|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Linux drivers

Linux drivers

Posted Mar 31, 2008 7:01 UTC (Mon) by deleteme (guest, #49633)
Parent article: A creative example of the value of free drivers

Sadly the state of Linux when recording and sound IO doesn't say much nice things about free
software. It's a mess and it's always been a mess, sometimes it's even a mess when you only
want to record. 

Now I don't really care about sound, but the times when I've needed it it has almost always
failed me. In all layers from the kernel to Gnome.

But I have no itch... ;-)


to post comments

Linux drivers

Posted Mar 31, 2008 9:04 UTC (Mon) by jhs (guest, #12429) [Link] (7 responses)

Yes, I think your comment is related to something I was thinking when reading this:

An important question is, how often does this happen in the industry?  If vendors do this
often to promote hardware sales, then yes, that's a good reason for the industry to consider
free software.

However, if this is a rare occurrence, then this story is merely a moving anecdote.
Practically speaking, the industry will not migrate to free software until there is a
compelling economic incentive to do so.  I don't know what the common practice is, but my
suspicion is that non-free drivers basically do a satisfactory job for typical users.

That's a shame, because I think people don't realize the cold, hard business case for free
software.  For certain people in the IT industry (ISVs, integrators, solution providers,
consultants -- especially small ones), using free software heavily or exclusively is a
compelling business model.  The benefits are zero licensing fees and effective legal certainty
about your so-called intellectual property position.  Finally, for small companies, what is a
bigger threat: piracy or obscurity?  For this reason, the intuitive desire to "keep your cards
close to your chest" is bad for business.

(Incidentally, both the "legal certainty" and "obscurity vs. piracy" arguments apply to small
musicians, and that is why you see so many small musicians adopting Creative Commons.)

Linux drivers

Posted Mar 31, 2008 9:42 UTC (Mon) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (6 responses)

For audio processing on Windows the audio API is so poor that third party application
developers had to go and create their own driver models and APIs for audio processing on
Windows.  It's called ASIO and even with Microsoft's dramatic changes for Vista people are
still going to need it. 

This is one thing that Apple did right with OS X. Their Core audio stuff is very good. 

Right now Linux's stuff works great. Alsa is able to provide ASIO performance,
realtime-preempt patches give Linux performance that exceeds every other OS out there. Jackd
allows you to route audio PCM and Midi signals between all sorts of hardware and software...
on fly and in a high performance manner. This allows you to use your favorite applications
(most serious audio apps support Jack) rather then a handful of small apps that conform to a
specific company's monolythic application.  Alsa has the ability to use all sort of special
things... such as controlling audio output on a per channel basis, providing both software
mixing capabilities and direct access to hardware without requiring anything special. 

All sorts of stuff. All the peices are there... People have been making good music using Linux
for a long time now. People have been running entire studios using Linux.

Trouble is that it's just very hard to use. _Very_ hard to use for people not used to Linux.
Hell most distros ship kernels with the "low-latency desktop" options completely disabled
(preemption and that sort of thing). People trying to use a server-style kernel that they are
given by default are going to generally get horrendous audio performance if they try to push
it (drop-outs, squeaks and pops introduced into audio recordings and playback due to buffer
underflows). So at a bare minimum it's going to require a kernel recompile for anything
remotely serious. Very serious stuff will require patching the kernel. (which often breaks
proprietary ATI and Nvidia drivers) How many music folks can handle that sort of thing? And
that is not even going into alsa configurations or learning the names of software so they can
find packages or (even worse) compile them one by one.

And, to make matters worse, both KDE and Gnome actually get in the way of doing this sort of
stuff. instead of making things easier they make them more difficult for end users to
understand what is going on. It's very fubar'd in terms of ease of use.


Plus Linux isn't 'sexy' for the sort of people that do amateur audio stuff. You can't get most
the hardware that magazines advertise to work on Linux. None of the 'industry standard'
software that advertises all over the place in music magazines works on Linux. When people see
videos and look at interviews of their favorite artists they see them using Apple hardware and
carrying around macbooks or messing around with impressive-looking things on XP.  People will
quite happily go out of their way to spend thousands of dollars on software and equipment that
they think that the 'Pros' use. 

Linux drivers

Posted Mar 31, 2008 9:56 UTC (Mon) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] (1 responses)

What about multimedia-oriented distributions like 64studio? I assume they have the needed patches and software already in place. Of course people new to Linux are likely to hear about Red Hat, Ubuntu and other big distros first.

Linux drivers

Posted Mar 31, 2008 23:51 UTC (Mon) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Ya. 

64Studio seems very good. 

The old DeMuDi distro from the Agnula project helped out tremendously to make things easier to
use. They put a lot of effort in packaging software and documenting things. I figure this is
why most audio processing applications and such are in Debian proper nowadays and is now be
re-incorporated into things like Studio64 and Ubuntu Studio. 

64Studio is probably the most mature things you can use as far as this sort of thing goes.
It's totally open source and compatible with Debian. It's also commercially oriented with
options for paid support and that happy stuff.

The cool thing is that they are seeming to gain some hardware vendor support. It started off
with Lionstrac's range of audio workstations and it looks like they picked up on a couple of
other vendors.
http://64studio.com/oem_products
http://eracks.com/products/Quiet%20Systems/config?sku=STUDIO



Linux drivers

Posted Mar 31, 2008 12:51 UTC (Mon) by tom.parkin (guest, #38175) [Link]

Trouble is that it's just very hard to use. _Very_ hard to use for people not used to Linux.

I'm not sure that's true anymore. A few years ago I would have agreed with you, but now there are quite a number of audio-specific Linux distributions which appear very well put together.

