id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

[ninez]

Agreed. My thought is that it is unfair to compare one company's product(s) to an entire ecosystem.

but is it really that unfair, with Windows based systems, Microsoft doesn't target that market specifically, neither do the vast majority of OEMs that ship windows *specifically* target that market, While Apple specifically does in their choice of hardware and the software/frameworks in their platform.

The second thing that bothers me is that this thread seems to indicate that the Mac comes with DAW software. I 'think' that you might be referring to Garageband, which is part of the iLife bundle (iMovie, iPhoto, Garageband) and sells for $15. Some Macs come bundled with iLife and iWork, and it is often haggled into deals at the Apple retail store, but still, it doesn't come with OSX in a literal sense. If you are referring to another piece of software, I sincerely apologize.

Well, like i said before, pretty much every Mac i have bought included iLife and thus Garageband (well since they existed anyway, which has been for a long time). It's no surprise that they sell it in the App store for so cheap either, because it often is bundled anyway. But regardless of Garageband - I don't see you arguing against CoreAudio and the frameworks it provides, which includes things like AU and CAF. - which is an example of Apple targeting the Proaudio marker (not just through marketing). Microsoft doesn't include this kind of thing, nor do they develop good multimedia apps in general (that could be bought separately), since it really isn't a target they care about.

about iMac's as i said before - not exactly the best choice for Proaudio work, MacPros tend to be the choice amongst professionals (aka: in studios) and MacBook Pro's for live-performers - and as you also know Logic-Pro includes MainStage - which targets live-players as well. And then for those keyboard players whom want to bring their virtual synths (but don't want the hassles of a laptop) for specific sounds they may be using in the studio - they can buy a receptor pro - which is pretty much a turnkey solution, ready to go, headless setup. But obviously many keyboardists will actually use a combination of these things, as well as analog gear too.

Some guitarists cannot stand digital effects (like the POD for example) because of the latency that they introduce. From a player perspective, it's like you're playing drunk. Something feels wrong/uncanny/disconnected. Some players are fine with this. I think that these effects are fine for experimentation and exploration, but prefer to record raw and add post-processing later.

Keyboard players like myself, also feel this way ~ reducing latency as much as possible is desired and important.

When playing with a percussionist, there's a bit of anticipation and compensation on the part of the other players. Perhaps the the drummer has a lazy snare arm. You still play the backbeat on the 3 or 2, but it is often beneficial or interesting to match the drummer and play a little behind the 3. The point is that musicians can deal with extremely small variations latency (1ms), not by possessing superhuman reaction time, but by recognizing, anticipating, and compensating for it. I have no idea how arena bands do it though, because the kick and snare hit you at two different latencies (in-ear monitors have fixed this to some degree).

IEMs is the solution to playing in Arenas, but it really isn't just the drums that is the problem. It is noise in general, especially from a crowd of 1000s and 1000s of people screaming; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-ear_monitor

OS Audio latency is a problem. The majority of the DAW products on the market work around them comfortably.

DAWs also have looser requirements than sound modules intended for live usage ~ ie: musicians/players, not people using things like launchpad with Ableton live (which doesn't require as low-latency). Your going to be recording any of your synth's using MIDI (virtual or not) and bouncing them to audio tracks later. You (obviously) can manipulate, fudge, quantize, etc them...and with Audio tracks you also have a lot of flexibility ~ that peforming just doesn't allow, for very obvious reasons... Players generally will have stricter requirements and even though we can compensate for latency (as i mentioned before with old-synths/pianos), when using modern technology/modules - it is better to reduce that issue.

[russofris]

Strawman indeed. The point you were trying to make was that I was somehow 'used to' high-latency devices.

Notes for non-studio/musician guys still following the flamewar:

Guitar cabs are Mic'd 10-15cm away from the cab. Mics that are positioned further away are done so intentionally, to capture the dynamics of the room. That latency is intentional, and even desirable in a number of cases. It is not unusual to have multiple mics for a single cab in the studio.

