[Ardour-Dev] Need a 32 bit Ardour (with VSTs) on an x86_64 linux system
torbenh at gmx.de
torbenh at gmx.de
Sun Nov 30 21:58:10 PST 2008
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 06:52:54PM -0500, Mike Mazarick wrote:
> Terrific! I got a reply from the 'master wizard' himself!!
> Paul Davis wrote:
> > Hah. For 6 months, I'm at the TU in berlin. The TU has the biggest WFS
> > system in the world (for now). 40 sources, 2700 speakers, powered by 16
> > computers, playback system = Ardour + JACK.
> The TU in Berlin is definitely the 'mothership' of what WFS is supposed to be. Feel free to comment on whether the "stereo/5.1 on steroids" is really worth it or not. I'm guessing it is, but it's really only a guess. It's really ironic that a dude like me who only plays sax and Hammond organ with a mono PA for live gigs is working on a WFS system. Maybe I've 'gone Disco/Electronica' in my senile old age.
> > no windows VST's in sight :)
> If I had any budget, I would prefer to do this the 'right' way instead of the 'quick/free kludge' way. However, I do like the basic underlying idea of untrained people (musicians) hooking up software components as a tool to produce something new for them.
i dont understand why you need budget to get this working ?
the release it there. works in realtime. should even support your 2D
array (if you already built it)
you just need to write an xml file describing speaker positions.
its a bit of a PITA to setup. not sure how good the documentation is
now. i have been out of the project for some time.
but just ask on the swonder-mailing list, if you have question.
you will get help for sure.
but compared to building a 32bit ardour on a 64bit system, this
is a joke.
> VSTs may be a suitable path that 'mere mortals' can pursue, because there are so many of them.
> I'm always interested in an easier/better way, but I haven't heard what it is yet. I basically just need a way to programmically delay each source 'x' samples with a different 'x' for each output channel. I may want to throw in a 'shift' ('low rent' multiply) for each source if it becomes necessary. There are probably tools/techniques that I simply haven't been exposed to that would do the job. It doesn't have to be 'real time' (at least in the first pass) to create the sound from an Ardour session, but should play back 32/64 separate channels in real time once all the arithmetic is done.
> > in addition, one of linux audio's hard core geniuses and host of next
> > years LA Conference, also works on a fairly big WFS system in which
> > ardour & JACK are key components, again with no VST.
> You must mean Torben Hohn. He's very cool.
no... he means Fons.
> There is one small point about the 'tone' in your few words:
> > (note: installation means
> > something built and installed somewhere other than a research lab or home experiment).
> There is no reason that the sound of a home WFS system should be any lower in sound quality than a complete professional WFS installation.
i dont hear a tone there. it basically means we dont know about
reasearch labs and home experiments. but we know about most
commercial wfs providers, and universities. and all of them
use jack and linux.
this is mainly because linux is more stable, and these system tend to
run 24/7 and are not conncted to displays. windows is a PITA in these
> Ten Hammond organs don't sound 10 times better than one. Maybe Joey DeFranceso is 10 times better than me, but comparing the 'big' to the 'home' WFS system should be more like comparing Joey DeFrancesco to Dr. Lonnie Smith (two great Hammond players).
being a techno head, i must state that 10 subwoofers sound better than
More information about the Ardour-Dev