W-9z writes "Ars is running a guide to editing audio under Linux that I think is a great read for anyone trying tofind new ways to flex that Linux muscle. There are some outstanding FOSS tools out there. They look at Ardour, Audacity, and SND. The author talks a bit about why Linux is asuperior platform for this kind of work: 'FOSS software is, almost by definition, a work in process. If Ardour doesn't have a feature I need, I can code it myself. With thispossibility, the software no longer defines what I can doit's just a point of departure.' It's an interesting companion to the /. discussion of video editing earlier this year." An Intro To Editing Audio On Linux Log in/Create an Account | Top | 225 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 225 comments 0: 215 comments 1: 168 comments 2: 125 comments 3: 46 comments 4: 23 comments 5: 15 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Wow (Score:5, Insightful) by Legendof_Pedro (900265) on Thursday October 13, @05:26PM (#13785480) (http://www.blogability.net/) Wow, I never knew Linux was so good for that kind of thing. In fact, I might just stop using SONAR (Windows) and switch to Linux. I guess that means that the 1% market share just got a bit bigger. [ Reply to This Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative) by hummer357 (545850) on Thursday October 13, @06:44PM (#13786226) Also, another easy way -- next to Debian -- to use Ardour, Audacity, Jack, LADSPA or anything else, is to use Stanford's Planet.CCRMA [stanford.edu] project for Fedora. It contains just about any decent audio app for GNU/Linux, including the ones mentioned in TFA, but also has custom kernels with the real-time patches and everything. Definitely worth checking out!! h357 [ Reply to This | ParentYet both of you fail to justify the summary. by jbn-o (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @06:19PMRe:Wow by rco3 (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @06:48PMRe:Wow by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @08:18PMRe:Wow by eno2001 (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @10:42PM Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative) by orangesquid (79734) <os@u[ ].edu ['del' in gap]> on Thursday October 13, @07:30PM (#13786594) (http://music.download.com/fearofzero | Last Journal: Wednesday October 12, @10:24PM) As crude as this comment is, I agree on some points.When working with like 40 tracks at once, LOTS of vertical scrolling is involved, which seems unnecessary. Frequently, audacity will chew up disk space saving a million possible 'undos' (can be handy, though...)It doesn't always get timing perfect on recording, and if playback is interrupted momentarily (another process grabs the cpu, etc), the tracks will get out of sync. The compressor plugin needs work (it actually seems to function as an expander most of the time!!), there needs to be a sliding window extension to the normalize plugin (and some better way of finding a DC offset than taking a pure average, which is what I think it does?), and I wish I could make the equalizer remember my settings.All of that being said, I don't think the GUI is bad. Audacity has tons of really nice features. It is a shame it moves so slowly, though.I managed to record something with it recently, though; in fact, most of my recent recordings [orangesquid.net] (yes, i know, i suck) have used audacity (most anything with a .flac file).ecasound does some things audacity doesn't do, or ecasound does them better, though, so mixing the two can prove helpful.I used to use purely ecasound, but you just can't go in and align things, or easily apply plugins to fractions of a file, not at least without a lot of effort...Audacity isn't protools, but it has the possibility of getting most of the way there (to be honest, most of protools' fancy features come from 3rd-party plugins, anyway).Also, it's very difficult to scrape out eyeballs with a spoon; usually, a spork, or grapefruit spoon, yields better results, while still retaining the scooping effect. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Wow by starwed (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @09:18PMRe:Wow by iluvcapra (Score:2) Friday October 14, @12:06AMRe:Wow by iluvcapra (Score:2) Friday October 14, @12:09AMRe:THIS SIMPLY PROVES LINUX IS VERY SIMPLE TO USE by cayenne8 (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @10:18PM3 replies beneath your current threshold. have to admit (Score:3, Insightful) by CDPatten (907182) on Thursday October 13, @05:29PM (#13785513) I usually don't turn to linux for day to day tools, but I have to admit, it is pretty good for editing large audio. Tools are lacking, but its pretty stable doing. [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Ardour is moving in a big way (Score:3, Interesting) by rebeka thomas (673264) on Thursday October 13, @05:30PM (#13785527) A friend in the industry tells me he's converted at least a dozen pro audio editors to ardour, leaving behind pro tools and logic for good. This looks like it's one of the killer apps that's going to take linux far. We already have several that are making F/OSS well known in the wider world like apache, blender, gimp and the rest.What's insane is the pro proprietary companies charge prices in the four figures just for some of their software alone. Can't be justified when you have the same abilities free. [ Reply to This What about hardware? (Score:5, Insightful) by mOoZik (698544) on Thursday October 13, @05:38PM (#13785616) (http://www.henrygaboyan.com/) ProTools is industry standard, period. No FOSS is going to conquer their market share. In fact, outside of the /. crowd, this will remain small. Lack of hardware support for most popular interfaces will doom it so, not to mention Linux's inflexibilities to the average user. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:What about hardware? by Shawn is an Asshole (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @05:47PM Re:What about hardware? (Score:5, Insightful) by paulbd (118132) on Thursday October 13, @05:51PM (#13785756) (http://equalarea.com/paul) its interesting that this was said about 1 or 2 "industry standard" video editing suites when apple released final cut (pro). final cut pro is now probably the most widely used video editing suite, even including all the big video studios. it has simply evolved to the point where it pushed the existing "industry standards" out of the way.i doubt that ardour can do this (and i wrote ardour so i know what i am talking about), but we'll give it our best shot, ok? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:What about hardware? by kfg (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @06:25PMre: ProTools by King_TJ (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @06:33PMWhat lack of support by Gordonjcp (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @07:20PMTwo quick counter examples by laptop006 (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @08:49PMRe:What about hardware? by dbIII (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @07:51PMRe:What about hardware? by croddy (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @08:03PMThis - a bit off topic but..... by gmby (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @08:30PMRe:What about hardware? by kbielefe (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @09:05PMRe:What about hardware? by bad-badtz-maru (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @10:28PMRe:What about hardware? by eno2001 (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @11:03PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Ardour is moving in a big way (Score:4, Insightful) by stubear (130454) on Thursday October 13, @05:44PM (#13785689) "What's insane is the pro proprietary companies charge prices in the four figures just for some of their software alone. Can't be justified when you have the same abilities free."$1000 is a drop in the bucket for most professional studios whose bread and butter work utilizes these tools. Photoshop is expensive but with the amount I make using teh software, it's nothing. if you're looking to purchase this software to goof off and do some amature stuff, then I can see you having a problem with the price. If you're a professional, these licenses are nothing in the overall scheme of things. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Ardour is moving in a big way by drgonzo59 (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @06:13PMRe:Ardour is moving in a big way by deckone (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @07:09PMRe:Ardour is moving in a big way by dada21 (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @05:45PMRe:Ardour is moving in a big way by Tet (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @06:17PMRe:Ardour is moving in a big way by Overly Critical Guy (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @06:31PMRe:Ardour is moving in a big way by guinsu (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @09:51PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. The best quote from the article... (Score:5, Insightful) by chill (34294) on Thursday October 13, @05:30PM (#13785528) On proprietary platforms, eventually you'll run into "you can't do that." On open platforms, you'll run into "you have to learn more to do that."That applies to so much more than just audio programs.  -Charles [ Reply to ThisRe:The best quote from the article... by Qzukk (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @06:01PMRe:The best quote from the article... by torpor (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @06:38PM Audacity (Score:2) by CSHARP123 (904951) on Thursday October 13, @05:30PM (#13785529) No linux has the audacity to play audio [ Reply to This Warning: rant approaching at high speeds (Score:5, Insightful) by nifboy (659817) on Thursday October 13, @05:31PM (#13785537) (http://nifboy.keenspace.com/) If Ardour doesn't have a feature I need, I can code it myself. Unless, of course, you don't know how to code it yourself, either because you don't have the technical know-how or the willingness to invest time investigating and learning how it works.This is becoming a pet peeve of mine when people espouse the benefits of FOSS; it only applies to tech-geeks. Great, programmers can do things with it that they can't do with closed-source. Now how about everyone else? [ Reply to ThisRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by dgatwood (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @05:33PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by AuMatar (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @05:39PM Re:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds (Score:4, Insightful) by Em Adespoton (792954) <slashdotonly.1.adespoton@spamgourmet.com> on Thursday October 13, @05:35PM (#13785585) (http://emulation.victoly.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 21, @11:58AM) Everyone else has their pick of tech-geeks to hire to do it for them, instead of relying on a single company to decide to add the feature. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by rebeka thomas (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @05:35PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by TheRealSlimShady (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @05:44PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by njh (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @06:13PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by Ingolfke (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @05:44PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by pclminion (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @05:52PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @05:57PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by rebeka thomas (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @06:03PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by RatBastard (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @06:16PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by ediron2 (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @07:07PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by JabberWokky (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @07:23PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by TwentyLeaguesUnderLa (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @08:19PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by quanticle (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @08:44PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by Da_Biz (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @08:21PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.4 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds (Score:5, Insightful) by RatBastard (949) on Thursday October 13, @06:04PM (#13785865) (http://www.trilobite.org/) First off coding is something anybody can learn BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You don't know many "regular Joes", do you? Most people don't have the time or energy to devote to learning to program. And by the time the average non-inclined person gets good, they've long since given up and paid money to some company that made a product that does what they needed and have left Linux and the FOSS comunity behind and haven't looked back.But I fear for society in a world where people refuse to learn because they don't want to, instead of can't. People don't learn specialized (and to them esoteric) skills because they DON'T HAVE THE TIME! Most people have lives. They have things to do. Kids to feed. Jobs. Houses to keep in order. Lawns that need to be mowed. Friends. Relatives. Etc... It's not that people won't learn (well, the current state of the educational system does make it harder to learn new things, but I digress), it's that they have things they'd rather be doing instead of mastering a specialized set of skills to add some functionality to someone else's unfinshed work.Have you taken the time to learn how to fix every problem you might have with your car? I'm willing to bet money you know the absolute basics, at best. You can put fuel in it, check the radiator, fill the tires, change a flat, you might know how to check your fluid levels and maybe refill anything that's low. But can you rebuild the transmission? Fix the breaks? Probably not.Is it because you are lazy? No. It's because you have better things to do with your time. Please, for the love of Pete, stop thinking that everyone should have the same interests as you. That's the attitude that's kept Linux off of most desktops for the last 12 years. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by Osty (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @09:03PM Re:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds (Score:5, Insightful) by RatBastard (949) on Thursday October 13, @05:49PM (#13785742) (http://www.trilobite.org/) Agreed. Most users are NOT programmers and wouldn't know a function if it bit them on the ass. This whole "do it yourself" mantra is just justification for things not being finished. I have used so many "0.9x" versions of software on Linux that never get to 1.0 it makes me sick. Is it too much to ask that a developement team actually finish a release before sending it out in a non-dev package? Or is it assumed that everything Linux is a developer release? If that's the case Linux is doomed as the vast majority of users don't want to program, don't give a damn about programming and wouldn't be good at it in the first place.After years of being sick of Windows and repeatedly trying to get into Linux I finally bailed last year and bought a Mac. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by PunkOfLinux (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @06:06PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by chill (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @06:10PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by spion666 (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @06:52PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by MacDork (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @06:20PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by cornface (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @09:53PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by thesnarky1 (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @06:36PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by dantal (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @06:41PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by guinsu (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @10:01PMDon't take "I can code" so literally by A nonymous Coward (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @06:48PMRe:Don't take "I can code" so literally by Petrushka (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @10:40PMRe:Warning: rant rebuttal by chris_sawtell (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @07:07PMRe:Warning: rant rebuttal by NormalVisual (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:05PMIf it's important enough hire an expert by dbIII (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @08:30PMOh Come On... by linuxpyro (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @08:34PMRe:Warning: rant approaching at high speeds by ghislain_leblanc (Score:1) Friday October 14, @12:23AM4 replies beneath your current threshold. Studio to Go by fervent software. (Score:4, Informative) by a whoabot (706122) <peter.hurst@mail.mcgill.ca> on Thursday October 13, @05:32PM (#13785554) fervent software [ferventsoftware.com]Offers a Linux distribution based on Debian designed for audio work.http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/ [stanford.edu]Offers packages to be installed over Fedora for audio. [ Reply to ThisRe:Studio to Go by fervent software. by i_should_be_working (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @05:57PMRe:Studio to Go by fervent software. by Sir_Stinksalot (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @06:06PMRe:Studio to Go by fervent software. by CowboyBob500 (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @08:01PM Superior? (Score:3, Insightful) by TheRealSlimShady (253441) on Thursday October 13, @05:33PM (#13785559) The author talks a bit about why Linux is a superior platform for this kind of work: 'FOSS software is, almost by definition, a work in process. If Ardour doesn't have a feature I need, I can code it myself It's only superior if you have the ability to code the feature you need. There's a huge assumption there that someone who is skilled at using a DAW is even inclined to code new features for an application. Personally speaking, I lack the skills to approach that, so a superior platform is one that lets me do what I want without having to code the feature. That's not to discount the value of being able to do that, but really, most modern DAW's are extensible in some way or another (be it via VST, or some API). Having said that, Audacity rocks! [ Reply to ThisRe:Superior? by HermanAB (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @06:10PMRe:Superior? by Da_Biz (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @08:35PMRe:Superior? by HermanAB (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @10:45PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. musicians don't want to code (Score:1, Insightful) by know1 (854868) on Thursday October 13, @05:33PM (#13785564) look, i love open source software as much as the next man, and it's price really goes with my poor musician ethic, but to be honest, as the man said it's a work in progress. Configuring a number of audio programs to run togehter, such as a drum machine and a synth or sampler, through jack and rosegarden is a royal pain in the arse.And musicians don't want to code new bits to their software, they just want it to work. so for now i'll still keep that windows box that doesn't go anywhere near the net....gotta love reason and acid pro...and keep this freebsd box for the net [ Reply to This Mid level editing, yes (Score:4, Insightful) by dada21 (163177) * <{dada} {at} {dnginc.com}> on Thursday October 13, @05:34PM (#13785573) My brother owns a recording studio, and Linux wouldn't compete in that arena. For a home studio, these apps + a SB Audigy are fine, but no talented band, producer, editor or mastering engineer will look twice. The midlevel sound cards don't approach the quality and power of the high end (even rotools HD) vehicles.For me, I want to see Linux drivers adapted for the high end hardware. Windows isn't an issue as most high end studio apps offload the processing to the hardware. The software is just a window to what the hardware is doing in the recording.If you're just mixing tracks for a garage demo, this software looks great. I paid a fortune 3 years ago for Win32 software that didn't approach this level. I see great things ahead as hardware gets better.For now, though, the SB cards don't offer the best input quality. I can tell the difference in noise floor, transparency, and soundprint signature. When I've listened to demos, I can pinpoint quality gear versus prosumer gear.In the end though, a 4track tape is enough if you have talent. Most bands don't. [ Reply to This Re:Mid level editing, yes (Score:5, Insightful) by paulbd (118132) on Thursday October 13, @05:46PM (#13785706) (http://equalarea.com/paul) Unfortunately you don't really know what you're talking about. Or maybe fortunately.RME Hammerfall and HDSP series (26 channels), M-Audio Delta 1010 (10/12 channels), AudioScience (8 channels) and at least 4 others fully and well supported on Linux are at least equal to the quality of ProTools HD. In fact are generally up with the best you can buy (for all digital interfaces, quality is most defined by your A/D + D/A converters, which have nothing to do with what you install in the computer. They cost significantly less than PT HD hardware. I leave it up to you to figure out why that is.Linux does have a gaping hole right now with Fireware-based external audio interfaces, which is soon to be filled in by the FreeBob project. Linux also cannot support h/w from several manufacturers who refuse to provide information required for drivers (MOTU is a particularly blatant example). Note that you cannot use your PT h/w with non-PT software, at least until very recently and even then only on OS X with particular caveats. Wanna take another guess at why it costs so much?Disclaimer: author of Ardour, the RME Hammerfall & HSP drivers, and an RME reseller [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Mid level editing, yes