On Saturday 08 March 2003 09:19, Austin wrote:
> Well, since 9.1 should be out next week, and most of the
> kernel/alsa/jack problems seem to be cleared up, I'd like to present
> the howto for setting up a digital audio workstation with Mandrake 9.1.
> ...
> see http://groundstate.ca/mdkaw.html
This is very cool. The main reason my Mac still exists (and isn't running
linux) is for music. I'm pretty sure the day is coming when I can put it in a
closet, and your document helps bring that day closer--so thanks.
And now, here's probably more feedback than you were looking for....
One global comment: this is geared toward someone who wants to run a home
recording studio, and it does an excellent job at explaining that, but there
are at least three other tasks it barely touches on:
1. Music composition. You can't replace a Mac running Cubase or Logic with
linux software yet, but Rosegarden is getting there. It would be good to
describe Rosegarden (you list it as a score editor--which is all 2.x was good
at--but that's it), and to mention what they can and can't do with linux
today.
2. Live music. You can already bring a linux laptop or rackmount on the road
if you just want to use it to play backing tracks and/or run a single
software synth (although again, you can't yet do everything many musicians
are doing today with Cubase or Logic on a Powerbook).
3. DJ'ing. A linux laptop can plug into a mixer in place of a CD deck or
turntable easily, and this might be worth mentioning (although probably
anyone who's thought of this knows that xmms will do the job as well as
WinAmp). But ideally, you want to replace the mixer, too. A two-output
soundcard can provide your main and monitor, and all the mixing can be done
in software. You can do everything you need today in Windows (even including
external controllers packages with the software, in some cases), and linux
should be there very soon.
4. Post-processing, 5.1 mixdown, integration with video, etc. Linux can't
replace Nuendo (or ProTools) yet for this, but it probably won't be too long.
I think the focus on recording is appropriate, if only because that's what
linux is best at. If you're in a band makes music without a computer, and
wants to record that music, linux today can do that (nearly) as well as MacOS
or Windows, for less money, and almost as easily.
I'd like to see a brief section on "what linux can't do yet," a little more on
"other audio-related stuff you can do with linux," and maybe a different
subtitle ("A guide to creating a professional quality audio recording
workstation with free software" would get the idea across).
One comment on sound cards:
> Really, most sound cards offer adequate sound quality to do home recording.
If you're doing everything inside the computer, this is true. However, if
you're going to have signals going in and out, it's not. First, most sound
cards handle 44KHz 16-bit sound, while the computer can work with (say) 96KHz
32-bit sound.
You cannot tell the difference between the two (many people claim they can,
but try blind tests on them and you'll see the truth). However, if the music
is downsampled repeatedly, especially if it's converted between analog and
digital as well, you can tell the difference in the end.
Also, if you're planning to record to, say, both CD and DAT, downsampling from
48K to 44K (or vice-versa) has noticeable effects; downsampling from 96K to
either, there's no issue.
If you plan to do a lot of work with analog outboard gear (or if you use 96K
digital outboard gear), consider spending more money on the soundcard. And
here's where it's very important to verify the linux support for each card;
most low-end cards works well on linux, but only a few high-end cards do.
Also, if you have a mid/high-range video card, you may want to consider
getting a heat-sink/shield for it. This has the added advantage of making
your computer quieter and cooler.
Now, one comment on outboard gear:
> If you're really serious, use as much outboard gear as you can.
I disagree. You want to use as _little_ outboard gear as you can.
Every pass through the D/A or A/D introduces artifacts.
Every meter of analog cable, and every device/cable connection, introduces
attenuation and interference. Professional studios have the experience, the
space, the money, and the design freedom to eliminate interference far better
than you'll be able to.
And, unless you buy top-of-the-line equipment, the gear you use is going to
degrade the sound itself.
But everything you do inside the computer is perfectly loss-free. If your
audio goes into the computer (through a mic or line in), then never leaves
again until it's burnt on a CD (or whatever the final disposition), it will
sound much better, for much less money and less work.
Plus, there's an added advantage: You can use cheap gear for most of the
process. You'll still need a good setup to hear it all while you're doing the
final mixdown, but it may be worth renting an hour or two of studio time for
this anyway (unless you have the money and experience to set up a studio
properly, it's going to be better than whatever you do), or get a friend with
better gear let you use his setup for a day. But for everything that leads up
to that, quality doesn't matter, if you stay digital.
