[HN Gopher] Ardour 8.0
___________________________________________________________________
Ardour 8.0
Author : 6581
Score : 401 points
Date : 2023-10-09 08:58 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ardour.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ardour.org)
| tofflos wrote:
| Thank you for the Arrangement view and the Launchpad support! I
| don't run Ardour but the Arrangement view in particular makes me
| want to try it out.
| rednab wrote:
| Ardour is GPLv2 open-source, but they still do somewhat pointedly
| attempt to dissuade you from building from source 1).
|
| Now, I fully understand why. And I think charging for pre-built
| binaries is a totally valid way to attempt to finance an open-
| source project. The amount they're asking certainly is a pittance
| compared to the commercial offerings.
|
| But LMMS just feels _friendlier_ to me.
|
| 1) https://ardour.org/building_linux.html
| jacquesm wrote:
| LMMS is a great little program too but in much the same way
| that a professional mix table is less 'friendly' than a four
| track recorder.
|
| Both have their uses. What bugs me about LMMS is that it is
| hard to use its output in any other way than just to send it to
| your devices, interop with other software isn't all that good
| unless it is on the plugin side.
|
| And neither Ardour nor LMMS come close to midieditor for the
| editing of raw midi files, and that's a shame because
| midieditor isn't very well supported and a bit fragile (it
| crashes with alarming regularity).
| iainctduncan wrote:
| Congratulations Paul. For those who don't know, the creator of
| Ardour is active here and was (historically) very active and
| helpful on Linux audio lists. I learnt a lot from dicussions on
| there on the intracies of audio programming. While my work has
| shifted from Linux audio to Max/MSP these days (I wrote Scheme
| for Max), in the mid 2000s linux audio hacking was my gateway to
| the world of programming, eventually leading to a very productive
| career in tech. Ardour was always a huge "hacker inspiration" to
| me, it's a truly shining example of how much one smart and
| dedicated programmer can do. I'm very glad to see it still going
| strong.
| jmgrosen wrote:
| Thank you for the self-promotion, Scheme for Max looks like
| something I've been wishing for for a long time!
| nirui wrote:
| Maybe it's a bit off topic, but I think there is something on the
| website we can all take a note of: that is, on the download page,
| it says download "Ready-To-Run Program".
|
| Yep, not download "Binary", "Executable", "Package" or any of
| that non-sense (from user's perspective), just "Ready-To-Run
| Program", simple and clear, exactly what user wants when they
| open that page.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Have you tried clicking it? It takes you to a 2nd page where
| you select the OS.
|
| Then for me (Windows) to yet a 3rd page where I can chose the
| paid/free version.
|
| Clicking here on "Demo Version" takes you to the 4th page where
| you can finally download the setup binary. Which is an
| installer, the opposite of "Ready-To-Run"!!!
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| The opposite of Ready-to-run is source code.
| croes wrote:
| But to get "Just download and run Ardour on your Linux,
| macOS or Windows computer." I have to click Ready-to-Run
| Program -> Download Ardour 8.0 for Windows 64 bit ->
| Download Demo -> Download Ardour 8.0 for Windows 64 bit
| (Demo)
|
| Each on a separate page, a little bit misleading because
| the first button already suggests a download
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| When we put it all on one page, too many people failed to
| understand the process. We can please some of the people
| all the time, but we can't please all the people all the
| time.
| croes wrote:
| My point is that three of four download buttons are links
| not download buttons.
| [deleted]
| davexunit wrote:
| I've just recently started using Ardour after wanting to do so
| for years. Once you learn the basics like tracks vs. busses and
| how to use EQ/compressor/limiter plugins it stops feeling
| daunting. Unfa's tutorials on YouTube were a lot of help.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| How does Ardour compare to something like Logic Pro or Ableton?
| javier123454321 wrote:
| It honestly does most things that these do, but I do find
| ableton to be a bit more intuitive. The workflow is a bit
| different, sessions are given more importance in ableton while
| the timeline feels like the __main__ way of working in ardour.
| The piano roll is integrated in the timeline which is a nitpick
| thing that I don't love about ardour. All in all, you can do
| basically the same things, but for some reason I do feel like
| it takes just a bit more work in ardour. But I'm an amateur
| hobbyist, so I prefer the OSS version.
| kuon wrote:
| I love ardour, I wish only for native Wayland support.
| heftig wrote:
| I believe most plugins expose their GUI only as an X window
| that needs to be nested in an application window, so any change
| here would require reimplementing the GUI of a lot of plugins.
|
| But even if we do want to take this hurdle, is it even possible
| yet? What interfaces are available to do this on Wayland and
| embed a plugin-drawn GUI in a GTK 3, GTK 4, Qt 5 and/or Qt 6
| application?
