LinuxMusicians

CrocoDuck wrote:I like ZynAddSubFx for anything else. In the past I really liked Phasex, which I don't think is under current development anymore

btw, all phasex capabilities (except for several wavetables) can be reproduced in ZASFX (tried it myself), doing phasex stuff in phasex is just faster

protozone wrote:you rock!

i'm thinking what domain i should buy for my project web page — .live or .rocks ?
counted this as a vote for .rocks )))

In addition to price of hardware itself, price of having enough room for them. Now in my office I have barely space for Akai LPK-25 keyboard, and garage is cold most part of the year, so using it as studio is not an option. And anyway, stringed instruments are my main target, synths are secondary. ...

just one word: hardware . Objection, with one word: poverty! oh, living in Ukraine, i understand your objection very well, since average income here is one of the lowest over Europe. due to this reason, i was a huge software synth fan for a VERY long time, but doing more and more rehearsal & ja...

just one word: hardware.

voted ALSA/FFADO, but that's for a regular desktop tasks.
for audio production tasks, i run jack, of course.

1.5 to 2 eternities.
that was the main reason for me to play improvisations and record multitrack live sessions.

I'd rather have a slightly larger size, 24-bit audio, fewer channels, and some more standard physical interface options. so, you probably should look at Axoloti Core board ) it's completely different, but does 24bit / 48 kHz audio and nas more connectors (and pins for yet more connections). Bela ha...

This is also the main argument here in Germany: Program xy does not run on Linux. same for ukraine, russia and other ex-USSR countries. Pro Tools, Logic Audio, Cubase, Reaper, Ableton(?), Bitwig(?),...? Then I can't think of any. Pro Tools, Cubase and Ableton are definitely considered industry stan...

it's often very handy when recreating patches from one synth on another.
and very interesting when fiddling with FM synths.

thanks. i don't know what i need it for, but $12 is very good price, so i could not resist

...But if all the basic tracks were upsampled to 32/96 and mixed in this domain, using plug-ins running 32/96 etc. and the master eventually downsampled to 16/44.1, then the resulting master would most likely sound a lot better than the original mix, even though both are 16/44.1 hmmm… interesting! ...

I didn't know jack couldn't go higher than the hardware. Sorry. :? Indeed i get options up to 192kh (equal to my hardware max specs). Unknown to me if this is standard options for QjackCTL or if this is (my) hardware bounded. even if you set, say, 96k in the settings, but hardware only does 48k, ja...

my live setup does not have a DAW at all :mrgreen: since i don't like single-point-of-failure kind of setups of whatever. all recording is done in hardware (and then gets imported to Harrison Mixbus, but mixing / mastering stages are completely another story.) so, the choice is 48k + hardware EQ + h...

if you do everything in software — it's no problem to run everything in 96k. in the days of software-only setup i did just the same.
things go complicated if you turn to the hardware side of the force.