Old 08-02-2019, 03:51 PM   #1
audiojunkie
Human being with feelings
 
audiojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
Default LV2 Native Support Request

So, is it true that Qtractor is the only DAW that supports both native linux VST and LV2 formats internally? I know that Reaper, Ardour/Harrison, Bitwig, Waveform, etc. don't natively support both formats. I sure wish the developers would support LV2 natively for Reaper!! It's a big enough issue to me that I may have to look closer at Qtractor. There just aren't enough Linux native VST apps available, and I don't like having to try to bridge the LV2 plugins with various bridges.

Last edited by audiojunkie; 08-02-2019 at 04:02 PM. Reason: It felt in poor taste to highlight QTractor in a Reaper forum.
audiojunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2019, 03:54 PM   #2
audiojunkie
Human being with feelings
 
audiojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
Default

I just double-checked. Qtractor supports: LADSPA, DSSI, native VSTi, LV2 plug-ins, and also JACK. That's the whole gamut of linux plugins. Personally, I don't care about DSSI, and I don't care as much about LADSPA (old format replaced by LV2), but I do think REAPER should have LV2 support.
audiojunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2019, 03:59 PM   #3
audiojunkie
Human being with feelings
 
audiojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
Default

@Justin, Please! Please can you get LV2 supported natively in Reaper? It really is essential for using FOSS applications. Leaving it out leaves out half of the software, since it is the official Linux audio plugin format. There are so many LV2 programs that I'd like to use, without having to use Carla or a poorly supported LV2 to VST bridge.
audiojunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2019, 03:37 AM   #4
sub26nico
Human being with feelings
 
sub26nico's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: France
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiojunkie View Post
So, is it true that Qtractor is the only DAW that supports both native linux VST and LV2 formats internally? I know that Reaper, Ardour/Harrison, Bitwig, Waveform, etc. don't natively support both formats. I sure wish the developers would support LV2 natively for Reaper!! It's a big enough issue to me that I may have to look closer at Qtractor. There just aren't enough Linux native VST apps available, and I don't like having to try to bridge the LV2 plugins with various bridges.
Ardour (and Mixbus) supports lv2,ladspa and native linux vst(2).
For Reaper, you can use lv2 with Carla-VST.
__________________
http://librazik.tuxfamily.org/
sub26nico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2019, 08:06 AM   #5
audiojunkie
Human being with feelings
 
audiojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
Default

Yes, I've noticed that this is the general attitude across the entire industry and among almost all of the developers I've spoke to. LV2 is basically a secondary citizen to native VST. So, that means I need to try to convince LV2 developers that they need to release native VST versions of their software in addition to their LV2 versions. It's nice to see that we have at least one popular plugin format that is popularly supported (without bridges), but I wish plugin developers would, in turn, agree. I'm glad to see that LinVST is actively supported and developed and that the developer frequents this forum. :-)
audiojunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2019, 08:09 AM   #6
audiojunkie
Human being with feelings
 
audiojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sub26nico View Post
Ardour (and Mixbus) supports lv2,ladspa and native linux vst(2).
For Reaper, you can use lv2 with Carla-VST.
Doesn't Ardour need to be compiled manually to get both lv2 and native linux VSTs?
audiojunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2019, 08:16 AM   #7
Lokasenna
Human being with feelings
 
Lokasenna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,267
Default

FWIW, from AskJF.com:
Quote:
July 26 2018 - Perhaps we need to support LV2, huge ugly hacks that it will require aside (complete destroy/create required on sample rate change, among other issues)...
Quote:
April 8 2019 - It is contemplated
Lokasenna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2019, 08:29 AM   #8
sub26nico
Human being with feelings
 
sub26nico's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: France
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiojunkie View Post
Yes, I've noticed that this is the general attitude across the entire industry and among almost all of the developers I've spoke to. LV2 is basically a secondary citizen to native VST. So, that means I need to try to convince LV2 developers that they need to release native VST versions of their software in addition to their LV2 versions. It's nice to see that we have at least one popular plugin format that is popularly supported (without bridges), but I wish plugin developers would, in turn, agree. I'm glad to see that LinVST is actively supported and developed and that the developer frequents this forum. :-)
Some devs uses frameworks allowing builds of lv2 and vst(2). But VST2 is dead and VST3 seems to be PITA for lot of devs (at least on GNU/Linux) so lv2 is a good way to go.
__________________
http://librazik.tuxfamily.org/
sub26nico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2019, 08:41 AM   #9
sub26nico
Human being with feelings
 
