In what way modular approach is limiting

Discuss how to promote using FLOSS to make music.

Moderators: MattKingUSA, khz

studio32

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by studio32 »

Louigi Verona wrote:Yeah, I am very active with giving feedback on QTractor too and also did some feedback for NonMixer.
Good. Can you explain me why you prefer LMMS above Qtractor atm?
User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by Louigi Verona »

Because with Qtractor I cannot go back to the beginning of the tune and change something if I want - I have to actually resetup a synth I used, remember what preset I used, load it up and possibly even perform it again.

In fact, I did make a nice tune with QTractor, using Bristol synths. When in the middle of a tune I decided to change a chord in the middle, I understood that it is not possible without re-recording everything. The way the tune was done - it was simply not an option.

Adding to that the fact that Bristol synth take lots of CPU and get kicked out of JACK regularly, I cannot keep several of them open.

Do you understand what I mean?
studio32

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by studio32 »

Louigi Verona wrote:Because with Qtractor I cannot go back to the beginning of the tune and change something if I want - I have to actually resetup a synth I used, remember what preset I used, load it up and possibly even perform it again.

In fact, I did make a nice tune with QTractor, using Bristol synths. When in the middle of a tune I decided to change a chord in the middle, I understood that it is not possible without re-recording everything. The way the tune was done - it was simply not an option.

Adding to that the fact that Bristol synth take lots of CPU and get kicked out of JACK regularly, I cannot keep several of them open.

Do you understand what I mean?
I understand it. I did an test session with qtractor and decided to do it with Ladish, cause you don't have to restart the external synths (zynaddsubfx and phasex in my case) manually again. Then another problem is indeed the presets you use in the synth. Luckily enough most of the synths are able to save presets. In Ladish you can start an app with a certain project file or patch atm like you would do in the terminal.

Btw is Bristol a good synth?
User avatar
Capoeira
Established Member
Posts: 1321
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Brazil
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by Capoeira »

studio32 wrote:
Btw is Bristol a good synth?
Bristol is not jut one synth....its various analouge synths emulators
User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by Louigi Verona »

Bristol project is a great project which is worth working with. Also, the more people use it, the more valuable feedback the dev behind it gets. I suggest you try compiling the latest version.
studio32

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by studio32 »

I found out how LMMS is working with midi and the samples in an internal sampler. It seems that you can do this with the modular approach with samplers as Specimen, Linuxsampler (gigedit) and Swami (soundfont). Gig files (linuxsampler) and soundfonts (fluidsynth dssi) can be used as plugins in qtractor for example.
Also Hydrogen is an option. And maybe I forgot one?.....

http://apps.linuxaudio.org/apps/all/specimen
(here someone shows how to work with it http://www.youtube.com/pneumanlsd )
http://download.linuxsampler.org/doc/gi ... start.html
http://swami.resonance.org/trac
http://briansbedroom.blogspot.com/2008/ ... it_21.html

Session handlers are on its way (Ladish and Torbens minimal session manager)

And also automation for midi stuff (qtractor, ardour and I hope non-sequencer will add some functionality)

edit: this seems also interesting in this realm: http://tardigrade-inc.com/index.php/En/Tapeutape
Last edited by studio32 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by Louigi Verona »

I agree that in theory modular approach can be uber-cool. In fact, with all the tools in place, there might be not a big difference between loading a plugin in IME or opening a synth in modular environment.

Thing is, we do not live in a perfect world and the biggest problem with the modular environment I see (as I wrote in the original post) is that in order to make modular good you have to rely on many different developers.

The more I read dev mailing lists, the more I see that it can be a problem. Different devs not only have different opinions, they actually act on them and deliver apps which are not compatible or which use different standards. For instance, Non-DAW does not support LV2 and actually they do not even plan it. They might have very good reasons for it, but in the end it means that one app supports this and one supports that. And since there is no commercial interest to support unification of standards, it simply does not happen.

I will prepare an article on modular approach and on a DAW in general and outline common usability/functionality problems of audio linux design - my opinion. It will be sort of another side of things.
studio32

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by studio32 »

Louigi Verona wrote: Thing is, we do not live in a perfect world and the biggest problem with the modular environment I see (as I wrote in the original post) is that in order to make modular good you have to rely on many different developers.
It is a question whether it is better to rely on one or a few developers then on many... What if they stop, what if they don't support something?
The more I read dev mailing lists, the more I see that it can be a problem. Different devs not only have different opinions, they actually act on them and deliver apps which are not compatible or which use different standards. For instance, Non-DAW does not support LV2 and actually they do not even plan it. They might have very good reasons for it, but in the end it means that one app supports this and one supports that. And since there is no commercial interest to support unification of standards, it simply does not happen.
Non-daw doesn't support plugins, non-mixer does. And I think the chance is pretty big that an developer (outside the project) adds lv2 support to it. Btw it is pretty easy with non-daw and non-mixer to route the audio through an LV2 host.
Does LMMs support LV2 and DSSI?


edit: BTW it seems that you can control jack-rack LADSPA host with midi cc messages (right click on enable) to do automation with ladspa plugins.
User avatar
raboof
Established Member
Posts: 1855
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:58 am
Location: Deventer, NL
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 74 times
Contact:

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by raboof »

Louigi Verona wrote:in the end it means that one app supports this and one supports that
Again, I fail to see this as a "modular vs IME" issue. For IME's it actually seems worse: each IME only supports whatever it supports.

At least a 'modular' app speaks some kind of standard, so it supports anything that also speaks that standard, instead of just whatever was hard-coded into that app...
User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by Louigi Verona »

I am not sure. I don't think they support LV2.


What you say about many devs is true, given enough time. Basically, I am quite optimistic about modular approach as it is.

As for the IME vs modular, this exact statement has nothing to do with IME vs modular, it is about modular itself, not modular vs whatever.
User avatar
raboof
Established Member
Posts: 1855
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:58 am
Location: Deventer, NL
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 74 times
Contact:

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by raboof »

Louigi Verona wrote:this exact statement has nothing to do with IME vs modular, it is about modular itself, not modular vs whatever.
Ok - no argument there then, the fact that various standards are implemented to a various degree by various apps (tee hee) is a limitation. There's not really any alternative though, except for sticking with old standards and not inventing anything new anymore - and that's not really an option either.
studio32

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by studio32 »

studio32 wrote:
Louigi Verona wrote:kluppe is the one I use most, but it does not have jack transport support. it might not be considered serious by some, but it is necessary for me.
mmh I don't know Kluppe well... I 'll check it out. File a feature request there...


Mmh automation..... Non-automation, like Non-mixer etc.???
Here it is, a standalone app for automation (not released yet afaik), but it seems there are more people with this idea...

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/6827 ... shotjs.png
User avatar
autostatic
Established Member
Posts: 1994
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: Beverwijk, The Netherlands
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 104 times
Contact:

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by autostatic »

studio32 wrote:Here it is, a standalone app for automation (not released yet afaik), but it seems there are more people with this idea...

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/6827 ... shotjs.png
Isn't that one of the apps Harry van Haaren is working on? I recall him showing it at LAC2010.
studio32

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by studio32 »

@autostatic, right
User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by Louigi Verona »

Looks good. I wish it would be completed.
Post Reply