Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 13:00 +0200, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > I suppose that their marketing department has decided that Linux > Developers/Users don't represent a big enough share of the market to > justify committing more resources to the platform. > > However JACK also runs on the other two main

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Louigi Verona wrote: > Paul, not to derail the conversation, but can you give us a little detail > on what kind of problems happen in scenarios outside of the desktop > environment? I am just curious. > building and installing JACK was

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

Paul, not to derail the conversation, but can you give us a little detail on what kind of problems happen in scenarios outside of the desktop environment? I am just curious. On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Markus Seeber < markus.see...@spectralbird.de> wrote: > On 09/23/2016 05:13 PM, Paul

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On 09/23/2016 05:13 PM, Paul Davis wrote: > The last time I was working with such a person was deeply illustrative: a > small technology company doing audio on raspberry pi and beagle boards. > Using JACK. Having an insanely hard time even getting it work. Even with me > sitting in with them.

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Patrick Shirkey < pshir...@boosthardware.com> wrote: > > > Because we've done a fucking piss-poor job of licensing, packaging and > > promoting technology in ways that make sense to the overwhelming majority > > of developers and users. > > > > If this is correct

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Patrick Shirkey < > pshir...@boosthardware.com> wrote: > >> >> > On 09/22/2016 07:30 PM, Tito Latini wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:16:12AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> > Ableton have now done that, albeit by circumventing the hardest >>

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Patrick Shirkey < pshir...@boosthardware.com> wrote: > > > One can draw reasonable conclusions based on the evidence at hand. > You don't have any evidence other than the absence of evidence. > > > > > How many times is it necessary for someone to explain that

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Patrick Shirkey > > wrote: > >> >> I suppose that their marketing department has decided that Linux >> Developers/Users don't represent a big enough share of the market to >> justify committing more resources to the platform. >> > >

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Paul Davis wrote: > > > There are no fields I know of where open source leads in terms of end-user > visible software applications. > oops. except for web browsers. > ___ Linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > I suppose that their marketing department has decided that Linux > Developers/Users don't represent a big enough share of the market to > justify committing more resources to the platform. > You have no

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Patrick Shirkey < pshir...@boosthardware.com> wrote: > > > On 09/22/2016 07:30 PM, Tito Latini wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:16:12AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > >> [...] > >>> > Ableton have now done that, albeit by circumventing the hardest parts > >>>

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Tito Latini wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:36:17PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Tito Latini > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:49:42PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > > > >

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

"IMO anyone who doesn't know about JACK and claims to be a professional audio developer has dubious credentials." I think this is an unfounded statement. Many professional audio developers work on Windows with ASIO and are both professional and some of them definitely unaware of JACK. "Keep in

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 13:00:08 +0200, Patrick Shirkey wrote: >> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 19:58 +0200, Robin Gareus wrote: >>> That's pretty cool IMHO and I wish more companies would do that! >>> >>> Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it, >>> pushing it out to users,

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 19:58 +0200, Robin Gareus wrote: >> That's pretty cool IMHO and I wish more companies would do that! >> >> Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it, >> pushing it out to users, gaining traction in the industry etc is the >> hard part. > > I agree

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 19:58 +0200, Robin Gareus wrote: > That's pretty cool IMHO and I wish more companies would do that! > > Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it, > pushing it out to users, gaining traction in the industry etc is the > hard part. I agree with this.