by morgan_greywolf (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @05:54PMRe:Mid level editing, yes by dada21 (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @06:30PMRe:Mid level editing, yes by Overly Critical Guy (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @06:42PM Re:Mid level editing, yes (Score:5, Insightful) by paulbd (118132) on Thursday October 13, @06:55PM (#13786330) (http://equalarea.com/paul) The same PT HD setup that crashed for Maria Carey before she sang in the superbowl, so they had to transfer the stuff onto a RADAR system (with their own proprietary audio interfaces that sound better than almost anything) ?Or the same PT HD setup that can't touch apogee converters with a 10 foot pole? Or the same PT HD setup that most reviewers don't think is actually that much better than a mid-level A/D-D/A setup?Oh, and is this same PT HD that is marketed to waste 2 times the disk space without a single verifiable double blind test showing 192kHz SR's to be detectably different from 96kHz?Yeah, probably the same PT HD setup that you paid US$10-20,000 for, to get some overpriced DSP power that a dual opteron can walk over in its sleep?That must be the one. Now I know why it costs so much.The "prosumer" cards (coupled with appropriate A/D-D/A converters, of course) that you dismiss with a wave match or exceed the quality and specifications in use in any top end studio worldwide as of 5 years ago; they match what almost all but the most capital-rich studios have today. Stop being such a junkie for Digi's marketing BS, and do some research. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Mid level editing, yes by Overly Critical Guy (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @07:03PM Re:Mid level editing, yes (Score:4, Informative) by paulbd (118132) on Thursday October 13, @07:21PM (#13786529) (http://equalarea.com/paul) What do Apogee converters have to do with the prosumer cards that were listed?You plug them into those cards. Digital data moves between them. The sound is phenomenal (mostly because95% of audio quality issues arise from the sample clock and related issues, and apogee have probably thebest clock in the business.Oh...okay, I'll believe what "most reviewers" say. :) Let me know when you name them.i never saw a single review of HD that was really glowing about the sound quality unless it was clearly just pulling from the PR. people like it, but nobody in Mix, EQ, TapeOP or SoundOnSound thought it was that compelling, at either 96 or 192 kHz, especially when compared to other systems at the same SR.> Yeah, probably the same PT HD setup that you paid US$10-20,000 for, to get some overpriced DSP power that a dual opteron can walk over in its sleep?Haha. Try recording 80 simultaneous live tracks as someone else posted about. Your dual opteron will never "walk over in its sleep" hardware-based DSP. Or do you play your 3D games entirely on CPU? No, you use a dedicated 3D card.One of our beta testers regularly records 32 tracks live on a small laptop, and runs sessions with 80 tracks. People have used Ardour to record 100 tracks simultaneously onto a RAID5. Simultaneous track count for recording is disk-io limited, not DSP related. For playback, it obviously depends on the FX level, but see below for a link to my take on this.Pro Tools doesn't even have a "freeze track" feature. It doesn't need one, like the other DAWs do. DSP is processed off the CPU so you can keep working without having to stop what you're doing and keep your computer from coughing blood when you're pushing Ivory, Rebirth, BFD, Ozone, etc.My take on DSP vs. native [ardour.org].I love how anyone who points out that cheesy little prosumer products don't compare with the high-end stuff are suddenly "junkies" or "shills," which tells me you don't know how to argue in a debate. Ended with the classic "Do some research." Why don't you offer me some research? You're the one claiming I'm wrong.If all those cards have really exceeded and matched today's top studios, nobody would be using Pro Tools as the industry standard. You just can't beat Pro Tools, and it's a standard for a reason...get over it.I never called you a junkie or a shill, and I actually regret the tone this has taken on. But seriously, PT h/w is nothing particularly special, and everyone I've spoken too who knows anything about their technology agrees. In fact I find it interesting that I've never met anyone who actually likes PT at all, even though I've met many people who use it. PT's h/w is acceptable, but supports the profit margins digidesign needs, not what smaller studios and other organizations should be paying. Their s/w's audio capabilities have always been excellent, the MIDI is so-so and getting better, but there is very little in PT that isn't done better by someone else (problem is, its always different other systems). Studios that I know who care about quality sound use apogee converters and skip the PT h/w for that functionality entirely. Studios who care about modularity, flexibility and lack of vendor lock in certainly don't go the PT route, they use Nuendo, Sonar or others that can be used with various h/w. I've not heard any of them complaining that their stuff is worse quality than PT, in fact, I've heard the opposite. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Mid level editing, yes by paulbd (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @11:12PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Mid level editing, yes by paulbd (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @07:39PMerrrrrm.... by andyr0ck (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @08:17PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Mid level editing, yes by Overly Critical Guy (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @06:57PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Mid level editing, yes by pitc (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @06:43PMRe:Mid level editing, yes by tigeba (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @06:58PMRe:Mid level editing, yes by slashdotnickname (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @05:48PMRe:Mid level editing, yes by btobin (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @06:20PMRe:Mid level editing, yes by rapidweather (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @07:09PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Mackie Tracktion Ported To Linux (Score:2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13, @05:35PM (#13785588) Traction2 [mackie.com] is built using JUCE [rawmaterialsoftware.com]. JUCE is an all-encompassing C++ class library for developing cross-platform applications. Both of which were built by Jules of Raw Material Software [rawmaterialsoftware.com]. On April, 25th 2005 JUCE was released with Linux support.There is talk that this powerful, unique, and user-friendly audio application could be ported to Linux. If anyone else wants to support such an idea, e-mail Mackie or see this thread [kvraudio.com] on KVR. [ Reply to ThisRe:Mackie Tracktion Ported To Linux by paulbd (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @05:55PMRe:Mackie Tracktion Ported To Linux by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @06:03PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Arbour schmarbour.... (Score:5, Funny) by GillBates0 (664202) on Thursday October 13, @05:36PM (#13785595) (http://slashdot.org/~GillBates0 | Last Journal: Wednesday August 03, @01:06PM) great read for anyone trying to find new ways to flex that Linux muscle.Real men flex their muscles by editing raw sound:% cat /dev/audio > /im_the_man/raw.snd% hexedit /im_the_man/raw.snd [ Reply to ThisRe:Arbour schmarbour.... by thammoud (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @05:41PM FOSS!=Linux (Score:3, Interesting) by amliebsch (724858) on Thursday October 13, @05:36PM (#13785601) (Last Journal: Sunday June 26, @05:07PM) Is there some reason why FOSS audio tools will not work in Windows? I'm just puzzled, because I don't understand the jump from "here are some great FOSS audio tools" to "this is why Linux>Windows." I used FOSS on Windows all the time; it it was coded well it works perfectly fine. Or are these FOSS-tools platform-dependent on some specific distro of Linux? [ Reply to ThisRe:FOSS!=Linux by thesnarky1 (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @06:40PMRe:FOSS!=Linux by Sycraft-fu (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @07:34PMRe:FOSS!=Linux by s4m7 (Score:3) Thursday October 13, @07:36PMRe:FOSS!=Linux by prockcore (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @09:09PM Audaity (Score:2, Interesting) by Mistshadow2k4 (748958) on Thursday October 13, @05:42PM (#13785658) (Last Journal: Thursday October 13, @03:14AM) There is a Windows version too. If you think you're not into music editing, well, ever get an mp3 that was just too low in volume? Audacity can easily fix that - amplify, under the effect menu. Not suprisingly, Audacity is also open source. Not a big download either, but you will need to get the LAME codec to import/export mp3s. There's a link on the Audacity page to the codec and it tells you how to load it into the program. Just do a search; the Audacity home page should be enar the top.Not to get into the giant pissing match here, but music sounds better on Linux (at least with classic rock and old blues). It's got more clarity. Windows palying music seems to have a little muffling effect by comaprison. You might be able to adjust the settings somewhere in Windows to sound that good, but I've never found out how. If you know, please post it here or post a link. [ Reply to This Not exactly. (Score:2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13, @05:43PM (#13785670) I don't know about the author of this article, but I am certainly NOT an audio engineer, so I could not "code it myself". In fact, most end users probably aren't even developers. And even if you are a developer, you will have to spend a good deal of time getting intimate with the architecture and framework of the application. Sure, you can hire somebody to code something up for you, but that's not the same as doing it yourself. If you're going to pay somebody to change something, why not request a feature from the author and give him a "donation" in return?On the other hand, many audio editing tools have some kind of relatively simple, well-defined plugin architecture, so if you have the skills it is quite possible to write your own plugin (or modify someone else's). Even many closed source solutions have an open plugin architecture, so I don't really see the necessity of having the main application open (though it doesn't hurt). So, in essence, I don't really how Linux is a "superior platform" for audio editing. Yes, it encourages open source software, but a lot of the software is available for Windows (i.e. Audacity, but it doesn't look like the other two have been ported).The platform shouldn't matter; it's the applications, stupid! Once again, use the right tool for the job. If Audacity on Linux works for you, fine. If CoolEdit on Windows works for you, fine. If something else on another platform gets the job done, more power to you. [ Reply to ThisIt's who you pay to code it by matt_tucents (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @08:01PM1 reply