Support of audio interfaces under Linux

[shalamabobbi]

After reading through this topic I almost became resigned to stick with apple. Then I read this article.

http://createdigitalmusic.com/2009/08/l ... m-cascone/

The cost of using a stand alone digital recorder has to be compared against the cost of using an apple or windows pc with the constant OS upgrades and the cost of the DAW software and the cost of the digital interface. I am guessing a stand alone digital recorder is not that big of a hit financially by comparison.

[wolftune]

Just get an interface that *does* work with Linux. They do exist, and people can and have made high-quality recordings. Don't get overwhelmed, just get something known to work and go make music.

[asbak]

Depends what you want to do. If you want to record live orchestras or bands then a digital recorder would be a great choice, probably better than any computer & audio interface combination.
If you planned to create sequenced musical projects at home or in a studio then hard disk recorders are not particularly flexible and your routing and editing options and available number of tracks are limited.

I assume that most people will be editing and mastering their projects on a computer anyway so there aren't better alternatives around that I'm aware of.

A nice s/h DigiRecorder like an Alesis HD24 is in the < $500 ballpark, not much but keep in mind that it only does recording and playback and not a whole lot else. (Although it can be re-purposed as an ADAT AD/DA)

So in the end one still needs a computer imo and at least two channels of audio IO. Those kinds of audio interfaces don't necessarily cost a fortune, the 2 - 4 channel ones are roughly between $100 - 200 dollars for the more affordable but perfectly capable models.

Macs and their accompanying software and hardware ecosystems obviously cost a fortune so these aren't a consideration for the budget conscious.

One can pick up reasonably capable PC's for little money and with the plethora of Linux software now available it's possible to achieve professional results.
The major drawbacks to going the Linux route is the learning curve, general lack of *organised* documentation and device support but none of those are showstoppers.

Just ask around if you need specific advice to specific questions.

[tramp]

Money, dum ,dum dum ,

[glowrak guy]

Macs and their accompanying software and hardware ecosystems obviously cost a fortune so these aren't a consideration for the budget conscious.

If you prepare an all inclusive budget for general needs 'low-end' professional results, a 2012 vintage Mac, with Logic, Mainstage, and Reaper
is going to be difficult to beat. The aquisition and pricing of Logic and the Mainstage bundled Alchemy II is huge, in terms of capability.
Prices of Mac versions of Native Instruments, U-he, and othe big name cross-platform software, are the same,
not marked up in some supposed 'ecosystem'.

People who have invested the man-hours to develope a linux 'mostly freeware' system can still
achieve great results, but the cost difference between a pro Mac and Pro windows studio,
has gone the way of the dodo. And happily so, for people who study windows 10 privacy assault policy.



Cheers

[glowrak guy]

$700 + $35 for Mainstage/Alchemy II isn't bad. Or Logic/Alchemy II for $200.
You're looking at Komplete added to a windows pc to have similar range, which at this years NI 'special sale' price,
is going to be $500 or more, in all likelihood. So $300-$400 for a low end windows pc, and $500+ for Komplete.



Of course, I'm a linux diehard, with more tools to explore, than time to do the exploring,
so other guys price haggling is not much of an issue. Between Zebra, Zynaddsubfx, Hydrogen, Calf,
all the FM options, and a plethora of effects, the clam is at high tide

[wolftune]

If all the folks paying $700 for some proprietary DAW just donated it to free/libre/open DAWs, we'd get better software in every respect. (But I understand each individual making this choice isn't enough, as we need collective action — this frustration is what drove me to start https://snowdrift.coop, which is now itself still not launched as we're facing the same challenges everyone else is facing…).

[glowrak guy]

The $700 computer ballpark is just a small part of the cost of a recording environment.
Music instruments, monitor speakers, treated rooms, mics, storage devices,
mastering gear/software/services etc etc dwarf the cost of the computer.

$700 is burger-joint money in the U.S. especially if one keeps a computer
for three years, and most musicians do.

I read one of the Snowdrifters boasts of subverting copyright by night.
The difficulty of getting people to donate to libre causes, is not helped
by attacking the income streams of the potential donors. And people
whose music we love, depend on copyright to protect their investment
in the time, skill, and the expensive equipment used to produce the arts we enjoy.