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:36:17PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Tito Latini wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:49:42PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > > > The innovation is defining an API and protocol based on 3 concepts: > > > > > >

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

> On 09/22/2016 07:30 PM, Tito Latini wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:16:12AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: >> [...] >>> > Ableton have now done that, albeit by circumventing the hardest parts >>> of >>> > the problem (a tempo map with varying meter and tempo). >> What? >> >> I repeat: that's not

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Tito Latini wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:49:42PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > > The innovation is defining an API and protocol based on 3 concepts: > > > > tempo synchronization > > an integral to get the position with the new bpm

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 07:58:03PM +0200, Robin Gareus wrote: > [...] > Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it, > pushing it out to users, gaining traction in the industry etc is the > hard part. opus-codec is an example of authentic Art (rfc, code, etc) and not

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:49:42PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > The innovation is defining an API and protocol based on 3 concepts: > > tempo synchronization an integral to get the position with the new bpm > beat alignment ask to live coders > phase alignment related to beat

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On 09/22/2016 07:30 PM, Tito Latini wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:16:12AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > [...] >> > Ableton have now done that, albeit by circumventing the hardest parts of >> > the problem (a tempo map with varying meter and tempo). > What? > > I repeat: that's not an

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Tito Latini wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:16:12AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > [...] > > Ableton have now done that, albeit by circumventing the hardest parts of > > the problem (a tempo map with varying meter and tempo). > > What? > >

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:16:12AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: [...] > Ableton have now done that, albeit by circumventing the hardest parts of > the problem (a tempo map with varying meter and tempo). What? I repeat: that's not an innovation. >From Incudine web page [1]: Features [...] *

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > It seems that the lack of interest in adding similar functionality to JACK > has opened up a gap in the "market". > there was no lack of interest, but rather an inability to come up with an abstraction for

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

> On 09/21/2016 11:24 AM, Perry Nguyen wrote: >> >> Though after reading your post to LAD a couple times over it seems like >> there is possibly overlooked but important incongruity between BPM and >> "linear/real-time".. and perhaps that limits the ability of word-clock >> time designators like

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On 09/21/2016 11:24 AM, Perry Nguyen wrote: > > Though after reading your post to LAD a couple times over it seems like > there is possibly overlooked but important incongruity between BPM and > "linear/real-time".. and perhaps that limits the ability of word-clock > time designators like JACK

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On 09/21/2016 12:24 PM, Perry Nguyen wrote: > I am still vaguely under the impression that if a Timebase master client is > Link-capable then any transport-aware client (e.g. most LAU apps today) > would be able to follow any tempo changes described by the master and > therefore automatically have

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

hi, I've posted about Ableton Link a number of times now on LM and LAD but I was never satisfactorily responded to.. Here's my post from LM https://linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php?f=1=14913 here's the same thing I posed on LAD

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Tue, September 20, 2016 17:03, Rui Nuno Capela wrote: > On 09/20/2016 01:25 PM, Robin Gareus wrote: > >> >> Rui already has a working standalone prototype (no timebase support >> yet, but it's a good start). >> > > jftr. there's these posted upstream: > https://github.com/Ableton/link/pull/5 >

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

Thanks Patrick. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On 09/20/2016 04:08 PM, Paul Davis wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Rui Nuno Capela > wrote: > > [... ] > just my 2eur. > > > with real world exchange rates based on expertise and wisdom, i'd say > that's about US$1M's worth of

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

Thanks, Paul and Rui, very interesting info. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Paul Davis wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Rui Nuno Capela wrote: > >> [... ] >> just my 2eur. >> > > with real world exchange rates based on expertise and

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Rui Nuno Capela wrote: > [... ] > just my 2eur. > with real world exchange rates based on expertise and wisdom, i'd say that's about US$1M's worth of insight. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On 09/20/2016 01:25 PM, Robin Gareus wrote: > > Rui already has a working standalone prototype (no timebase support yet, > but it's a good start). > jftr. there's these posted upstream: https://github.com/Ableton/link/pull/5 https://github.com/Ableton/link/pull/6 however, for the time

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > > The people who designedand wrote Link are entirely familiar with JACK (if > > only because I taught them about it). > > > > We know that. So are the people at Google who used JACK as the basic > design

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

> The people who designedand wrote Link are entirely familiar with JACK (if > only because I taught them about it). > We know that. So are the people at Google who used JACK as the basic design reference for their attempt at low latency audio. > I too was a bit disappointed when Link was