As an example, I recently replaced the core of my home studio with a box running Ubuntu Studio, and was very pleased with how well it performed. With virtually no extra setup after installation I was able to sit down to a 6 hour recording session using Ardour with no issues. That's streaming 8 channels of 96KHz, 24bit audio with a 10ms latency. I certainly wouldn't say it was very hard.

Linux drivers

Posted Mar 31, 2008 13:35 UTC (Mon) by TxtEdMacs (guest, #5983) [Link] (2 responses)

Did you read deleteme comment that started this thread? If you could elaborate in a short
article, I would put it up on my site, gladly.  Or you might investigate doing a write up for
lwn.

Your knowledge of sound systems would be very useful to others here and off other sites.

[Check with Jon for my email address if you wish to humor my request.]


Linux drivers

Posted Apr 1, 2008 0:09 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (1 responses)

Probably not so much. 

the only thing I've realy done with audio in Linux is setup a cheap M-Audio Keystation and
learn to play a few songs. 

So while I know more then your average Linux user about audio stuff I have zero real world
experience, even as a amateur. Plus a lot of the stuff I know probably isn't really up to
date. I haven't kept up any.


What would be very cool though would be to get a hold of the folks behind 64studio or Ubuntu
Studio and get them to talk about real-world setups from people actually using Linux to
produce music. 

Hardware setups... software configuration, favorite software. Midi tools.. firewire or USB
accessories. Basement/bedroom studio setups, professional people using Linux. Challenges and
what they think could be done to make things better. What they would consider best place to
start for people doing simple recordings all the way up to trying to produce a album to stick
on myspace or anything in between.

That sort of thing.

Meanwhile there are places online that are worth keeping a eye on.http://www.linuxaudio.org/
for example. 

As far as I am concerned the level of quality and diversity of open source audio software
combined with the performance, stability, and affordability of Linux makes Linux Audio one of
the more disappointingly well kept secret s of Free software.

Linux drivers

Posted Apr 1, 2008 0:12 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Oh here is a interesting one:
http://lab0.wordpress.com/

Man, if anything this stuff can be very fun to play around with. 

Linux audio

Posted Mar 31, 2008 14:31 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] (4 responses)

I don't agree with the contention that it's a mess and has "always been a mess" which suggests
that it's not got any better.

With OSS you had the abstraction in all the wrong places, so often there simply wasn't any way
to do what the user wanted, unless the user happened to want to do whatever the OSS designers
thought you should do (basically, play video games which use 16-bit stereo sound).

ALSA gets more of that right. There's a good chance that whatever my hardware is actually
capable of is reflected sensibly into userspace. I get dB relative amplifier settings for
example, instead of arbitrary "1-100" scales that could mean anything and frequently do.
Recent versions of ALSA finally default to "restore what you can" when your driver updates add
or remove some of the mixer controls for your hardware, which was a huge oversight in older
versions.

JACK gets a lot of stuff right that basically no-one had got right before, although other
modern operating systems are moving in the right direction.

In my experience even (Linux) distribution vendors have got a lot better about audio. Most of
them ship frameworks like JACK so that you don't need to compile anything yourself. They
usually make some attempt to properly set up your sound card, and to restore those settings
next time you use the computer. They will set the permissions correctly for the console user.
In some cases they even remember to grant the console user the new (non-dangerous) real time
quota so that he or she can use pro-audio software without editing text files.

However there's plenty more ground to be covered. Most of the heavy lifting now needs to be
done by the desktop environments (GNOME, KDE etc.), which have traditionally taken the 1990s
DOS game approach of pretending everyone owns a Soundblaster 16 and wants to either play
exactly one music file, or make useless desktop bleeps, or maybe, if they're feeling really
lucky, record a badly distorted or inaudibly quiet 8-bit version of their own voice saying
"Testing". The jury is still out on Pulseaudio, but all the previous attempts at this sort of
thing have been disastrous and I have no reason to think Pulseaudio's developers are any
smarter. JACK makes application developers actually have to care about audio - and that,
apparently, is unacceptable for anything except pro audio software. So, either Pulseaudio will
turn out to finally get this stuff right without making app developers think about it, or
we're back to just ALSA, which at least had dmix working on all the machines I own.

If you're using a properly configured laptop with a pro outboard card and a copy of Ardour
putting together a demo track you could imagine that Linux audio is fine now. But a phone call
from someone who is trying to make the "new mail" sound from Evolution audible - and has been
confronted by forty more or less identically labeled sliders which seem to do nothing - will
soon wake you up to a world where there's a lot left to do. Still, we're closer than we were a
few years ago.

Linux audio

Posted Mar 31, 2008 14:57 UTC (Mon) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]

or make useless desktop bleeps

Hey, we NEED that bleep to tell us when the pagefile was expanded once again, and data might have been lost... Oh wait, wrong OS, carry on.

Linux audio

Posted Mar 31, 2008 16:40 UTC (Mon) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link] (2 responses)

I don't think PulseAudio is perfect, but as someone who has been struggling with audio-related Linux stuff since kernel 1.0.x, it's a lot closer than anything else. The config files are sane, and documented in a way non-experts can figure out. If all you need is single system audio on a single card, you probably don't even need to look at the config. Of course, PA still relies on ALSA, and ALSA has to keep up with all the crappy implementations of supposed standards like intel-hda.

Linux audio

Posted Mar 31, 2008 17:29 UTC (Mon) by Frej (guest, #4165) [Link] (1 responses)

If editing files is needed, well that's the flaw number 1. ;)

Linux audio

Posted Mar 31, 2008 18:33 UTC (Mon) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link]

So how is it supposed to know where to send sound in a multisystem setup? (Actually, PA supports avahi (zeroconf), so actually, I suppose it can automatically figure this stuff out. Never tried that, though.)

Or are you just objecting to text editors? PA has GUI config tools. They're still editing files, though. For that matter, so is GConf.


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds