I can somewhat see the analogy, but I dislike this view as it almost
assumes that linux audio is somehow impervious to flaws. When it's not
flawed though, it's somehow golden.
I disagree with his statement that VST doesn't offer much. For effects
he could be right, but in terms of VSTi he's quite wrong. (and on that,
I question how much he understands VST). Until we get LV2, we'll be
forced to rely on WINE hacks, or to scramble through source code
intended for windows hosts. In the end, I don't see VST as relevant any
more, and it's a waste of effort to get it working on linux. The
standard was only ever intended for effects, and the implementation of
instruments is a mess. I only defend VST in any capacity because it
works extremely well on the platforms it was intended for, regardless
for my feelings towards its implementation. Until LV2 comes around, it's
the best available. (Though JACK-Rack has some pretty good effects as
well, I love the saturator effects, and arctan distortion is pure bliss)
I also don't share his situation as I'm rather familiar with computers.
I've been using them for a little over 16 years now, have done
programming, have studied computer science at the university level
(which was loaded with a little too much theory for my liking). I know
how computers work. I've written working code in languages from Assembly
to Scheme.
Despite that, I don't think any level of technical brilliance can save
programs from bad design (this is from a usability perspective). A trait
my other technical friends find me kind of odd for, but I'm a big
picture kind of guy.
I don't feel so strongly for linux audio that I lose any sleep over it.
I paid 75 EUR for a copy of renoise, and it's been sitting on my hard
drive unused. I associate more with the artist personality, so I don't
feel compelled to write code every time I feel like being expressive.
Nor do I feel like reading through 20 pages of documentation that is
unmaintained to see how I can cobble things together that through
historical precedent, could be achieved in easier ways.
I think when linux audio becomes usable, I'll hear about it. For what
it's worth, it will stomp that crap out of windows and mac. I have yet
to give qTractor a try, so I may revise earlier opinions, but if my
experience has shown anything, it's that the screenshots usually look
quite impressive, but you load the program and it runs for about 2
minutes before the sound cuts out for some unimaginable reason, or you
can't find the function you need.
When you use a tool, you should focus on the task said tool performs,
not the tool itself. The tool should be transparent. If I had to
consider the workings and parameters of the guitar each moment I played
it, the thing would never make a sound.
This of course is my own view of creativity and how linux offerings bear
on that process. People are welcome to their rosy opinions, but I'm
getting to the point where I'd rather work with analog modulars and a
tape deck than try to coax something expressive out of linux audio.
Not sure how relevant this discussion is to the LP mailing list though.
I have to praise LP as the one piece of music-related OSS that isn't a
piece of junk, and manages to be flexible while still usable. The
documentation is also quite comprehensive, and the snippets database is
a terse and effective goldmine.
-Johnny
On 07/22/2010 09:20 AM, Dave Phillips wrote:
Greetings,
An interesting take on an experience similar to Johnny Ferguson's :
http://www.linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2591#p11388
Best,
dp
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