Of course if your sources are analog--guitars, vocals, etc.--you still need to
have a good sound card while you're recording them. For electronic music,
this may be something you can do all at once--again, rent a studio or go to a
friend's house--and then everything between that stage and the mixdown can be
done on a laptop on the bus if you want.
For traditional music, you can't get away with this, so your soundcard is the
most important component: You want good A/D, and ideally multiple inputs (so
you don't need to submix). And of course you want good cables here; any noise
that's there at the start is there all the way through.
> Use a real mixer, not your soundcard's mixer.
True, you don't want to use your soundcard's mixer; that's usually atrocious.
But you don't want a real mixer either, if you can help it. Do it in
software, whenever possible.
If you need multiple outputs (e.g., to use outboard effects), mix down to as
many outputs as you need. If your final recording is going to be analog
(why?), you may need a mixer for the final stage; otherwise, send the outs
back into the computer and mix them in software.
There are two advantages to outboard mixers, but both can be easily overcome.
First, outboard mixers give you control. If you're trying to adjust levels on
the fly, operating by sound and feel, a mouse doesn't cut it; a bank of
sliders (or wheels, if you prefer) is necessary. But you can buy external
controller devices ranging from a simple slider box to a ProTools-style desk,
that will give you the feel and control you need, and send all the signals
digitally (through MIDI, if nothing better) to the computer. I don't know if
linux software can handle this as well as Cubase, ProTools, etc., but if so,
this is the way to go.
Second, outboard mixers don't use up your processing power. If you're trying
to play as many tracks as you can, and run as many software synths and
effects as you can, and do all the mixing at the same time, your computer may
not be up to the task. The simple answer is to take the money you would have
spent on a mixer and improve your computer, but there are limits (both
financial limits--when you're near the top end, every little improvement
costs a lot--and hard limits to today's technology). However, you can always
break down the tasks. Record the software synths to audio (one at a time, if
necessary), and do the same with the channel effects. You can even submix a
few channels at a time, if your computer is really weak, then add master
effects in a separate pass. It's a little more of a hassle with a low-end
computer, but you get better sound quality. (And really, if you can't afford
anything better than a low-end computer, you can't afford a decent mixer
anyway.)
If you are going to spend a bunch of money on a good mixer, get one with
digital ins and outs--and digital control, so you can record and sequence
everything you do on the mixer (very useful as a starting point if you later
make changes to the music, or want to play it live).
You may want an external submixer for mic input, but in some price ranges, a
dedicated single-channel pre-amp may be a better buy. Or a sound card with
decent mic inputs.
Finally, here's my take on what linux doesn't do (or, why my Mac isn't in the
closet):
1. Effects and soft synths. On a Mac or PC, just about any sound, and any
effect, that you want is available as a VST plugin. Many of them are
expensive, but with a decent computer and the right plugins, you can get rid
of all your synths and outboard effects. Linux doesn't support VST, and there
are plenty of things that haven't been done (or done as well) for LADSPA yet.
And this will probably be true for some time. Two attempted workarounds (my
port of the VST SDK and GUI to linux to allow source porting, and another
group's WINElib-based binary wrapper) both failed (partly because of
difficult licensing issues). Linux also doesn't support TDM/RTAS or DirectX,
two competing plugin standards. I sold most of my synths because I can do the
same thing on my Mac; if I switched to linux, I'd have to buy them back.
2. Cubase/Logic/etc. There are a handful of good sequencer workstation
products, and one of these is indispensable for making music on the computer
(at least certain styles of making music--there are people who do everything
in Reason, or run external sequencers and do everything else in ProTools,
etc.). You need to handle MIDI, audio, and soft-synth sequencing; control
your software synths and effects; interact with external control devices; and
tie it all together in a way an electronic musician can use. Rosegarden is
getting there--in fact, for people who don't make computer-based electronic
music, or who are new to it, it may already be there--but I don't think any
Cubase- or Logic-junkie will be able to switch yet.
3. mLAN. Connecting outboard audio devices requires lossy analog audio
connections. Outboard instruments and controllers either use MIDI for
control, with all the latency that implies, or use some proprietary format,
and they often use analog cables for audio, with all the attentuation and
interference that implies. Plus, you end up with a huge mess of cables (and
you have to lay them carefully). Yamaha (with Steinberg and a slew of other
partners) have put a lot of work into mLAN, which carries everything over a
single 1394 cable, with digital patching. (Digi has a their own 1394-based
standard as well.) Unfortunately, it only works with MacOS. Since mLAN is far
from being an established standard, this doesn't affect most people yet, but
not far down the road, I can foresee this being an area where linux falls
short of Mac and Windows.