|
| My guess is we still need a new spec that would probably
| revolve around OpenGL/EGL or Vulkan/WSI, but I'm not sure, and
| there's also the question of how input events are delivered.
| jabl wrote:
| AFAIU Ardour itself is still using GTK 2, which has no
| Wayland support. You can search around on the Ardour
| discourse, occasionally somebody asks about the porting
| effort to a newer GUI toolkit, but IIRC the Ardour devs think
| it's too much work for little gain.
| kuon wrote:
| Yes, it is a complicated work, but it will have to be done
| eventually.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| When do you believe that X Window API-using applications
| will cease to function?
| kuon wrote:
| For large x64 machine we use for music, maybe not very
| soon. But I work on embedded devices for medical
| application (basically fancy iPads with other hardware)
| and it's already wayland only down to the drivers.
|
| I think XWayland will be the way to go for a long time.
| For ardour itself, native Wayland is desirable for
| tooltips and other minor (but very annoying) UI things
| that break under XWayland, but for plugins, XWayland can
| be the glue.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Interestingly, Presonus are now making Studio One available
| on Linux, and they are "wayland native". They came up with an
| "interesting" solution for plugins: they just create a
| rendering surface and have the plugins draw on that. How this
| deals with event handling is unclear at this time.
| ta8645 wrote:
| The What's New page says they support the "Novation Launchpad
| Pro", but the picture beside that paragraph actually is the much
| more expensive "Novation Launchpad Pro [MK3]". (Ambiguous product
| names like this are mildly infuriating)
|
| Does anyone know if both the cheaper and more expensive devices
| are compatible with Ardour 8?
|
| https://novationmusic.com/products/launchpad-pro
|
| https://novationmusic.com/products/launchpad-pro-mk3
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Your first link is to an older version of the Launchpad Pro
| that Novation no longer sells or makes. The Mk3 _is_ the
| current version of the Launchpad Pro.
|
| As our release notes indicate, we hope/plan to announce support
| for the cheaper Launchpad X and Mini during the 8.x development
| process.
| 6581 wrote:
| > Your first link is to an older version of the Launchpad Pro
| that Novation no longer sells or makes.
|
| Novation still makes and sells it - see the first link.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| If you click on the "Add to basket" you will find that it
| is sold out, and if you dig deeper you will find you can
| only get refurbished units.
| 6581 wrote:
| Not for me. I guess the website forwards you to a
| different region's shop.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I would not be surprised if the existing LP Pro support
| in Ardour 8 works with an older version, but they are
| fundamentally different devices.
|
| I can check on it whenever I get started on the mini and
| X versions.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| As usual, the lead developer (c'est moi) is happy to answer any
| questions.
| junon wrote:
| I've used Cubase historically, but started and now have
| transitioned back to FL Studio since I can get my thoughts and
| ideas out quicker than in Cubase.
|
| I've seen Ardour for a long, long time but haven't ever tried
| it. What, if anything, would I be missing by switching? I
| primarily do composition, so lots of VSTs etc.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| FL Studio is a very, very different sort of DAW than, well,
| just about every other DAW (including Ardour). If you were
| moving from Cubase, Logic, Studio One, ProTools, Digital
| Performer etc., then I'd say you would miss very little by
| switching to Ardour other than some of the builtin plugins
| for those DAWs.
|
| But if you have become used to the FL Studio workflow, Ardour
| (and the list of DAWs above) are likely to feel clunky and
| unproductive.
| pests wrote:
| As someone who isn't very well versed in DAWs can someone
| give a breakdown of how FL Studio is different than others?
| I see references to "regular linear" below so what makes FL
| Studio not that? Sorry for the basic questions.
| junon wrote:
| Good to know, I didn't mind Cubase's workflow per se, it's
| just that Cubase was 1) super buggy and unstable, and 2)
| ridiculously expensive, and updates cost a lot. That also
| factored into leaving.
|
| I'll give Ardour a try, thanks for the response and
| congrats on the release!
| iainctduncan wrote:
| FWIW, I would absolutely recommend learning a regular
| linear DAW in addition to FL Studio. I'm not an FL user,
| I'm a heavy Ableton Live user (entirely because of Max
| for Live), and it is also "non-standard". There are a lot
| of things that are much, much faster in DAWs from the
| pro-tools oriented lineage and it is well worth the few
| seconds it takes to copy audio from one to the other at
| times.
| megaloblasto wrote:
| I just wanted to say that the lollipop chart is amazing! Thanks
| for your work!
| chabad360 wrote:
| What was the main reason for keeping the select-groups from
| applying to control surfaces? I'm not sure what would be the
| point of multi-selecting otherwise.
|
| As an aside, is there any way I can add functionality to a
| control surface (that isn't writing C)? I use a behringer
| X-Touch (heavily) and moved to Reaper because there were
| plugins that provided much deeper integration with my X-Touch
| (which as a result has me working a lot faster in certain
| areas).
