Linux Multitrack recording software. Which one and why?

Z

zenpeace69

New member
I am getting rid of Microsoft forever. I am setting up a linux platform and want a good multitrack recording program.

What is good and why?

thanks
 
if you find one let me know and i'll set sail with you, but only in a dual-boot configuration so i can do real music work in WinXP, while i play around with linux.
 
Linux and Audio

Hello,
i to have been looking into Linux for audio, but it still has a way to go, in my view. I am using the Turn-Key Linux audio system with Mandrake 8.2, and tho it's allright for up to 4 tracks audio max on my system, and it can be tuned up with a lot of effort, it still is a far cry from what's on the window platform. And no, I am NOT trying to start a war, and no, I DO NOT want to get under the hood of Linux, I am very happy with it on my other computer running WP, internet, and the like. 9 months and not one burp or cough out of it, and it has been running 24/7. If you want to find out more, here are some links to chack out...

http://sound.condorow.net/

http://www.jazzware.com/cgi-bin/Zope.cgi/jazzware/

http://lulu.esm.rochester.edu/kevine/turnkey/

http://ardour.sourceforge.net//

http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/

These last 2 are articals of people who have set up a Linux Audio system, and how it works for them...

http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT5847717353.html

http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT8018846552.html

I hope this helps, and good luck!
 
SORRY!!!!

I did not even think of placing a direct link into the reply! I hope this don't offend anyone, and I will pay closer att. in the future! Again, SORRY ABOUT THAT!
 
It can be done. But it takes time to get used to everything. And yes, I have a dual boot machine in the corner for some things.

First: Linux. You can go with any distribution and then re-work it for audio by patching the kernel and re-compiling OR you can go for the audio focussed distributions like Planet CCRMA, AGNULA.

Second: audio. Lots available, but also some very specialised as well as some only made to solve a single problem. Don't expect the polished apps like CEP, Cubase or Nuendo. Linux is a moving target with work in action. If you go for Ardour, then a weekly re-compile is in order. The weak point right now are the plug-ins (specially their interface).

Biggest problem: hardware/drivers. Not that much of the soundcards that are used over here are supported. So if you want to switch, check out your hardware first.

Good start with links to applications and distributions:

http://linux-sound.org/

Smurf: more than 4 tracks are possible without much effort other than getting your kernel in shape.
 
I feel your pain, but I have to say that I haven't felt that way since I installed XP. AFAIK all the new MS OSes are based on a unix kernel anyhow.
 
Doug H said:
AFAIK all the new MS OSes are based on a unix kernel anyhow.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? I've heard that once, but never read it anywhere. I thought XP was based on NT and Win2000 code. Sure that unix bit isn't mixed up with Os X?

Chris
 
I think osx is actually based on a linux kernel, which is different from a unix kernel, at least in theory. And, no, i'm not sure, it's just what I've been told and understand to be the case. To me it does feel like a different beast than even NT, but that could just be evolution. I thought Win2000 and XP were the same kernel.
 
OS X is based on a Unix kernel (NeXT legacy). Linux is a Unix variation (actually Minix done over). MS is just that: MS. You had NT, that became W2K (NT with the W98 UI and few additions like USB) and then Wme and W2K merged to become XP.

However, some dos commands are very linux like.
 
Havoc said:
OS X is based on a Unix kernel (NeXT legacy). Linux is a Unix variation (actually Minix done over). MS is just that: MS. You had NT, that became W2K (NT with the W98 UI and few additions like USB) and then Wme and W2K merged to become XP.

However, some dos commands are very linux like.
Click to expand...

Also incorrect.

OSX is basically the BSD port of Unix with a nice GUI shell.

All NT based OS's (NT 3.x/4.x,2000 and XP) are very similar to IBM's OS/2 as MS and IBM were working together for a while in the late 80's and early 90's and are largely based on the Unix spec and also borrowed some things from Digital's VMS.
 
hmmm, I thought that w2k and XP were new MS kernels based on a real unix kernel. Now I'm curious to know for sure. Either way, I'm reasonably impressed with XP.
 
Anybody have a link about XP?

I too am reasonably impressed with XP. Head over heals more stable a full fledged than any other MS OS I've ever used.

I also wish Linux apps would catch up. I had linux running in college back when it was 1.0.27 or some such. It has come a loooooooong way, but it still can't handle the high end audio, video, and graphics work that I do. I wish Linux all the support and success it can get, but XP has indeed saved MS operating systems from complete embarassment.

Good luck with the Linux studio.

Take care,
Chris
 
The April edition of Sound On Sound had a nice article on Linux and Music.
It looks very appealing. I have quite a lot of experience with Linux so I'm not too worried about getting it all to work. But so far I'm not sure if at this moment Linux can satisfy musicians who rely on soft synths.
 
Depends on what you call asoft synth. There are plnty of apps out there that allow you to make modular soft synths. Ready made ones are less available.

I think samplers are even rarer than soft synths.

Not really my problem as most I do is recording and editing. So linux is an alternative for me. But Smurf touched something essential: most people do not want to get under the hood of it all.
 
Havoc said:
most people do not want to get under the hood of it all.
Click to expand...
I agree, most people should not bother with Linux unless they get a fully preconfigured machine. Fixing issues can be a real pain.
There have been numerous occasions where I really dig into Linux just to get something like for a scsi cd burner or a network card working.
IMHO: As soon as something has to be compiled manually by the user, it is not user friendly..
 
The trick to linux is to buy a manual, like one of the linux in a nutshell books. I must have spent 2 hours trying to figure out how much free disc space I had left one night (I only run a terminal).
Once you get the hang of how it's setup it's pretty straight forward, but the learning curve can be steep at first. The nice thing is that you can get to the bottom of things if you try.
 
Under the Hood

I have been using Linux off and on since '99, and I can do some things to get down and dirty, but at this point in the game I feel that when I want to record something thats all I want to do. I don't want to have to play with the OS just to record 2 tracks real quick. Now, before I get chewed out, this also goes for windows and BeOS. Both have given me the " where is the.....(fill in the blank.....). I have to say since I moved from Win98 to 2000 a few months ago I have been pretty impressed with the solid performance of the NTFS system in my home studio. Never the less, I feel that Linux is a rock solid base for a studio, and as the number of people grow that would like to use it as a serious recording medium the Linux community will respond, as the have so often in the past. I just can not wait for the first stable release of a Linux distro that is done from the kernal up for multi-track recording.

My hat goes off to this BBS for the info that is shared, and to the Linux community that keeps on keeping on! I have learned so much through this site it is mind boggeling. Thanks folks! And that ends another rant.........
 
Re: Under the Hood

Smurf said:
I just can not wait for the first stable release of a Linux distro that is done from the kernal up for multi-track recording.
Click to expand...

That's happening with the 2.6 kernel, I heard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top