look at YouTube videos showcasing the Linux LMMS and Ardour will give you a good idea of why it's a bad idea to switch to Linux for music creation.

If you do other kinds of work (text, html editing, graphics) I think it pretty good. Video editing sucks though...

[briandc]

Professional/skilled musicians/producers can have vastly differing needs.
A mainstream studio in a metropolis, will need different items than
a one-man studio in a small town. There are pickers in the back-country,
who would dazzle the Opry, on very rustic gear. All will have a budget,
and pick their gear accordingly . Same with hobbyists,
unheralded orchestra members, bajou blues masters, or talented beginners,
working their way up. Cover bands require different gear than solo artists,
those playing bars and soc-hops, won't always be be using $2000 guitars
and $3000 keyboards.

Can professional quality sound be done with only linux? Certainly,
it can be done even on Amigas and Ataris, because skills can be aquired
with time and work, instead of money. It can be done without OSX,
and done without Windows, and done without any computers,
(though chips and OS may be lurking inside hardware)

I've probably invested about $4000 in music gear over 20 years.
Paltry by some standards. Sure, I could use a computer with more than
two gig ram, but better for me to practice the plunkin' n' pickin',
and maximise the treasure, free or otherwise, that I have,
rather than $pend, just because I can.

The story can be totally different for the next poster, it's music, not war
One of the worlds richest men, Paul Allen, has a hobbyist band, that he takes
very seriously, but I doubt jancivil or ghettosynth, or the linux studio
coder in Portugal, are any less serious.

I agree that we all have different needs. It's important however, that we are not deceived by the label "professional." What exactly is "professional?" Is it something that a famous rock star has used? Is it because it isn't free? Is it because there's a special feature in it somewhere that is only used by musicians making X amount of cash for their productions?

I think a good linux audio set-up (like my own, for example) can be considered as "professional" as anything a person would be willing to fork out thousands of dollars/pounds for.

Perhaps "professional" means nothing other than, "I like it."

I would like to hear other POVs here on what exactly makes a piece of software "professional." If it's about stability or having lots of flexability, my PCs have both of those, too.

brian

[ghettosynth]

I would like to hear other POVs here on what exactly makes a piece of software "professional." If it's about stability or having lots of flexability, my PCs have both of those, too.

You've attached yourself to this label that nobody else has really used as a differentiator, but it doesn't mean anything other than what it means.

Here you go, I think this is what you think will defend your position. Art City Sound is a "professional" (which means simply that they get paid for what they do) recording studio in Utah that is completely linux based. They use Harrison mixbus.

http://ilovemyjournal.com/?action=view_entry&eid=4845

As a differentiator, "professional" most often means, simply, that someone gets paid for the task. Art City Sound gets paid for recording with Linux, so, yes, one can create "professional" recordings with linux.

Case closed.

Now, back to this thread which isn't at all about that. It doesn't matter that you can find one studio, well, I found it for you, that uses linux that most people will find it useful or ready for what they do. People who use linux for audio have generally decided that they are willing to make compromises for that goal, in and of itself. Professional has nothing to do with it really.

It's really very simple. When I see something like Push, or NIs F1 controller and I say "man I want to use that", the chances are pretty good that it will run on Windows and OSX, but not linux. For most people to switch, linux being a choice will be a necessary, but not sufficient condition. That won't happen for years, that's why this is a non-starter for most people, it really is just that simple and going on for pages trying to project other reasoning isn't going to change that.

[xamido]

Lol, go to any professional audio and music studio and tell them that you use linux. Let's see how they react to your statement.

The very definition of professional is they get paid to do specific task for a living. Studios don't give a shit on the OS. What they need is for the software to just run perfectly. They don't want to waste their time on computer technicality.

And i'm sorry, all those linux plugin that you guys share here. When i go to youtube they all sounded lacking. If i'm a professional and i have a dedicated budget for audio, i wouldn't touch those plugins. I need better quality software. Professional don't settle with inferior tools. Until company like UAD, Waves, Slate, Avid, U-He, Native Instruments care about linux, Linux is just a platform for audio hobbyist.

And no, Wine and Vst wrapper on linux doesn't count. If i have to jump through hoops with buggy implementation on linux, i'd rather get a windows or mac.

Paid software quality in Windows and MacOS is so much better than linux stuff. We buy the time and effort from the dev, that's how the world revolve.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Now a specific synth comparison, yoshimi has additive, subtractive
and formant synthesis, and the unique Padsynth (code is free to other devs).

It has 16 layers, with separate outputs, selectable midi channels,
and multi fx per track, and on the master. You can save/load your multis.
It is actively developed, but not by a pro team, but by one willing to learn
better coding. It's a branch of zynaddsubfx, the sound is wonderful,
perhaps a thousand presets are out there. (My bank folder has 1972 items,
but there are some duplicates, readme files etc).

I think to get this function and sound, outside of linux,
you're in Omnisphere territory. The $479 Omni probably has a better preset collection,
but routing the 16 outputs freely, might be easier in yoshimi, and doing that
in Omni might require a commercial daw, another $60 to $600.

Some people who are skint for the $500, but would love a powerhouse synth,
can have it, at the price of learning to burn and boot a linux iso,
learn a few commands, a few ubiquitus config file settings, and some GUIs
which are there on youtube at ones convenience.
(posted for future googlers!)

Specific synth comparison ??

While it is true that omnisphere has it's critics, i'd be surprised if any would try to make such a delusional comparison. it does kind of explain why you are content with linux for music (nothing wrong with that, as a personal choice)

[xamido]

Now a specific synth comparison, yoshimi has additive, subtractive
and formant synthesis, and the unique Padsynth (code is free to other devs).

It has 16 layers, with separate outputs, selectable midi channels,
and multi fx per track, and on the master. You can save/load your multis.
It is actively developed, but not by a pro team, but by one willing to learn
better coding. It's a branch of zynaddsubfx, the sound is wonderful,
perhaps a thousand presets are out there. (My bank folder has 1972 items,
but there are some duplicates, readme files etc).

I think to get this function and sound, outside of linux,
you're in Omnisphere territory. The $479 Omni probably has a better preset collection,
but routing the 16 outputs freely, might be easier in yoshimi, and doing that
in Omni might require a commercial daw, another $60 to $600.

Some people who are skint for the $500, but would love a powerhouse synth,
can have it, at the price of learning to burn and boot a linux iso,
learn a few commands, a few ubiquitus config file settings, and some GUIs
which are there on youtube at ones convenience.
(posted for future googlers!)

Lol, the presets are what makes omnisphere a quality instruments. I have alchemy but i don't have the audio source and programming knowledge that Eric Persing have. I can never make my Alchemy sounded like omnisphere.

Dismissing the quality of omnisphere preset is why i can never take you seriously. Music is not just a bunch of feature clumped together, if i buy Omnisphere i'm also buying the time spent by Eric Persing to record and program the sound in to Omnisphere.

And another thing, that Yoshimi have ugly UI. I'd much rather use the beautiful and clear interface of Omnisphere.

You linux guys don't understand that there's more to audio plugin than just a bunch of feature and code.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Now a specific synth comparison, yoshimi has additive, subtractive
and formant synthesis, and the unique Padsynth (code is free to other devs).

It has 16 layers, with separate outputs, selectable midi channels,
and multi fx per track, and on the master. You can save/load your multis.
It is actively developed, but not by a pro team, but by one willing to learn
better coding. It's a branch of zynaddsubfx, the sound is wonderful,
perhaps a thousand presets are out there. (My bank folder has 1972 items,
but there are some duplicates, readme files etc).

I think to get this function and sound, outside of linux,
you're in Omnisphere territory. The $479 Omni probably has a better preset collection,
but routing the 16 outputs freely, might be easier in yoshimi, and doing that
in Omni might require a commercial daw, another $60 to $600.

Some people who are skint for the $500, but would love a powerhouse synth,
can have it, at the price of learning to burn and boot a linux iso,
learn a few commands, a few ubiquitus config file settings, and some GUIs
which are there on youtube at ones convenience.
(posted for future googlers!)

Lol, the presets are what makes omnisphere a quality instruments. I have alchemy but i don't have the audio source and programming knowledge that Eric Persing have. I can never make my Alchemy sounded like omnisphere.

Dismissing the quality of omnisphere preset is why i can never take you seriously. Music is not just a bunch of feature clumped together, if i buy Omnisphere i'm also buying the time spent by Eric Persing to record and program the sound in to Omnisphere.

And another thing, that Yoshimi have ugly UI. I'd much rather use the beautiful and clear interface of Omnisphere.

You linux guys don't understand that there's more to audio plugin than just a bunch of feature and code.

- thousands of presets by well-respected sound designers
- over 40gig of sampled data
- great quality effects
- great performance options like 'the orb', live- mode and keyswitching stuff, all tightly integrated with ipad
- great, tag-able browser

the list goes on.

[glokraw]

So, I'm no fan of Omnisphere, but a big selling point is not only that it has some thousands of presets, but that many of those presets were designed by "celebrity sound designers."

The yoshimi gui opens without the many editors visible. This is a feature.
It is easy on the eyes, and functional. All the 16 part and channel controls
are on the main screen, for quick layering, no manual needed.

33:20 is where the better sounds start being played in the above video.
I've used this for years, and know how well the sounds and usability
stack up against both free and payware. You really are blowing smoke.

I am also a happy Reaper customer, and have oft declared it
'the best linux audio software', perhaps to the chagrine of other
linux users, but I call it as I see/hear/actually-use it.
I use it as a wonderful and complex rompler, so reaktor, and amplitube,
and wusikstation, and all that other non-dongled windowsy goodness,
is just one element of the signal chain, as there are great linux fx
and multi-fx to route it to. Discovery Pro utilizes some of that yoshimi/zyn code,
and it's no vst slouch. Even has a native linux version now.

So for those who want an extremely easy-to-use and powerful synth,
with many hundreds of fine sounds to get you started, simple layering,
separate editors to open for sound design, but sans the $500 worth of
highly acclaimed celebrity sounds, your time and your learning are
your money. Spend it well!
Cheers

[xamido]

So for those who want an extremely easy-to-use and powerful synth,
with many hundreds of fine sounds to get you started, simple layering,
separate editors to open for sound design, but sans the $500 worth of
highly acclaimed celebrity sounds, your time and your learning are
your money. Spend it well!
Cheers

No, Omnisphere have 40 gb of high quality audio content that your beloved yoshimi doesn't have. That amount of recording and editing comes in play for the price.

Your comparison is like comparing sonatina and VSL. They are both strings samples, but the quality is so much different. The quality difference is what makes the price.