[wolftune]

I read one of the Snowdrifters boasts of subverting copyright by night.
The difficulty of getting people to donate to libre causes, is not helped
by attacking the income streams of the potential donors. And people
whose music we love, depend on copyright to protect their investment
in the time, skill, and the expensive equipment used to produce the arts we enjoy.

This is getting way too tangential. I didn't mean to derail the discussion. Let me just say this: Kim mentioned that line in context of working for a copyright-centric publisher and at night working to help Snowdrift.coop, that's what she meant by "subverting copyright". And this is therefore not about undoing people's incomes because the entire *point* of Snowdrift.coop is to fund people.

Copyright is a terrible system and should be abolished. And yes, the issue of getting funded is the one legitimate reason to defend copyright, but copyright apologists give way too much credit to copyright for being the source of income. Copyright mostly is a tool of big corporations who exploit artists. If you want to actually understand *my* perspective, read http://blog.wolftune.com/2008/06/ration ... right.html. I am certain by your writing that you have *not* taken the time to engage openly with the questions to the extent that you could if you want to learn more. You can comment there on my blog if you wish. Let's not derail this topic about audio interfaces.

I mostly spoke up because I want it to be acknowledged that it stinks that we indeed feel we should compromise our values or not use Linux because of the status of things, but I *agree* in part with the view of the status quo. I'm just saying it doesn't *have* to be this way, in principle. And we should acknowledge the serious problems with proprietary software and proprietary lock-in and with proprietary music for that matter.

[glowrak guy]

I suppose DAW needs definition, to be discussed. A daw software,
like ardour or reaper, is one thing, a workstation, the w in daw, can be defined as
a station one occupies to work, which may be a chair surrounded by
various desks, stands, and sundry furniture, commonly holding keyboards,
computers, rack gear, monitor speakers etc

And expanding that, the room itself, treated, and holding instruments
and gear not usually placed on furniture, guitars, mics, percussion etc.

Donating to freeware software authors, in general, is a very good thing to do.
As is purchasing the things that best meet your needs.

[wolftune]

I meant DAW as in *software*, and funding proprietary stuff means less money for FLOSS in large respects. I want proprietary software to go away, it's bitten me too much and is really a bad thing for society overall. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate what it can do, just not the proprietary aspect of it. Yes, buying hardware makes sense *AND* funding developers makes sense too, I just want people to REWARD developers for being FLOSS and treating us well and not reward them for being proprietary. I reject the very notion of "purchasing music" or "purchasing software" and it took me 15 years and a long process to recognize the issue. Software is *soft*, it isn't an object to purchase. In reality, you are purchasing a "license" for something artificially locked-down. And I see proprietary terms as primarily a tool used by powerful interests against the public interest, even though it exists on the side to help others.

Anyway, in *practice*, there are reasons to go with proprietary stuff still. The world isn't perfect. I don't oppose compromise, I just want it recognized as compromise.

[glowrak guy]

" Kim mentioned that line in context of working for a copyright-centric publisher and at night working to help Snowdrift.coop, that's what she meant by "subverting copyright". And this is therefore not about undoing people's incomes because the entire *point* of Snowdrift.coop is to fund people.

Copyright is a terrible system and should be abolished."

So copyright is terrible, but she doesn't work to abolish (subvert) it?

Currently, the wealth inequality agenda demands that successful people fund low skilled, lazy, or unmotivated people,
by means of pay scales not related to any free market value. And seeks to force people who worked far far more
than 40 hours a week in building their business/wealth, to fund people content with part-time barista jobs,
enought to cover social media, and dosage of pot.

Attacking the 'terrible system' of copyright, is just another attempt at transferring wealth
from successful creative people, to deadbeats that want it all for free, in the form
of pirating other peoples artwork.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" I am certain by your writing that you have *not* taken the time to engage openly with the questions
to the extent that you could if you want to learn more."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I am certain that you consider yourself superior and elite. So be it.

[glowrak guy]

"and funding proprietary stuff means less money for FLOSS in large respects."

This assumes if someone didn't purchase a proprietary good or service,
that they would automatically donate a to a floss good or service.

Floss and proprietary dwell in a competitive environment, and people may choose to support one or the other,
or both, in various ways, or not, and for many reasons, not just some objective or subjective determination of superiority
or worthiness.

For example, I like both _uitarix, and _mplitube, and convey that in forums from time to time,
although 'at work', I use neither.

Sorry for the clumsy syncopated post timing

[wolftune]

So copyright is terrible, but she doesn't work to abolish (subvert) it?

Let's not have this exchange further here. I was saying she works to subvert it via helping promote better alternatives to fund people. I.e. she isn't just subverting it by commiting copyright infringement (which is how the out-of-context quote might come across).

Currently, the wealth inequality agenda demands that successful people fund low skilled, lazy, or unmotivated people,
by means of pay scales not related to any free market value. And seeks to force people who worked far far more
than 40 hours a week in building their business/wealth, to fund people content with part-time barista jobs,
enought to cover social media, and dosage of pot.

This is now totally-off-topic ranting full of a bunch of dumb stereotypes. This is not the place to get into discussing the problems with your political views broadly.

Attacking the 'terrible system' of copyright, is just another attempt at transferring wealth
from successful creative people, to deadbeats that want it all for free, in the form
of pirating other peoples artwork.

Okay okay, you read Ayn Rand and think you're John Galt, I get it. Maybe some day you'll decide to open-mindedly engage with other ideas, but it doesn't look like today's that day.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" I am certain by your writing that you have *not* taken the time to engage openly with the questions
to the extent that you could if you want to learn more."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I am certain that you consider yourself superior and elite. So be it.

Yes, but two people can be certain about two things and that doesn't make them equally likely to be right. It's easy to protect your closed mind by saying that any other ideas are motivated only by other people's elitism or selfishness or laziness etc. I'm not saying you're dumb or elitist or whatever. I started with just basically saying you were ignorant of ideas that you clearly are ignorant of. Now, there's tons of ideas *I* am ignorant about, nobody knows everything. For whatever life experiences you have, you and I probably have roughly the same *quantity* of knowledge, just a different set of it. In the case of understanding the economics of copyright, I'm aware of a significant scope of knowledge that you clearly haven't grappled with. If we were talking about other topics, we could find a topic where you know of things I don't know. If you were to point out an area where you could teach me things, that wouldn't make you an elitist. I don't think I'm a better, superior person than you or a member of any elite of any sort. I'm just someone who happens to understand this topic far better than you do, just like if you know Python, then you understand it far better than I.

[wolftune]

Sorry for the clumsy syncopated post timing

That's why I really like threaded discussions better, but yeah…

"and funding proprietary stuff means less money for FLOSS in large respects."

This assumes if someone didn't purchase a proprietary good or service,
that they would automatically donate a to a floss good or service.

Yes, taken strictly, I agree. I don't mean it that way though. I mean in *general*, as a society, when we fund proprietary stuff, it does put resources in that direction, leaving less for FLOSS and it also helps proprietary stuff continue to develop and outcompete FLOSS as well. Simply *not* funding proprietary stuff would result in more adoption of FLOSS for the mere fact that the proprietary stuff wouldn't be as good, and better FLOSS would lead to more contributions both creatively and financially.

Floss and proprietary dwell in a competitive environment, and people may choose to support one or the other,
or both, in various ways, or not, and for many reasons, not just some objective or subjective determination of superiority
or worthiness.

For example, I like both _uitarix, and _mplitube, and convey that in forums from time to time,
although 'at work', I use neither.

Yes absolutely. Real life is complex, details are complex. Guitarix doesn't compete on par with Amplitube. Guitarix would be a lot better if it had the sort of resources that Amplitube gets though. The point is, these are systematic issues. Me hand-wringing over each person's decision to buy an Amplitube license accomplishes little, but sometimes it's still worth mentioning the issue just for spreading awareness. Anyway, I'm not saying "Amplitube stinks" I'm saying "it stinks that Amplitube is *proprietary*". And I'm not going to keep going on about the issues right here. I think Amplitube is much less of a problem anyway than the types of more serious concerns.