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| We're still debating the control surface decision. There are
| two reasons for leaving things alone:
|
| 1. hardware surfaces have had different use conventions for a
| long time (certainly things that look like mixing consoles).
| They are effectively multitouch devices, and human
| interaction with them just isn't the same as with a mouse &
| GUI.
|
| 2. for Mackie Control Protocol devices, we already provide a
| nifty multi-target action there where you just press and hold
| one eg. solo button and then press another, to apply it to
| the range that was pressed.
|
| We do not providing scripting for developing control surface
| support. I've written extensively about my thoughts on
| Reaper's scripting [0] and I remain conflicted by the
| questions it raises. There's nothing that can be done in
| Reaper via scripting that can't be done in Ardour via C++,
| and a huge amount that theoretically could be done in Ardour
| via C++ that cannot be done in Reaper. I know this is not a
| satisfactory answer for people who do not want to master (a)
| C++ (b) the build environment.
|
| [0] https://discourse.ardour.org/t/is-open-source-a-
| diversion-fr...
| runiq wrote:
| I still feel like track/bus groups, VCAs, and now ad-hoc groups
| are three different ways of doing roughly the same thing. Are
| there plans to unify them into a single concept, maybe?
|
| (I know that especially VCAs are different here, but in the
| end, they are groups of groups if you squint hard enough, are
| they not?)
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| No, VCAs are quite different from the other two. They
| represent an external entity (the VCA) that can be used to
| control other entities, and they are mixer (signal flow)
| related only (i.e. have no impact on editing).
|
| Persistent and quick groups are definitely related; we've
| already a few _trenchant_ observations about what we 've done
| with quick groups, and we will work on taking them into
| consideration as we refine how this works. But fundamentally,
| I see persistent groups and quick groups as orthogonal, and
| their main job is not to interfere (too much) with each
| other.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| This looks absolutely amazing. Thank you!
|
| Totally minor feedback in case you value this kind of feedback:
| the website's layout is freaking out on my iOS Safari. I can
| scroll sideways like four page widths and then see nothing at
| all. Same with the front page.
|
| A short video if it helps:
| https://youtube.com/shorts/2dItDk_FtkI?si=WSsM2fgWR91IR7wU
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| It's an old version of bootstrap. Probably too old.
| WhatIsDukkha wrote:
| How is the MPE work going?
|
| What about MIDI 2.0?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| MPE: nothng is required to record and playback MPE, it's just
| MIDI 1.0. There's no "nice" way to edit MPE at this time. I
| can't say right now what priority we attach to this.
|
| MIDI 2.0: no plans at this time.
| WhatIsDukkha wrote:
| The tempo mapping grid tool looks super super cool, I look
| forward to trying it out.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| One thing we have discovered/realized since tagging 8.0
| is that the grid tool will misbehave if you do "wild
| dragging" with it between existing tempo markers. It is
| intended to "tweak" the grid in that situation, and is
| designed around small, "subtle" mouse movement. We may be
| able to come up with some fixes that make it more robust
| in the face of users deliberately or accidentally going
| "wild" with the mouse.
| codedokode wrote:
| Ardour's UI is complicated compared to, for example, Ableton
| Live. For example, I have added a MIDI track and it is unclear
| how to add notes to it. Right clicking on a track doesn't give an
| option to do that.
|
| Also on Linux it supports only rarely used plugin formats (LV2,
| Linux VST), for which there are little plugins.
| prokoudine wrote:
| > Also on Linux it supports only rarely used plugin formats
| (LV2, Linux VST), for which there are little plugins.
|
| Ardour used to have built-in support for Windows VST via WINE.
| It was so bad (as in unstable, unpredictable) it was disabled
| by default and was eventually removed. Yabridge is the usual
| recommendation to people who really want/need it.
| weavie wrote:
| If it supports VST, I imagine yabridge would work fine to allow
| you to use Windows VST.
|
| https://github.com/robbert-vdh/yabridge
| codedokode wrote:
| Looks like a pain to install (doesn't support Fedora 37,
| isn't included in standard Fedora repositories, requires to
| use non-standard Wine version).
| runiq wrote:
| None of that is Ardour's fault, but the 'fault' of plugin
| developers not providing Linux binaries in the first place.
| codedokode wrote:
| If nobody provides Linux binaries then maybe it is better
| to support Windows binaries out of the box?
| runiq wrote:
| How? By bundling WINE? No thanks.
| jpc0 wrote:
| Yes because it's trivial to dynamically link to a windows
| dll from a linux program
| mhitza wrote:
| For Fedora use this copr
| https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/patrickl/yabridge/
| codedokode wrote:
| The link says that it supports only Fedora 38. Also, the
| main page for COPR says (in a small font): "NOTE: Copr is
| not yet officially supported by Fedora Infrastructure.".
| As I understand, it is the repository for packages
| uploaded by random anonymous users (not related to the
| authors of yabridge or Fedora).
| mhitza wrote:
| > The link says that it supports only Fedora 38
|
| That is correct. I didn't think specifically about Fedora
| 37; it's been a while since I upgraded to 38. I couldn't
| find F37 builds, even though that's around the time I
| tested yabridge. You might consider switching to 38
| anyway, as 37 is less than two months away from it
| reaching EOL -- F39 release date (17 October) + 30 days.
|
| > As I understand, it is the repository for packages
| uploaded by random anonymous users (not related to the
| authors of yabridge or Fedora).
|
| That is mostly correct. It was not uploaded, but built on
| the Fedora infrastructure, following the RPM spec you can
| reach from the builds tab [1], for example the latest
| change located here [2].
|
| There is an amount of trust you have to give to the copr
| author, but you can also check the rpm spec file [3].
| Important quick checks are around the source0 lines.
|
| > Also, the main page for COPR says (in a small font):
| "NOTE: Copr is not yet officially supported by Fedora
| Infrastructure."
|
| Getting a package shipped into the Fedora base
| repositories seems rather bureaucratic and I understand
| any hacker that doesn't want to use their own time to
| deal with that.
|
| [1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/patrickl/yabr
| idge/bu...
|
| [2] https://copr-dist-
| git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/patrickl/yab...
|
| [3] https://copr-dist-
| git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/patrickl/yab...
| weavie wrote:
| Once installed I've found it to work pretty much
| flawlessly, very few windows plugins don't work with it.
| 6581 wrote:
| > I have added a MIDI track and it is unclear how to add notes
| to it. Right clicking on a track doesn't give an option to do
| that.
|
| https://manual.ardour.org/working-with-midi/create-midi-regi...
|
| https://manual.ardour.org/working-with-midi/add-new-notes/
|
| > Also on Linux it supports only rarely used plugin formats
| (LV2, Linux VST)
|
| https://github.com/robbert-vdh/yabridge
| frankzander wrote:
| I many times used Ableton ... tbh it's not less complicated
| then Ardour. You can use yabridge for Win vsts ... works quite
| good for the most plugins IMHO but on kx.studio you find a hell
| lot of Linux native plugins ... don't look as fancy as
| commercial ones but they do what they should do. Music
| production in Linux is often a bit more hackyhack but it's ok
| so far. At least this are all tools ... using them is the real
| art behind that.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| > Also on Linux it supports only rarely used plugin formats
| (LV2, Linux VST), for which there are little plugins.
|
| On Linux, Ardour supports LADSPA, LV2, VST2 and VST3. Those are
| the most widely used plugin formats. What are you missing
| exactly?
| codedokode wrote:
| Those are rarely used formats, most of plugins are either in
| Windows formats like VST, or in Mac formats.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| ? VST is a cross-platform plugin format, supported by
| Ardour. I have no idea what you are looking for...
| diggan wrote:
| Looks to be a extensive update with lots of new and useful
| features, thanks as always PaulDavisThe1st :) Especially
| Arrangement and Quick Groups will be good time savers for me!
|
| > For several years, people downloading Ardour for macOS have had
| to deal with various kinds of messages (from Apple) saying things
| like "This program comes from an untrusted source" to "The file
| is damaged". As of Ardour 8, macOS users downloading Ardour won't
| see this stuff any more, because we have given up and paid $100
| to join Apple's pay-to-play scheme. Our builds are all notarized
| now, and so people on macOS should have the same smooth
| experience they get from other macOS software downloads.
|
| Hope macOS users live up to the commonly referenced "Apple users
| are more likely to pay for software" and donate either time or
| money to Ardour if they use it, as it seems making applications
| available to them cost developers actual money now.
| ilyt wrote:
| > Hope macOS users live up to the commonly referenced "Apple
| users are more likely to pay for software" and donate either
| time or money to Ardour if they use it, as it seems making
| applications available to them cost developers actual money
| now.
|
| Just make it $5 on macos. If Mac users can support this shitty
| company they can actually pay for other software too.
| auggierose wrote:
| I don't think macOS users have any more or less responsibility
| paying for this software than Linux users. $100 compared to the
| development resources that went into this is nothing, and the
| developers realised that, too.
| diggan wrote:
| > I don't think macOS users have any more or less
| responsibility paying for this software than Linux users
|
| I don't think that either, it's only a hope from my side. A
| hope that they recognize that the binary they are using cost
| someone money to generate only because of restrictions put
| forward by Apple.
