Anyone know about a virtual hard disk recorder?

[Snarl 12/8]

I think I'm between a rock and a hard place.

The way I read the Visual c++ studio licence from microsoft it says I can't use it to develop software for other platforms or for Free Open Source delivery, but the libraries I'm thinking about using insist that the product be open source. Anyone know another IDE/Compiler that's good? Is not using the M$ thingy going to make .net integration impossible?

[The Scum]

Can you post a link to the license?

The other alternative is GNU/GCC, which probably precludes .net usage.

The "other platforms" part is sensible - MSVC is for Windows only. But the FOSS limitation doesn't make immediate sense.

It sounds like the kids in the opposite ends of the sandbox aren't playing nicely together.

[Snarl 12/8]

I got to the license via the installer. Don't want to go back through to post it.

The "other platforms" part is sensible - MSVC is for Windows only. But the FOSS limitation doesn't make immediate sense.
.

To me it's the opposite. I can understand them not wanting to bother checking their compiler on Linux, but why restrict the market for the products people develop with your tool? MS is on the record as saying FOSS is the devil though.

It sounds like the kids in the opposite ends of the sandbox aren't playing nicely together.

This is the real issue.

I'm trying Ultimate++ as an IDE (might try Eclipse since I already use it for PHP/jQuery work) and gcc as the compiler. From what I think I understand, that, and the libraries I'm using might just make this thing cross-platform without a whole lot of fucking around. Or is that just wishful thinking?

[Gentleman Jim]

the minute somebody builds it, there will be a message board devoted to it where everybody bitches "why won't it let me edit? why can't I use my VST plugs?" etc...

lol!!!!!!

+1.

I don't do a ton of music recording/editing/mixing for others, but one of my 'rules' is that I don't quantize, beat slice, micro-edit, tune, or do any of the other evil, evil things that other DAW users apparently feel compelled to do. I do mostly live location recording and then mix. No overdubs - not even vocals. in the few instances where I have recorded people in my 'studio', I just ask them to do another take when there's a mistake. I swear, I may have punched in a dozen times in 5 years. I often say that I use about 3% of what Logic can do. But that's enough for me. If you want to sound like you're recording a song for the Glee soundtrack, I'm not your guy.

Know what else? I think I've gone over 24 tracks about 10% of the time. It's never been a big problem. Maybe it's because I'm on bad terms with my local symphonic orchestra, or because when The Polyphonic Spree came over to record in my basement I made fun of their robes. Whatever... I doubt Minor Threat ever went past 16 tracks, so why should I have to?

So you really can use a full-featured DAW like a glorified 8 track, I promise. It's in your power to say NO to the devil sitting on your shoulder, telling you to cut "just one more" vocal track so you can comp something useful together out of 11 pieces of garbage. You really don't have to copy/paste the guitar track from the first chorus onto the other 3 choruses - you can demand that the part be played each time. For real.

[Snarl 12/8]

Jim, you're making assumptions. I already record that way. I hardly ever go over 16 tracks. I don't know how to punch in. I either edit it a tiny bit (editing freaks me out, I'm not morally opposed, just not skilled, it feels like breaking something in order to fix it), leave it, or rerecord it.

What I want is a tool that reflects how I actually work, not something where I have to ignore 99% of what's there.

It'd be like if you had a hammer that had an 8 sided head on it, but you only really ever used one side of it. People would say, "Just ignore the other 7 heads. What's the matter don't you have any willpower." And you'd be like "I can't fucking believe they don't sell a one sided hammer any more. Those other 7 heads are always getting in my way. I'm sick of fucking looking at them as the thing goes up and down all day long. You know what? I think that stupid rock over there would be more satisfying to use than this thing. I'm just going to file it down a bit on the sides. I'm just a hobby carpenter anyway, no one's gonna laugh at my tool and I might as well get some satisfaction out of the process rather than just the end result. Maybe I'll learn something about tool making or some other aspect of my craft in the process."

[Gentleman Jim]

You're correct, Carl, I am making assumptions. But the assumptions I'm making are that it's a lot easier to figure out how to customize an existing DAW enough to make you happy than it is to write a whole new program. I could be wrong.

I'm also assuming that nobody is going to go through the bother of making your virtual HDR program for you because there isn't enough of a market for it.

There's an Alesis HD24 on eBay right now with a Buy it Now price of $750.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Alesis-HD24-24-Trac ... 3a65ef1e1b

I'm further assuming that you would spend less time earning $750 and buying one of these than it would take you to learn a programming language or two to write a new program from the ground up.

Lastly, I'm assuming that you won't heed my advice. It's cool.

[KoffeeKommando]

Only problem with hardware recorders is eventual failure. They are made of circuit boards and therefore will eventually fail like any other cheaply made electronic device.

The appeal of a HDR program for me would be it's use of COTS components.
Common Off The Shelf hardware is everywhere these days, you're typing on it right now. Firewire and USB audio interfaces likewise.


Like I said, we skipped a step here. An iZ RADAR unit is this concept personified but made proprietary, rather than "wide open".

I think it's great we are talking about it. There may not be a "market" for it...YET. But now the "thought" of this virtual HDR is "out there". Someone will take it and run with it. All the people turned off by the DAW paradigm will flock to it. So it may just create its own market niche. Choice is always good.

