Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ninez View Post
    ..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?
    Last edited by Scali; 08-16-2012, 11:59 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Scali View Post
      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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
        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. :\

        Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
        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.

        Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
        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.

        Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
        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...

        Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
        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.

        Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
        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.

        Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
        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'...

        Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Scali View Post
          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
          Last edited by russofris; 08-16-2012, 01:00 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by russofris View Post
            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.

            Originally posted by russofris View Post
            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.

            Originally posted by russofris View Post
            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.

            Originally posted by russofris View Post
            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

            Originally posted by russofris View Post
            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.
            Last edited by ninez; 08-16-2012, 02:23 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Scali View Post
              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.
              I said *support*, not *support well*. Yes, if the HW can't handle the low latencies, ASIO4ALL tends to break, for somewhat obvious reasons. And yes, most every soundcard has an ASIO driver these days.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ninez View Post
                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 - for specific sounds they may be using in the studio - they can buy a receptor pro - and not fuss with a laptop (and all the hassles that can come with that) or they may be using a Keyboard workstation of some kind (or both).
                I think that the iMac does have a place though. If I were doing composition, or experimenting with orchestration, I would be happy with an iMac, a receiver connected via to TOSlink, some decent speakers, etc. I also do some rough mixing on the iMac prior to sending a project to the engineer so that I can steer him in the direction I want him to go.

                For real mixing and production, I agree that you typically want the hardware in a silent enclosure or in the adjacent room. You are correct that this pretty much excludes the iMac. While it is fairly quiet, the fan sound would still drive me nuts.

                For live performances, you are dead-on with the MBP. It's portable. Nobody (except for those that have professional roadies) carry around a Hammond B3. A Rhodes is about as big-as-you'll-see when touring, and they're still really (really really really) heavy. Most of the time, you see a Macbook plugged into a Roland. Not because it's better than a real Rhodes or Hammond, but because you can carry it, set it up, and plug a single wire into the snake. You don't even have to worry whether or not the house-sound-guy knows how to mic a Leslie.

                Guitarists have it easy. We simply cary a combo (JMP50, AC30, etc) and two guitars. To set up, we simply unscrew the ball on one of the house's SM58's, position it on the X (that we made with a felt-tip on the cab years ago), plug in, and we're good to go.

                What a strange way of making art. Perhaps the blip-bloop kids making "music" today are right.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by russofris View Post
                  I think that the iMac does have a place though. If I were doing composition, or experimenting with orchestration, I would be happy with an iMac, a receiver connected via to TOSlink, some decent speakers, etc. I also do some rough mixing on the iMac prior to sending a project to the engineer so that I can steer him in the direction I want him to go.

                  For real mixing and production, I agree that you typically want the hardware in a silent enclosure or in the adjacent room. You are correct that this pretty much excludes the iMac. While it is fairly quiet, the fan sound would still drive me nuts.
                  We are in agreement... iMac's do have their place for the usage you are talking about above, it would be fine. But obviously in the Studio it really isn't the best choice.

                  Originally posted by russofris View Post
                  For live performances, you are dead-on with the MBP. It's portable. Nobody (except for those that have professional roadies) carry around a Hammond B3. A Rhodes is about as big-as-you'll-see when touring, and they're still really (really really really) heavy. Most of the time, you see a Macbook plugged into a Roland. Not because it's better than a real Rhodes or Hammond, but because you can carry it, set it up, and plug a single wire into the snake. You don't even have to worry whether or not the house-sound-guy knows how to mic a Leslie.
                  Very true. This is the same reason that i dropped a lot of my heavy analog gear and replaced it with my Rackmount + lighter midi-controllers. There are other reasons too, like flexibility - access you a wider variety of patches, sampling, etc all in one place. But i should note, that even a lot of big band / pop acts don't bother carrying around that gear either ~ for example, Radiohead stopped bringing a lot of the older analog gear with them on tour and instead made them into sample banks. Not only because the equipment was a pain in the ass to move, but also they were slowly ruining some of these classic old-synths. Plus, you can emulate rhodes/hammond/etc fairly easily using much less bulky gear...and yes, no worrying about in-house sound guy, either.

                  Originally posted by russofris View Post
                  Guitarists have it easy. We simply cary a combo (JMP50, AC30, etc) and two guitars. To set up, we simply unscrew the ball on one of the house's SM58's, position it on the X (that we made with a felt-tip on the cab years ago), plug in, and we're good to go.
                  No doubt. I don't gig a whole lot (i used too, though) but do Jam every week. I leave my strat+amp at where we jam, and only have to bring my keyboards+stands plus, my rackmount and floor-board. ~ this definitely beats years ago having to lug tons of haevy peices of gear around, i'll tell you that


                  Originally posted by russofris View Post
                  What a strange way of making art. Perhaps the blip-bloop kids making "music" today are right.
                  lol. i would hope not. You can put me in front of any guitar, drumset, bass, piano/keys and i can play music. but if you take away their laptop - there is no music for them to trigger and play, hell, you give them someone else's computer (to make the comparison fair) and they still won't be able to play music on the spot. While i love electronic music - i don't consider anyone but those whom play music or can actually sing to be 'real' musicians...that's just my opinion though

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by russofris View Post
                    You have the choice of using the onboard audio, or you can use an external (firewire, Thunderbolt, or USB) solution.
                    Well, what I meant is that you have no choice. All Apples come with Apple motherboards. They don't even have any overclocking or monitoring functionality as far as I know, so that is one less potential problem.
                    Likewise, all Apple motherboards come with onboard audio and software chosen by Apple. There's the other problem solved.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Scali View Post
                      Well, what I meant is that you have no choice. All Apples come with Apple motherboards. They don't even have any overclocking or monitoring functionality as far as I know, so that is one less potential problem.
                      Likewise, all Apple motherboards come with onboard audio and software chosen by Apple. There's the other problem solved.
                      If you mean, "You have no choice, you always receive the onboard audio controller, drivers, and software providing an audio API to applications when purchasing a Mac", then I think my response would be something like....

                      Durrrr-Hurrr-Durrr

                      If you meant something different, then you need to try communicating it again, because we're all seriously confused.

                      F

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X