| schmorptron wrote:
| Nah, I think it's perfectly fair to charge more for a mac
| version of a program, especially if it's a donation funded
| open-source one. If you can afford a macintosh, you're more
| likely to also be able to afford a couple of bucks to support
| it.
| auggierose wrote:
| Yes, of course it is fair. You can charge whatever you want
| for your program. But Ardour is free. Accepting donations
| is not the same as charging for something.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Technically speaking, ardour.org charges for a _build
| service_.
|
| You can get the source code for free from us (either as a
| tarball or via git). You can get the source code or the
| binary from somebody else.
|
| But if you want to get the binary from us, we ask you pay
| at least US$1.
| auggierose wrote:
| OK, I see, I didn't know that. I was just clicking
| through to the macos download without actually
| downloading anything. By the way, there still seems to be
| a notice before download that macOS will say that the app
| is damaged, although now it won't complain after
| notarisation, right?
|
| I actually moved away from Apple/Swift development
| because of the limitations they place on you even if you
| pay (I cannot embed an interpreter in my iOS app,
| really?), and am now coding in TypeScript. So while the
| $100 are not a big deal, I think, it's a symptom of
| something that's wrong.
| redserk wrote:
| I'd be willing to bet the demographics of those on
| Hackernews aren't exactly in the "I'm using Linux because I
| cannot afford to use any other OS" crowd.
|
| It is the other way around. Linux users should be more
| vigilant about donating to the projects they find important
| if they care for the longevity of the project continuing as
| desktop Linux is a very tiny market to support and has
| heavy fragmentation issues within it.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Seconded. I can afford any OS but I'm using Linux out of
| principle. It's also - at least for me - the most
| seamless developer experience out there because I'm
| running the same OS on servers and my desktop. Whenever I
| have to work with Windows or a Mac I feel like a fish out
| of the water.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > as desktop Linux is a very tiny market to support and
| has heavy fragmentation issues within it.
|
| It's also free to use and distribute software on,
| regardless of the hardware/software you own. _That 's_
| the big difference. Plus, MacOS also commands a
| relatively small market share with it's own fragmentation
| issues (doubly so if you're cross-platform).
|
| If Mac users want perpetual builds of their software,
| they have to perpetually fund a development environment.
| Linux doesn't really work the same way.
| master-lincoln wrote:
| You also need to afford a Mac machine for testing as a dev.
| That's another few hundred bucks on top. I don't think macOS
| users have a bigger responsibility for paying, but as a
| publisher I would always make a paid macOS version just to
| try to regain those expenses again. Time is not equal to
| money for many people
| sschueller wrote:
| 100 USD a year (more in Switzerland because Apple doesn't
| even pay for the taxes) is not nothing. Why should I pay to
| place apps that I spend my free time to develop and offer for
| free? Apple should at least not charge a recurring fee if all
| apps posted are open source and free.
|
| At least over at Google it is a one time fee.
| auggierose wrote:
| I'd also prefer if there was no $100 to pay. But it is a
| fair price, and I find the attitude of programmers that
| everything should be free quite damaging. If you want to
| donate your free time, that's really up to you. Don't
| construe constraints for other people or companies from
| that.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > I find the attitude of programmers that everything
| should be free quite damaging.
|
| Many dead UNIX vendors agree.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I don't want it to be free. I want Apple to not lie that
| "This application is damaged" when I don't pay them.
| auggierose wrote:
| I don't recall the exact message, but I don't think they
| say it is damaged. They will probably say something like
| it _may_ be damaged. Which is perfectly true, as they
| have no means of verifying its integrity.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| https://ardour.org/images/thanksapple.png
| auggierose wrote:
| Ok, that's bad. I fully agree.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| It's more a matter of principle ?
|
| IMHO it should be illegal (for a for-profit corporation) to
| own both the OS and an application store (at least the kind
| featuring third-party software) - you cannot expect them to
| be a fair judge of who gets in there and who doesn't !
| tomduncalf wrote:
| You can still run the software, but Apple make it harder to
| do so (you probably have to Google how to do it). You could
| argue this both ways, I think there's value to the defaults
| making it harder for your average user to run software
| which could be unsafe... just think how bad the malware
| problem used to be on Windows for example.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| The malware problem used to be bad on Windows because
| everything had admin access. And the later "we don't have
| this program in our database, do you still want to
| execute it?" dialog wasn't too bad (especially when
| paired with an integrated blacklist of known malware !).
|
| And why do you assume that other software distributors
| than OS makers aren't going to do due diligence ?
| dist-epoch wrote:
| They didn't do that for the Windows version though:
|
| > Because we object to paying Microsoft for the privilege of
| allowing you to more easily use our work, this application is
| unsigned (more information here).
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| We will likely start doing Windows notarization during the
| 8.x series. Our friends at Harrison, who make Mixbus (based
| on Ardour) already figured it all out a long time ago; it's a
| bit more complex than the macOS version of the process.
| OliverM wrote:
| I thought Ardour was a commercial product? If you want to
| download a binary from their site it's either a demo version
| with injected silence every 10 minutes, or a paid-for option
| (either a small monthly sub or a larger one-off payment). You
| can build it locally yourself for free of course, but I don't
| know if many non-devs would do that.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Ardour is very high quality for FOSS. There are many distros
| that include a free version of Ardour. Ubuntu Studio[1] for
| instance, and then there are distributions where installing
| it is an apt-get[2] or yum[3] or whatever[4] away, and paying
| for it is optional.
|
| [1] https://ubuntustudio.org/2022/11/ardour-7-1-backports-
| availa...
|
| [2] https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=ardour
|
| [3] https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/ardour7/ardour7/
|
| [4] https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/ardour/
| jdfellow wrote:
| There's also a distinct commercial DAW based on Ardour called
| Harrison Mixbus.
|
| https://harrisonconsoles.com/product/mixbus/
| ninjin wrote:
| It is not really a commercial product, rather it follows an
| old, but somewhat rare, tradition of making usage slightly
| more difficult in order to raise funds. OpenBSD used to do
| the same and not provide pre-built images to raise funds via
| CD sales from those that could not be bothered to learn how
| to build images from the source code. You can certainly
| object to this, but I do find it reasonable as there are few
| good ways to fund open source software.
|
| As for Ardour itself, it is clearly completely open source
| [1].
|
| https://git.ardour.org/ardour/ardour/src/branch/master/COPYI.
| ..
| OliverM wrote:
| I don't object to it at all, I think it's a great idea. We
| need more models of supporting open-source, including
| financial ones. BTW I also don't see commercial and open-
| source as intrinsically opposed to each other - projects
| can be both, and I wish more were.
| ilyt wrote:
| It's also just packaged in Debian which means any distro
| based on it likely have it.
| atomicnumber3 wrote:
| "Give your stuff away for free to devs" is a pretty good
| idea for both free and nonfree software. (And Linux users
| are, for now, still likely to be developer type people
| than not).
| globular-toast wrote:
| You're talking about orthogonal concepts.
|
| Ardour is free software (and therefore open source). Ardour
| is not proprietary software.
|
| Ardour is a commercial product. They sell pre-built
| binaries, updates (perhaps some level of guarantee/support
| for those binaries?) etc. Ardour is not "freeware",
| shareware or a hobby project or anything else like that.
| ninjin wrote:
| I am not sure it is clear cut as you present it. Clearly
| Ardour the _project_ is not a commercial product and the
| same should go for the source code. Arguably the _pre-
| compiled binaries_ are a commercial product as they are
| presented to a market for a price (although the same of
| course does not hold for Ardour binaries provided through
| package managers and elsewhere). To me, the confusion
| mostly arises from the fact that we use Ardour to refer
| to all of the above, while clearly they are all different
| things.
| globular-toast wrote:
| Ardour certainly looks like a commercial project to me. I
| think this thinking arises from a couple of
| misapprehensions, namely:
|
| 1. Commerce is bad and somehow at odds with free software
| and the GPL,
|
| 2. The only way to do any kind of software trade is
| proprietary software.
|
| In fact, commerce is beautiful and a cornerstone of
| economics and our civilisation. Most people in the free
| software community are not opposed to commerce. What they
| are opposed to is proprietary software. That is, claiming
| ownership of software and therefore doing commerce based
| mostly on rent-seeking and retaining power over said
| users. Free software and the GPL aims to disable this,
| but it does not disable, nor does it oppose, commercial
| software, unless you believe (2), which is evidently
| false, as you can see with Ardour.
| ninjin wrote:
| I am not sure how Ardour would feel about being referred
| to as a commercial project. But I do suspect if you went
| back in time and sent an e-mail to misc@ ten years ago
| calling OpenBSD a commercial project because they sold
| CDs you would be told to take a hike. I will just agree
| to disagree on this one. You seem to want to make a
| bigger point about software and commerce and all I see
| are shades of grey in that commercialisation is not clear
| cut and neither is what is a project, its outcomes, etc.
| freedomben wrote:
| I think GP makes a reasonable point about what commercial
| actually means. If you are selling something, that's
| commerce. If the Ardour dev or OpenBSD devs don't like
| it, then they are free to adopt a euphemism that makes
| them feel better about it, but that appeal to authority
| doesn't change the meaning of the term. I think that
| actually further reinforces GP's point about how the term
| "commercial software" has become a dirty word.
|
| Now that said, I do support avoiding language that is
| offensive to people even if it doesn't seem to me like it
| should be (so long as it's still clear what is being
| communicated. I don't like Orwellian expressions).