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

The people who designedand wrote Link are entirely familiar with JACK (if only because I taught them about it). I too was a bit disappointed when Link was announced (last Novemeber) because it seemed redundant given JACK transport. But once they released the SDK for iOS and later the code for all

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

people still use abelton? geez with NI tractor ns8 I can't imagine or phathom needing a slow antiquated midi based performance piece LOL Ron Stewart On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Robin Gareus wrote: > On 09/20/2016 01:40 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > > >> On 09/20/2016

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

> On 09/20/2016 07:03 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: >> >> Because netjack isn't good enough > > correct. > > jack can have a single timebase master and likewise netjack has a single > net-master. > > Ableton-Link is decentralized: Multiple performers can interact with > each other on an equal level

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On 09/20/2016 07:03 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > Because netjack isn't good enough correct. jack can have a single timebase master and likewise netjack has a single net-master. Ableton-Link is decentralized: Multiple performers can interact with each other on an equal level (no master/slave

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:04:53AM +0200, Robin Gareus wrote: > On 09/19/2016 11:56 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > > >> why? > >> > >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Tito Latini > >> wrote: > >> > >>> What is the content of the network packets ? > >>> > >>> Regardless,

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 07:03:58 +0200, Patrick Shirkey wrote: >Because netjack isn't good enough or cross platform enough or LGPL >enough or adopted enough? Hi, yes, it's not cross platform enough. Audiobus and other iPad apps provide Ableton Link. Jack doesn't run on the iPad anymore, so there

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

> On 09/19/2016 11:56 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: >> >>> why? >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Tito Latini >>> wrote: >>> What is the content of the network packets ? Regardless, I'll ignore software with that technologogy. >>> >> >> The OP seems to

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

On 09/19/2016 11:56 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > >> why? >> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Tito Latini >> wrote: >> >>> What is the content of the network packets ? >>> >>> Regardless, I'll ignore software with that technologogy. >> > > The OP seems to be suggesting

Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

> why? > > On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Tito Latini > wrote: > >> What is the content of the network packets ? >> >> Regardless, I'll ignore software with that technologogy. > The OP seems to be suggesting that whoever has access to the data captured by Ableton Link

Re: [LAD] Ableton Link GPL...

> On 09/15/2016 03:33 PM, Rui Nuno Capela wrote: >> On 09/15/2016 11:58 AM, Daniel Swärd wrote: >>> >>> Now that Ableton Link has been publically released as GPL, does anyone >>> have any ideas/plans to integrate it into your projects? >>> >>> http://ableton.github.io/link/ >> >> i do (qtractor)

Re: [LAD] Ableton Link GPL...

On 09/15/2016 03:33 PM, Rui Nuno Capela wrote: > On 09/15/2016 11:58 AM, Daniel Swärd wrote: >> Hi. >> >> Now that Ableton Link has been publically released as GPL, does anyone >> have any ideas/plans to integrate it into your projects? >> >> http://ableton.github.io/link/ >> > > i do (qtractor) >

Re: [LAD] Ableton Link GPL...

Hi GSequencer is pure C may be doing a C interface to communicate with such applications or devices. cheers, Joël On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Paul Davis wrote: > It will definitely be on a list for Ardour somewhere. Right now my > Ableton-related activities

Re: [LAD] Ableton Link GPL...

It will definitely be on a list for Ardour somewhere. Right now my Ableton-related activities with Ardour relate to fairly deep support of their Push 2 surface rather than Link. It would certainly be nice to see Link support, but not sure what the priority will be. I have another entirely new

Re: [LAD] Ableton Link GPL...

On 09/15/2016 11:58 AM, Daniel Swärd wrote: > Hi. > > Now that Ableton Link has been publically released as GPL, does anyone > have any ideas/plans to integrate it into your projects? > > http://ableton.github.io/link/ > i do (qtractor) cheers -- rncbc aka. Rui Nuno Capela