Where would we be if we saw Windows and OSX and said "Linux on the desktop? Whadda ya need that for?"

[jhharvest]

Where would we be if we saw Windows and OSX and said "Linux on the desktop? Whadda ya need that for?"

Well, I was on Linux around when kernel 1 was coming out which was back when there was no Os X but just plain old Mac OS. BSD was difficult to compile. BeOS promised a lot but didn't really take up. Linux was really that easy to use, cheap *nix in your home. Then it really made sense.

These days it's that cheap, occasionally annoying *nix at the office. But imagine if someone did an "Apple compatible" like all those "IBM compatibles" were back in the day? I guess that's Hackintosh in a way. But instead do it commercially? Those guys would make a killing (although given the change in IP law they'd get sued to Mars and back for even trying). Maybe the Chinese cloners will come to the rescue here. Maybe they've already got something like that knocking about on the streets of Taipei.

[KoffeeKommando]

BeOS was really cool for it's time. It ran FAST on even crappy hardware.

The designers said NO to any security features AT ALL. On purpose. This doomed them pretty much. Oh well, stuff comes and goes. Evolutionary steps.

Now, going back to the original topic, why don't we "market" the Virtual HDR idea as RETRO. Then all the cool kids will want it.

Future Retro even!

"The Virtual HDR, so ahead of its time we had to wait till the future to create it!"


capture_large by Reality Based Engineering, on Flickr

[jhharvest]

Hey, was Ecasound mentioned already? Implementing a GUI to this could be a pretty easy route.

[KoffeeKommando]

Wow, getting hotter....

Here is a close project based on it. UGLY ass interface! But the raw idea is there:
http://ecmdr.infogami.com/


Only trouble is FFADO Linux Firewire drivers. They are so far from having good support of hardware it's not funny. A few good interface companies have opened up drivers though.

This is why a Windows or OSX peogram would be best. It would support TONS of different interfaces reliably. OSX might be best in this regard because of Core Audio. Hell, I'd even buy a Mac just to run Virtual HDR.

[Snarl 12/8]

Hell, I'd even buy a Mac just to run Virtual HDR.

That would be taking a step back from your Commodity PC stance. But I hear you.

[The Scum]

Carl,

Without seeing the license terms in detail, it's hard to know what they're worried about. It might be that they're trying to shoot down any wishful thinking from someone who builds an app with MS and GPL code, then tries to get MS to release source under the GPL terms (the "building an app with GPL code means the app must be GPL'd" property of GPL). Or any of a dozen other possible versions, depending on who is linking what to whom...

I mainly do embedded development, so I'm all too familiar with "other environments." In general, MSVC won't produce code for an 8051 or ARM7...For the little bit of Win development I ever do, MSVC is the best tool for the job. Their debugger sets the standard. I find Eclipse to be kinda slow, in contrast.

From what I think I understand, that, and the libraries I'm using might just make this thing cross-platform without a whole lot of fucking around. Or is that just wishful thinking?

Probably some form of "write once, debug everywhere."

If you write to use ASIO drivers, you're limited to Win and Mac. If you use ALSA/JACK, you're stuck on the *nixes.

I would venture that moving cross platform while trying to learn to program is a pretty big step. One challenge at a time.

A good survey of existing platforms would be somewhere to start. Hermann Seib's VSTHost has an open source variant, with an ASIO framework in place...just add track arming and smarter file handling.

Weren't a number of old HDR's based on a PC motherboard in a box? Radar, definitely, and I think the Mackies as well.

[KoffeeKommando]

Yes, most HDR's are just a custom PC computer in a box. With custom OS of some sort I would imagine. The Mackie had it's own OS, I'm pretty sure.

Only reason I say OSX is because I've seen audio interfaces work with WAY less trouble. I had an old Tascam Fire One. Very cool little interface, had XP drivers first then Vista after it was discontunued. It worked with ASIO flawlessly but not so good with Windows audio apps. I sold it to a friend that had an older MacBook. We hooked it up and BAM. Worked PERFECT. No clicks or pops in ANY apps, no driver needed. Rock solid. Tascam supplied the "control panel" app only.

That's the ideal all these companies should strive for. Win 7 is great, huge improvement over anything that MS has done. But audio is still "scary" sometimes. It's not a smooth, rock solid experience. My MOTU 828 MK2 even with their "mature" drivers does odd crap and I have to reboot sometimes. It always works rock solid in Cubase though. For as long as you want it to work. Puzzling.

A Virtual HDR would at least remove some variables. Plain audio tracking/capture would take some of the "scary" and frustrating out of the recording process. Cause live tracking is a "real time" situation. Editing is not. DAW editors should never be used "live". They were an outgrowth of MIDI sequencing and editing.

Cakewalk and Cubase were all MIDI at first.

?The Virtual HDR is like the "missing link" in the evolution.

[playinbass]

It's not as small as a laptop by any means, but you might like an AKAI DPS 24.
Since continued, but they pop up for sale every now and then.
Once you figure it out, it's basically like a digital tape machine. Sounds pretty good too!

http://www.akaipro.com/dps24mk2/?tt=5