| 6581 wrote:
| > I thought Ardour was a commercial product?
|
| Ardour is licensed under GPLv2.
| master-lincoln wrote:
| That is unrelated. Things licensed as open source can still
| be commercial products. Ardour is open source and can be
| freely build and distributed, but it's also available as a
| pre-build product to pay for.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > it's also available as a pre-build product to pay for
|
| Show me where to pay for the pre-built product:
|
| https://community.ardour.org/download?platform=linux&arch
| ite...
|
| All I see is a direct download link. If you want to pay
| that's optional.
| rspoerri wrote:
| Have you pressed that button?
|
| """ Subscribe
|
| $1, $4, $10 or $50 per month ... """
|
| """ Single Payment
|
| If you choose to pay less than US$45 ... """
|
| """ Free/Demo Version
|
| Periodically goes silent after 10 minutes.
|
| No access to nightly (development) builds. """
|
| And, if you wonder, you can't enter 0 for the payment.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Ah I see, so that's what it looks like when you're not
| using a linux distro to obtain Ardour. And no, I never
| pressed the button because I just get it through Ubuntu
| Studio, and I've been using Ardour for years, for my
| simple (but frequent, multiple times per day) needs
| whatever version is in there is plenty.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| JodieBenitez wrote:
| The screenshot features the excellent Surge synth. Check it out
| if you don't know it, it's an excellent sounding synth with a
| gorgeous oscillators section.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| It's three times the size of the DAW itself, and unlike the DAW
| it requires using an installer during which it asks for admin
| password. Wow. Wonder what happened to "just drop this file
| into that dir" README.txt...
| radiowave wrote:
| Putting a file into "that dir" also requires elevated
| permissions.
|
| (e.g. C:\Program Files\VSTPlugins )
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Of course but the point is I do that myself. Installer just
| asks for permissions and does who knows what.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Then the binary does who knows what so in any case you
| are kind of bound to your trust in the vendor.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Plugins themselves never require admin access to run, the
| installer does.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Unless you are running your plugins in a sandbox or have
| different profiles for different usages, this doesn't
| make any difference as what is more important, your
| personal data is accessible from your main user.
|
| Anyone producing music from qubesOS?
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Are you saying it makes no difference whether process
| runs as root or normal user in whatever OS you're on?
| prmoustache wrote:
| I am saying it depends of the attack scenario.
|
| Privilege escalation is a big issue for servers and
| mutualized systems. On a personal computer this is the
| least of your concerns as your personnal data is more
| valuable than some binaries in your root filesystem.
| People are ready to get their precious data pwned or
| ransomwared but are afraid some process would get root
| access, this is backwards thinking.
| rovingeye wrote:
| Users want an installer. You can see what the installers are
| doing by looking at the scripts in the repo (this is an open
| source project). Admin permission is necessary to write to
| the Global VST folder. You can direct your "Wow" at Steinberg
| if you want. The spec was recently updated to allow for a
| User install location which has been considered: https://stei
| nbergmedia.github.io/vst3_dev_portal/pages/Techn...
|
| If you don't want an installer, you can download the
| pluginsonly bundle on the release page and do it yourself:
| https://github.com/surge-synthesizer/releases-xt/releases
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > You can direct your "Wow" at Steinberg if you want.
|
| Plenty of plugins just ship with a README and tell you
| where to drop em though! Even paid. So especially if it's
| OSS I don't think it's bad to require a bit of effort from
| the user especially if it takes unpaid time maintaining the
| installer wrapper. Thanks for the bundle link!
| smoldesu wrote:
| Serge is great, but Vital whips the llama's ass:
| https://vital.audio/
|
| There was a time when Sylenth and Serum-quality synthesizers
| didn't exist for free. Back then, shit like _Serge_ and _Helm_
| were really the best you could rely on. Maybe a few free U-HE
| plugins or your DAW defaults. Today 's producers are downright
| spoiled with so many excellent free options!
| nomoreusernames wrote:
| [dead]
| wiz21c wrote:
| From the what's new page:
|
| "Some people will no doubt laugh at a few of these "new
| features", given that they've been in some other DAWs for 20
| years or more. That's OK -- we laugh too when we see other DAWs
| finally adding things that Ardour could do in 2005."
|
| this made me laugh :-)
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| I started using Ardour in 2007 and quickly transitioned our
| studio to it in a big move to Linux for audio production. I'll
| be excited to reacquaint myself with it later this year on the
| first analog restoration I've accepted in almost a decade.
|
| The extent of its wonders escapes me now, but I recall with
| jack+ardour, the new lowlatency/preempt kernel, and some tcp/ip
| stack fun, we were able to get 40ms network audio latency on
| commodity hardware, vastly expanding our field processing
| workflows. Sort of how you can walk out of any venue today and
| immediately purchase an SD card of the event, we could produce
| MP3, CDs, and live webcasts of events, ready within minutes of
| closing with nothing more than a laptop, usb sound card, mics,
| and the internet.
|
| I also had a little trick for transcription; shorthand with
| macros! Eventually, I could type them all one handed. Today,
| you can just pipe through whisper and have subs in every format
| and language. What an incredible time to be alive.
|
| My lessons learned have been that free, open source software is
| amazing, and if you don't know something is supposed to be
| "hard", it can't stop you. Don't let greed or pride make you
| withhold from yourself.
| enbugger wrote:
| I really like the UI in the sound production software. It's neat,
| has good colors and keep being eye candy even given the number of
| controls and information it provides. Is it some sort of
| standardized style guide for this kind of UI or everyone just
| takes inspiration by some industry leader products?
| prokoudine wrote:
| > Is it some sort of standardized style guide for this kind of
| UI
|
| Anything goes in this industry really :)
| klaussilveira wrote:
| https://juce.com
|
| Maybe that's what you want?
| pilaf wrote:
| I'm not a musician, but I've been happily using Ardour to edit a
| podcast for many years now (paying for a subscription the whole
| time too) and I really like the workflow I arrived at with it.
|
| One particular feature I like is the ability to edit while
| playing the audio at 2x speed, which I use to do a quick first
| pass where I remove obvious things like dead air, coughs, uhms,
| etc., before doing a second pass at 1x looking for finer details
| to fix. However, I've found that this feature has been worsened a
| bit since v6, so I've been stuck at v5 this whole time despite
| the many new releases. Every time a new version comes out I try
| it out immediately, but so far v5 has been the superior one for
| my particular workflow.
|
| I'm not complaining though, for as long as Ardour 5 still runs on
| my computer I'll be a happy user, and I'm very grateful for
| Ardour's existence, but I wonder if anyone else uses it the way I
| do and if they've had the same issue with newer versions.
| prokoudine wrote:
| > However, I've found that this feature has been worsened a bit
| since v6
|
| How exactly?
| pilaf wrote:
| In Ardour 5 I am able to simply slide the playback speed
| slider ("shuttle speed control") to start playing at >1x
| speed, and after releasing the mouse button it keeps on
| playing at that speed.
|
| In v6+ the sliding part still works, but upon releasing it
| the slider springs immediately back to 1x, so I can't easily
| select a playback speed and keep it going. As a workaround
| there's the varispeed option, but for me it's not as
| intuitive (it uses semitones instead of "Xs" as its unit),
| and feels much less flexible. I could probably live with it
| if I was forced into it, but I much prefer v5's behavior.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I'll add a percentage control to the VS dialog.
|
| Then you can upgrade to 8.1 and get the benefit of
| interview mode ripple editing.
| pilaf wrote:
| Hey Paul! Thanks so much for Ardour first of all, and
| double thanks for this awesome generosity.
|
| I didn't know about interview mode, I'll read up on it.
| Looking forward to 8.1!
| prokoudine wrote:
| From the manual (https://manual.ardour.org/ardours-
| interface/the-toolbox/):
|
| "Within this general behavior several variations are
| available as Ripple edit modes: [...] 3. Interview. This
| mode works just like the Selected mode with one
| exception: when you select a range and press Del, this
| will remove the selected portion of either audio or MIDI
| without shifting other clips to the left to match the
| freed space on the timeline. The main use case for this
| mode is editing interviews where you want the ripple
| behavior to edit out e.g. periods of silence, while being
| able to just delete e.g. an out-of-place noise or an
| exclamation by the interviewer."
| prokoudine wrote:
| That is a really good point, thanks!
| pilaf wrote:
| I just realized you're an Ardour developer, so thank you
| for the awesome piece of free software, and I hope my
| comment didn't sound too whiny. I love Ardour and still
| recommend it to other podcasters at every chance I have,
| especially when I see people using Audacity for that task
| while Ardour is clearly the better option given its non-
| destructiveness.
| prokoudine wrote:
| > I just realized you're an Ardour developer
|
| Nope, I'm a documentation/YT/social media monkey, if you
| want a real developer, PaulDavisThe1st is here for you :)
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Percentage field now in ardour/master branch in git.
| klaussilveira wrote:
| I miss the "Beat Maker" interface from FL Studio. It is like
| Bread and Butter.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| FL Studio is a very, very different DAW from most others. If
| you get used to it, then most other DAWs are going to feel as
| if they are lacking something (though they will typically have
| something that FL Studio doesn't have, too).
| klaussilveira wrote:
| Yes, it is. It is why I still run FL Studio 10 via Wine.
| Never managed to replace it with anything else, and 12 just
| does not feel right.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-09 23:01 UTC)