sub26nico's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: France
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiojunkie View Post
Doesn't Ardour need to be compiled manually to get both lv2 and native linux VSTs?
No, binary from ardour.org and version from my distro support vst out the box.
__________________
http://librazik.tuxfamily.org/
sub26nico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2019, 08:49 AM   #10
cern.th.skei
Human being with feelings
 
cern.th.skei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: trondheim, norway
Posts: 316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sub26nico View Post
But VST2 is dead and VST3 seems to be PITA for lot of devs (at least on GNU/Linux) so lv2 is a good way to go.
not really..
vst3 is actually easier than vst2, in my opinion..
lv2 is a horrible mess i don't want to touch anymore..

https://www.linuxmusicians.com/viewt...p?f=44&t=20294
cern.th.skei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2019, 10:25 AM   #11
audiojunkie
Human being with feelings
 
audiojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sub26nico View Post
Some devs uses frameworks allowing builds of lv2 and vst(2). But VST2 is dead and VST3 seems to be PITA for lot of devs (at least on GNU/Linux) so lv2 is a good way to go.
It is a good way to go only "IF" it is supported. Right now, you won't find it on Reaper. You won't find it on Waveform. You won't find it on Bitwig. You can only access it by using time and resource using hacks, and some of those hacks are poorly documented or poorly supported. Linux has "TWO" existing standards--one is an open source supported standard, and the other is a commercial standard. With the way Linux and the music industry works, both standards really should be supported internally within the host. There's really no good argument to the contrary.
audiojunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2019, 10:28 AM   #12
audiojunkie
Human being with feelings
 
audiojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sub26nico View Post
No, binary from ardour.org and version from my distro support vst out the box.
Interesting! That's changed then since I last used Ardour. But I don't want to use Ardour, I want to use REAPER!! (As do all of us here, I think) :-)

Last edited by audiojunkie; 08-05-2019 at 10:30 AM. Reason: Clarification
audiojunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2019, 10:40 AM   #13
sub26nico
Human being with feelings
 
sub26nico's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: France
Posts: 157
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiojunkie View Post
It is a good way to go only "IF" it is supported. Right now, you won't find it on Reaper. You won't find it on Waveform. You won't find it on Bitwig. You can only access it by using time and resource using hacks, and some of those hacks are poorly documented or poorly supported. Linux has "TWO" existing standards--one is an open source supported standard, and the other is a commercial standard. With the way Linux and the music industry works, both standards really should be supported internally within the host. There's really no good argument to the contrary.
Agree with that.
__________________
http://librazik.tuxfamily.org/
sub26nico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 12:30 AM   #14
mike@overtonedsp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 38
Default

So, from a plug-in developer point of view - one thing most plug-in developers don't really like is yet another plug-in format (even something with the 'weight' of VST3 has struggled to get adopted).
When a new standard is introduced, it normally means no-one will buy your existing range any more unless you support the new format (even if they don't need it) because, future-proofing. So you have maybe six months of work converting (and testing) everything to a new format which, by definition no-one is using and there is very little support for. You will also be expected to make these new versions available for free for existing users. So its six months or more of unpaid work, to get back to where you started. The only difference being you now have an exponentially growing complexity of testing and maintenance. Possibly the only exception is if the plug-in format brings some essential new capability.
LV2 is not a new format, but as far as I can tell (and I have developed LV2 plug-ins in the past) it does not add anything that you can't do already - at a technical level. It does seem more compatible with open-source licenses than e.g. VST2, but so is VST3.
LV2 is extensible - but so is VST3 (and VST2 if you want to). There's nothing stopping the addition of custom features to VST2 or VST3 (indeed some already exist), if the host supports them (same requirement with LV2).
LV2 often cites its ability to discover plug-ins without loading them as an advantage - but in reality, this simply means that I get a list of LV2 plug-ins in my DAW, all of which seem ok. But, when I load the bad one it will still crash the host, only this time it will do it when I'm in the middle of a session, rather than e.g. having been safely blacklisted at scanning / startup.
LV2 exists to address some very Linux-specific issues. As a plug-in developer, I'm not convinced it brings anything of significant extra advantage at the present time.

