Live data from Hacker News

Ardour 5 released

community.ardour.org

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: Ardour 5 released

#51
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Currently, internships are open internationally to women (cis and trans), trans men, and genderqueer people. Additionally, they are open to residents and nationals of the United States of any gender who are Black/African American, Hispanic/Latin@, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander. It's have been quicker to write, 'internships are open to everyone but white, heterosexual men,' but…

> How utterly despicable. > Perhaps Paul Davis could apply, and claim to be Pauline Davis for internship purposes. How utterly reactionary. Moreover, do you realize just how despicably transphobic or queerphobic this statement is? The irony in your comment is appalling. Your comment is a perfect example of precisely why we do need to support people who don't conform to heteronormative stereotypes.

This blatant encouragement that being a normal white male is not diversive enough is both anti-male and white-phobic. It conforms to that old age stereotype that white males are somehow superior to genders of other race.

Supporting such blatant discrimination against white males does nothing to encourage diversity. These kind of diversity out-reach programs operates under the assumption that diversity can only by achieve through discrimination against white males, which that is not true. Diversity can be achieved without discriminating against white males.

Re: Ardour 5 released

#52
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Currently, internships are open internationally to women (cis and trans), trans men, and genderqueer people. Additionally, they are open to residents and nationals of the United States of any gender who are Black/African American, Hispanic/Latin@, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander. It's have been quicker to write, 'internships are open to everyone but white, heterosexual men,' but…

> How utterly despicable. > Perhaps Paul Davis could apply, and claim to be Pauline Davis for internship purposes. How utterly reactionary. Moreover, do you realize just how despicably transphobic or queerphobic this statement is? The irony in your comment is appalling. Your comment is a perfect example of precisely why we do need to support people who don't conform to heteronormative stereotypes.

> how despicably transphobic or queerphobic this statement is

How so? Nobody is claiming everyone lies about it, only that it might be possible to do so (since outreachy has no recourse to an objective test).

Re: Ardour 5 released

#53
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most common reason is that we ship our own version of the clearlooks theme engine to ensure that we control the appearance of GTK+ widgets, and we load our own GTK2 RC file to define colors etc. for those widgets. This leads to 2 errors, one irritating, one that prevents the program from functioning. Irritating: GTK+ loads the system GTK theme during a call to gtk_init(). If this theme is based on clearlooks but…

Thank you for explaining! If you've contacted GTK about upstreaming your patches, what was their response? I'd be surprised if they didn't want to.

I interact regularly with GTK+ developers, and have been a regular contributor to GTK+ on OS X. They don't want our patches - they are very specialized and intended to deal with cases in Ardour that are not really a part of ordinary desktop apps. GTK+2 is now in maintainance mode anyway.

Re: Ardour 5 released

#54
post #4

Is there anyone on here who uses DAW's seriously, and has tried Ardour? Can it compete with the big boys?

I've been trying to use it off and on from the very beginning of its development. And, I've been a subscribing contributor off and on for a long time, too. I say "trying to use it" not so much because Ardour is inferior to other DAWs; it isn't. It's pretty solid, pretty capable, and pretty fast, compared to all the big ones (and I've used many of them in a professional and hobbyist context). It is a great piece of software, honestly.

But, I keep ending up doing my actual work in Reaper; not because Ardour is inferior, but because audio on Linux is inferior. At least, it historically has been. It's always been a bastard step child. To run Ardour, say, five years ago required a custom kernel, a non-standard audio server that was incompatible with any of the Gnome/KDE audio servers (there were compatibility layers, but they never worked, so switching back and forth was the only way to do anything...meaning your normal desktop lost sound when Ardour was in use, I wrote a script to switch them), running VSTs was possible but challenging and limited to those that would run under WINE (often with very buggy results), the surrounding ecosystem was just a mess, in general.

If you had the ability to build a perfect system, and never touch it, it might have been OK, but I never could keep the whole stack working for more than a couple of weeks; a kernel update or something else would break it, and I'd be in for another day or two of fucking around with kernels and ALSA drivers and WINE and whatever else. It just wasn't a usable system, even though it has always been a very powerful DAW.

Many things have improved in the intervening years. Enough of the RT work has been integrated into the mainline kernel that you don't need to patch your kernel anymore (though I think there are still some folks who apply some additional low latency patches, that's probably not necessary; Linux is now, I think, competitive with macOS and Windows when it comes to audio latency). WINE has gotten better, though running VSTs with Ardour is still a rough afternoon of effort, in my most recent experience. It's been a couple of years since I last tried to use Ardour for recording; the last time I gave up (again) and went back to Reaper, so I could get some recording done without spending two days making my system work for audio.

The sad thing is that Linux has been my primary desktop for over 20 years now; I never need to reboot into Windows anymore for anything, except audio...even games are fine, for me, on Linux now that Steam offers so many great titles for Linux. I never thought I'd be saying "games are fine" before I was able to say "audio is fine", and I've been trying to use Linux for audio all those years...I was working in recording studios and attending college for audio recording when I first started using Linux, even, so it was a thing I spent a ton of time tinkering with.

So, in short: I don't know where it stands today. But, I've been disappointed pretty much every time I've tried to use Ardour for anything serious; it's not Paul's fault. Ardour is great. But, it's historically just really tough to do audio work on Linux. I'd be surprised if it's gotten as good as Windows or macOS in the past two years; it's surely gotten better. But, I'd give good odds that it's still an afternoon, or even multi-day, project rather than a "install it and press the record button" process.

Re: Ardour 5 released

#55
post #4

Is there anyone on here who uses DAW's seriously, and has tried Ardour? Can it compete with the big boys?

I've been trying to use it off and on from the very beginning of its development. And, I've been a subscribing contributor off and on for a long time, too. I say "trying to use it" not so much because Ardour is inferior to other DAWs; it isn't. It's pretty solid, pretty capable, and pretty fast, compared to all the big ones (and I've used many of them in a professional and hobbyist context). It is a great piece of so…

The purely technical aspects of audio on Linux have always been better than Windows and OS X. Linux had lower latency than them more than a decade ago.

The user experience is a different story. That's the result of choices made by Linux distributions, most of which can be avoided by picking the right distribution or by doing some work. The biggest issue is the decision made some years (partly at my suggestion, ironically) to adopt PulseAudio as a desktop sound server (rather than JACK). This situation has been compounded by long-lived bugs in the versions of PulseAudio shipping with distributions that blocked the long-planned ways to tell PulseAudio to give up an audio device for "pro" use.

If you install the right Linux distribution (eg. AVLinux) then I would wager that its about 20 minutes from starting the install to "press the record button", with almost all of that being the distribution installation (it comes with Ardour already installed).

There's nothing to be done about the proliferation of Linux distributions that are not suitable for pro-audio or music creation workflows. It is a natural consequence of Linux' ecosystem that there are many, many distributions, each with different goals. A lot of people expect that "Linux is Linux is Linux", but for audio work, this isn't true. Installing Ubuntu and expecting that tools like Ardour will just work is incorrect and bound to lead to disappointment. It just isn't their target.

Note that Ardour no longer requires JACK on Linux. And this thread is actually about the release of Ardour 5.0, which runs on OS X, Linux and Windows. It seems a bit sad that people just want to talk about the situation on Linux as though that's the only place the program runs.

Re: Ardour 5 released

#56

The Lua scripting is interesting, I wonder if it's possible to basically mix an album with a text file you can check into Git. I've already made that transition with my music notation projects using Lilypond, I actually have a (very short) full orchestra film score written in Lilypond - full text, nice diffs, revision history, committed to github.

Ardour session files are just text files. Scripts used within the session are saved as part of the session file, so that the session can be used on any Ardour installationg, without having to 'get the scripts'.

I know of a few Ardour users who are using git to collaborate on sessions. Once you figure out how best to deal with the audio data, it seems quite promising.

Re: Ardour 5 released

#57
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been trying to use it off and on from the very beginning of its development. And, I've been a subscribing contributor off and on for a long time, too. I say "trying to use it" not so much because Ardour is inferior to other DAWs; it isn't. It's pretty solid, pretty capable, and pretty fast, compared to all the big ones (and I've used many of them in a professional and hobbyist context). It is a great piece of so…

The purely technical aspects of audio on Linux have always been better than Windows and OS X. Linux had lower latency than them more than a decade ago. The user experience is a different story. That's the result of choices made by Linux distributions, most of which can be avoided by picking the right distribution or by doing some work. The biggest issue is the decision made some years (partly at my suggestion, ironic…

And this thread is actually about the release of Ardour 5.0, which runs on OS X, Linux and Windows.

Yeah, I noticed that, and that's awesome. But, I want to run it on Linux! That's one of the very big selling points of Ardour, for me, and one reason I would pick it over Reaper (on the day when I finally do pick it over Reaper).

I hope I was clear that I'm on your team. I want Ardour to be successful, and I want Linux to be a platform capable of media production. And, when I'm able, Ardour is one of the OSS projects I donate to.

But, maybe I'll try it on Windows sometime. That would certainly solve the VST problems, among several others.

Re: Ardour 5 released

#58
For anyone who's doing personal podcasting, is this the software you'd use, or is there any (simpler) free/affordable software good for typical podcasting (I occasionally want to interview people over Skype and stuff)?

Re: Ardour 5 released

#59
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I concur - been using DAW's for decades now, and Ardour out of the box on a newly installed Ubuntu Studio-based system has tons, and tons of plugins - there isn't a single category of plugin in the OP's list that isn't available. You just have to not shop for them, and rather look in the repository, because they're there ..

This is a Free Software antipattern. Yes, there are things that exist that claim to do the same thing as commercial software. No, that doesn't necessarily mean they're actually functional replacements for that software. I mean some of them are, but there's no sampler that will painlessly play modern sample packs, no usable pitch correction, nothing a tenth as good at noise reduction / audio restoration as Izotope RX.…

On the other hand, there are audio tools in the Free Software world that wouldn't be possible in a commercial context.

The point is this: its up to the user to gain maximum value from their investment. Nobody is going to do that for you.

Re: Ardour 5 released

#60
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- First there's nothing wrong per se about charging for binaries in a GPL project, other projects did it before them (XChat comes to mind) and others will do. Doing so is absolutely not flaunting anything for a GPL project, if you think so you should read about what Free Software means. - Second, in the case of Ardour, just read https://community.ardour.org/node/8288 . These people are doing what they can to keep the…

Thanks for digging up that link. I had forgotten I wrote that. Things have been better since it was written, but the project could still really use at least another 1/2 full time developer (it could use 50 more, but hey ...) let alone someone to do web stuff rather than me.

What sort of web stuff? Just website management, or design, or backend, or social media, ... or all of the above?
Post reply on HN