DAW's typically compensate for, or offer a manual method of compensating for the latency between playback and recording.

Some guitarists cannot stand digital effects (like the POD for example) because of the latency that they introduce. From a player perspective, it's like you're playing drunk. Something feels wrong/uncanny/disconnected. Some players are fine with this. I think that these effects are fine for experimentation and exploration, but prefer to record raw and add post-processing later.

When playing with a percussionist, there's a bit of anticipation and compensation on the part of the other players. Perhaps the the drummer has a lazy snare arm. You still play the backbeat on the 3 or 2, but it is often beneficial or interesting to match the drummer and play a little behind the 3. The point is that musicians can deal with extremely small variations latency (1ms), not by possessing superhuman reaction time, but by recognizing, anticipating, and compensating for it. I have no idea how arena bands do it though, because the kick and snare hit you at two different latencies (in-ear monitors have fixed this to some degree).

OS Audio latency is a problem. The majority of the DAW products on the market work around them comfortably.

F

[ninez]

Oh boy, Windows Audio, my specialty!

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7...uying-an-imac/

Whoops...

I don't know too many proaudio professionals using iMac's dude - it's usually MacPros, and usually people who are performing on stage are using MacBook Pros. All-in-one Pcs are usually not the way to go for these types of tasks - that should be obvious. Would you buy this PC for Proaudio intended usage; http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/...e525702d9cen02

i wouldn't. :\

Because ASIO is not an OS component, nor should it be. Its handled at the Device Driver layer. The ASIO4ALL driver more or less supports every sound device out there. No other OS configuration is necessary aside from a ASIO Device Driver.

ASIO4ALL, yuck.

What does this have to do with Scali's claim that Apple doesn't target Proaudio (users/audience), specifically in their hardware choices and the software they develop??! -> which is what that comment was pertaining too... it has nothing to do with it. You are basically bringing up something that doesn't matter, in the context of what was being discussed.

You fail to see the point. Microsoft isn't bloating their OS [hey, thats a big thing for Linux guys, right?] with unneeded functionallity. Instead, they just provide an interface, and let the device manufacturers create a device/driver that does what it needs to.

Personally, I have two M-Audio cards hooked up for various input connectivity, and an ASUS Xonar Xense to output to my headset (currently an Audio-Technica M50), or output to my receiver via HDMI from the GPU. So don't tell me Windows can't handle professional audio.

First, i find it funny that you say Windows isn't bloating their OS. Win7 requires 16gig diskspace for 32bit and 20gigs for 64bit;
http://windows.microsoft.com/is-IS/w...m-requirements ...

Secondly, i never told you or anyone else that 'Windows can't handle professional audio. That is nothing more than a strawman.

Software != OS. Its an extra built in stand alone program, no different then if MS decided to package Word with the OS. The fact some audio software is thrown in the OS by default is itself no an indication that OSX is any better or worse at handling proaudio.

Except you would be wrong. Because CoreAudio and all of it's components ARE apart of the OS. ie: not just applications but are frameworks. That would be like saying that Quartz or Cocoa isn't apart of their platform. It's a bit absurd since, they aren't comparable to a text-editor in any shape or form...

More then a Mac? And its 50% markup? *laughs*

The machine has some expensive parts and higher specs than ANY Mac (including MacPro's http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html). I am not aware of any Apple Computer shipping with a hybrid SDD/PCIe drive are you?? (these drives typically cost well-over $1000, if you plan to have a drive that actually has decent size and is high-performance, the cost goes up - my friend's is mid-to-high range. I can't remember if it's the RevoDrive or another... Unfortunately, i really can't justify buying one of these yet, although i would love too). Not too mention the video card, his other HDDs, RAM, etc.

Provably false. My home system gets <1ms latency when I have multiple audio inputs and outputs going on at the same time. [You CAN do this if the application allows manual selection of audio input/output devices.]

this doesn't prove anything other than <1ms latency. It does not prove that Scali wasn't be fallacious and misrepresenting what i actually said. And i again, i never said it was impossible for windows to be used for Proaudio. Apple just generally tailors their systems for proaudio/multimedia/artist crowd... You are also saying in your comment that it is in fact, false for me to say " CoreAudio is superior to Windows Audio subsystems, and without a proper ASIO device - you have no low-latency proaudio experience in Windows" ~ which is not false. it is true. How are you going to use your ASIO devices without ASIO installed? you can't.

Theres no perfect thing as lossless audio either. But theres a point where you can say that "latency is effectivly zero because its so tiny, its impossible for me to detect".

The human ear (depending on modality of course) can perceive latencies just a few ms apart. So i disagree that it is effectively zero. Plus, you have to factor in distance from the sound source - can you not here the difference between wearing headphones vs. listening through speakers and amps (and the distance away)??? can you not tell the difference if you double the buffer sizes and play the same virtual synth??? ( i can in all of these cases). So that isn't 'effectiviely zero'...

I'm more then willing to take up that challenge with you.

To be quite honest, i am bored of this ~ maybe start a new thread specifically discussing this topic and i'll poke my head in and contribute if i find the direction of the conversation/discussion interesting.

[russofris]

Well, that's one way to put it... I was thinking more along the lines of "inherent to certain aspects of the OS design" or "inherent to the design of the OS"...
But something like that yes.

Agreed. My thought is that it is unfair to compare one company's product(s) to an entire ecosystem.

And to get back to the Mac... well, what choice of motherboards/onboard audio and utilities do you have there? Exactly...

You have the choice of using the onboard audio, or you can use an external (firewire, Thunderbolt, or USB) solution. The onboard audio on a iMac has its share of problems. First and foremost is the lack of DD encoding/decoding. You can bitstream DD/DTS 5.1 to a receiver from a DVD or file via the mini-tosLink (headphone jack) to a decoder or hybrid solution like the Logitech Z5500. Aside from that, games, and other software, do not have 5.1 audio without the purchase of an external audio solution and some customization.

The second thing that bothers me is that this thread seems to indicate that the Mac comes with DAW software. I 'think' that you might be referring to Garageband, which is part of the iLife bundle (iMovie, iPhoto, Garageband) and sells for $15. Some Macs come bundled with iLife and iWork, and it is often haggled into deals at the Apple retail store, but still, it doesn't come with OSX in a literal sense. If you are referring to another piece of software, I sincerely apologize.

That said, I am more productive in Garageband than I am with Audacity. When I need to finish/produce a product, I simply export to Logic. Garageband has pretty much replaced my VS-1680, which served me well for almost a decade.

F

[Scali]

..and any sane person would realize it is entirely dependent on the distance relative to the sound source. If i remember corretly (too lazy to look it up) 1ms = 34cm of distance travelled. Stand a few meters away from your amp, now do the math.

Strawman indeed. The point you were trying to make was that I was somehow 'used to' high-latency devices.
So I pointed out that I was used to playing over real analog (pre-)amps which (at least on paper, I fully agree with gamerk2's remark above about 'effectively zero' latency, and as I said, if you get ~1 ms latency on your digital setup, you're past that point already, because yes, that would translate to '34 cm' or something to that effect. Close enough, if you pardon the pun) have lower latency than even the best digital devices today.
I also pointed out that early processors were still partly analog. Eg my first multifx had an analog preamp, coupled with digital reverb/delay and such. So any latency that would occur at all, would only affect these devices (as the device was set up with a parallel effect loop), which meant that even if it would have some latency, it wouldn't really matter anyway.

And are you implying that whenever I use digital processing, I stand infinitely close to my amp? Because I am not quite sure where this strawman-argument of yours is going. By the way, ever heard of (in-ear) monitors?

[Scali]

The ASIO4ALL driver more or less supports every sound device out there.

I wish you hadn't mentioned that one!
ASIO4ALL gives ASIO a bad name, because it tries to implement ASIO on devices that were never designed for low latencies in the first place (if they are, you get an ASIO driver with them, even your run-off-the-mill Sound Blaster or Audigy comes with ASIO drivers, despite being marketed at gamers, not musicians).

It's much like how Adlib and Sound Blaster gave MIDI a bad name. Yes, if you played a midi file on an early 90s PC, you got ultra-cheese stock sounds from the cheap Yamaha FM synth.
For some reason this cemented a bad reputation for MIDI that lingers on even today. Which is all the more ironic since MIDI was a popular standard in the professional studios even before the first PC could ever play a MIDI file at all, and is still being used heavily today.

[ninez]

In the context in which I said it, it was clear I was only speaking about the amp itself (seeing as digital processing does not include the poweramp/speakers part anyway).
And yes, I'm sure if I let you, you'd then argue about the fact that it doesn't take 'zero time' for the electrons to pass through an electrical circuit, and then start insulting me about how I don't even know that sort of basic physics etc etc...
While any sane person would understand from the context that this 'physical delay' is still significantly smaller compared to the theoretical minimum digital delay of 1 bit, and definitely smaller than the best case digital processing chain in practice.
But only someone who's really desperate would follow such a line of argument in the first place.

Strawman Fallacy, again. No dice.

..and any sane person would realize it is entirely dependent on the distance relative to the sound source. If i remember corretly (too lazy to look it up) 1ms = 34cm of distance travelled. Stand a few meters away from your amp, now do the math.

[gamerk2]

Oh boy, Windows Audio, my specialty!

I don't care about non-intel chips that died out years ago - that has zitch to do with anything. The fact is Apple has better quality control of their products and it shows. I never argued that they weren't using Intel or XYZ component....

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7...uying-an-imac/

Whoops...

Does Microsoft include ASIO, or VST or a DAW (ie: software) NO they do not. Apple DOES via CoreAudio (and all of it's components) and most Mac's that i've purchased come with a DAW and other audio tools. So they DO put that functionality in their OS in terms of software. So Yes, they do put some of the proaudio stuff right in there. As far as Hardware is concerned (in the context of being able to use for Proaudio purposes) they make sure their shit works - many of the OEMs that ship windows may or may NOT.

Because ASIO is not an OS component, nor should it be. Its handled at the Device Driver layer. The ASIO4ALL driver more or less supports every sound device out there. No other OS configuration is necessary aside from a ASIO Device Driver.

That isn't the same thing, and you know it. It isn't a question of 'seeing the big picture' - Microsoft doesn't target Proaudio specifically, while Apple does. OOTB i am ready to go with a Mac - with Windows, no. I have to rely on 3rd parties to make that happen. They may target low-latency I/O - but that doesn't change that fact that they don't target proaudio while Apple does. You can try to twist things around all that you like - you are simply wrong. Just like you've been wrong about nearly everything else you've claimed throughout this whole thread to me.

You fail to see the point. Microsoft isn't bloating their OS [hey, thats a big thing for Linux guys, right?] with unneeded functionallity. Instead, they just provide an interface, and let the device manufacturers create a device/driver that does what it needs to.

Personally, I have two M-Audio cards hooked up for various input connectivity, and an ASUS Xonar Xense to output to my headset (currently an Audio-Technica M50), or output to my receiver via HDMI from the GPU. So don't tell me Windows can't handle professional audio.

Except that they actually develop a lot of Proaudio/multimedia software and provide the frameworks for them, included in MacOSX. That isn't all 'marketing' - that is creating/providing the software and targeting that market BEYOND just some marketing ploys. They make sure there platform is better for this kind of thing, because it is an important area of business for them..

Software != OS. Its an extra built in stand alone program, no different then if MS decided to package Word with the OS. The fact some audio software is thrown in the OS by default is itself no an indication that OSX is any better or worse at handling proaudio.

I am well-aware of Apple's history with Firewire... And actually, most people i know who plan on doing things like Proaudio or Video-editing don't buy 'budget bargain basement junk'... Not even in the example i have used earlier in this thread, that you were trying to claim must have had via chipsets or some nonsense... I could find out how much that machine costed, but i can pretty much assure you it was more than a Mac.

More then a Mac? And its 50% markup? *laughs*

Yet, that doesn't change the fact that you totally misquoted me, were being fallacious and a totasl deceptive little snake. You also didn't need to quote that - being as i already did. CoreAudio is superior to Windows Audio subsystems, and without a proper ASIO device - you have no low-latency proaudio experience in Windows. The fact is you made some dumb fallacious argument up - that didn't correspond to what i said - plain and simple.

Provably false. My home system gets <1ms latency when I have multiple audio inputs and outputs going on at the same time. [You CAN do this if the application allows manual selection of audio input/output devices.]

..and FYI guitarists and all musicians should be aware of latency - the furhter you move away from the speaker the more latency there will be ~ all musicians encounter latency (whether they realize it or not) there is no such thing as ZERO latency while you are plugged into your guitar amp, stage, acoustically, etc. what a dumbass you are.

Theres no perfect thing as lossless audio either. But theres a point where you can say that "latency is effectivly zero because its so tiny, its impossible for me to detect".

Execpt for the fact that you aren't even addressing what i said. I said if you reduce/use smaller samples CPU load is going to be higher, regardless of OS. I know when my machine idles in (rt)Linux my CPU usage is slightly higher (which i already said a long time ago - apparently, you don't remember that), but i also know that it is far more deterministic/predictable and can reach deadlines well below Windows running on the same hardware... it's also far more reliable.

I'm more then willing to take up that challenge with you.

[Scali]

Did you or did you not claim that when you play guitar through your amp that you had quote 'ZERO latency'??? (yes, you did!).

In the context in which I said it, it was clear I was only speaking about the amp itself (seeing as digital processing does not include the poweramp/speakers part anyway).
And yes, I'm sure if I let you, you'd then argue about the fact that it doesn't take 'zero time' for the electrons to pass through an electrical circuit, and then start insulting me about how I don't even know that sort of basic physics etc etc...
While any sane person would understand from the context that this 'physical delay' is still significantly smaller compared to the theoretical minimum digital delay of 1 bit, and definitely smaller than the best case digital processing chain in practice.
But only someone who's really desperate would follow such a line of argument in the first place. It also shows that you have very poorly evolved linguistic skills, not being able to pick up on things like hyperbole and such.

[ninez]

More like you're tripping over your own arguments.

Thing is, your 'arguments' are mostly insults, laced with some poorly constructed 'arguments' (like the one about the latency between speaker and ear... oh yea, like speakers and ears are not involved when you're using digital processing, right?... That part is a constant and is obviously not part of the equation here).
You post links to articles that don't even support your own statements... And you wonder why I stopped bothering to respond to your 'arguments'...

Weird, i set you on the ignore list and this still showed up in my email (may have not kicked in yet?)..

Did you or did you not claim that when you play guitar through your amp that you had quote 'ZERO latency'??? (yes, you did!). Did i claim ever that there was ZERO latency involved when processing digital audio, or that their wasn't latency involved with ears or speakers? NO i did not. In fact, i said there IS latency coming from speakers, instruments and playing on stage...Again, you are misrepresenting my position;

yet again, another strawman. You want to talk about 'poorly constructed arguments'?!?!? WTF?!?! - fallacious claims are ALWAYS poorly constructed arguments - which you seem to be a huge fan of... I simply pointed out, you are wrong to say there is ZERO latency ~ which is entirely true and now because you don't like that i pointed that out that you are contradicting yourself (with a severe lack of logic/reason/rational thought processes) and you are trying to say i said something which i did NOT.

sorry dude, no dice.

Hopefully, the 'add to ignore list' kicks in, now. bye