Last edited by mike@overtonedsp; 08-06-2019 at 12:57 AM.
mike@overtonedsp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 06:54 AM   #15
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,950
Default

I'd prefer to see more plugin makers go VST for Linux. The LV2 plugins I've seen so far seemed OK but only one or two of them would entice me to download and try if REAPER supported them, and I do have Carla but never pursued any LV2 plugs so far.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 08:04 AM   #16
audiojunkie
Human being with feelings
 
audiojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike@overtonedsp View Post
So, from a plug-in developer point of view - one thing most plug-in developers don't really like is yet another plug-in format (even something with the 'weight' of VST3 has struggled to get adopted).
When a new standard is introduced, it normally means no-one will buy your existing range any more unless you support the new format (even if they don't need it) because, future-proofing. So you have maybe six months of work converting (and testing) everything to a new format which, by definition no-one is using and there is very little support for. You will also be expected to make these new versions available for free for existing users. So its six months or more of unpaid work, to get back to where you started. The only difference being you now have an exponentially growing complexity of testing and maintenance. Possibly the only exception is if the plug-in format brings some essential new capability.
LV2 is not a new format, but as far as I can tell (and I have developed LV2 plug-ins in the past) it does not add anything that you can't do already - at a technical level. It does seem more compatible with open-source licenses than e.g. VST2, but so is VST3.
LV2 is extensible - but so is VST3 (and VST2 if you want to). There's nothing stopping the addition of custom features to VST2 or VST3 (indeed some already exist), if the host supports them (same requirement with LV2).
LV2 often cites its ability to discover plug-ins without loading them as an advantage - but in reality, this simply means that I get a list of LV2 plug-ins in my DAW, all of which seem ok. But, when I load the bad one it will still crash the host, only this time it will do it when I'm in the middle of a session, rather than e.g. having been safely blacklisted at scanning / startup.
LV2 exists to address some very Linux-specific issues. As a plug-in developer, I'm not convinced it brings anything of significant extra advantage at the present time.
This makes sense from a plug-in developer's point of view. I'm not sure from a host developer's point of view or a consumer's point of view.
audiojunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 08:24 AM   #17
audiojunkie
Human being with feelings
 
audiojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
I'd prefer to see more plugin makers go VST for Linux. The LV2 plugins I've seen so far seemed OK but only one or two of them would entice me to download and try if REAPER supported them, and I do have Carla but never pursued any LV2 plugs so far.
Personally, I'd love to see that too. The main reason, is that developers could develop for all three platforms at the same time for the same plugin, and there are countless numbers of plugin developers for the other platforms. The fact remains though, that variety and abundance of native plugins for Linux is minuscule compared to Microsoft and Apple. That makes us different.

Linux users get their plugins primarily from three sources: Native VSTs, LV2s, and Windows VSTs (used with Wine and a wrapper). Until there is a dominant Linux native plug-in standard with a sufficient abundance and variety (comparable to Windows and Mac), these three sources will likely not change. Maybe the writing is on the wall and LV2 will lose out to native VST? I'm not sure. I just know that I want more plugins than are currently available, and I hate having to use hacks to get them.
audiojunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 08:37 AM   #18
Lokasenna
Human being with feelings
 
Lokasenna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,267
Default

Seems like the simplest solution would be to get more developers to build their VSTs for Linux.
Lokasenna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 09:03 AM   #19
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,668
Default

Chicken / egg. LV2 has been around a long while and used with other Linux DAWs so it has become somewhat of a standard, as much as I hate to use the word. There are plenty of those plugins available and none of them will work in Reaper without using some kind of wrapper. Some people still develop LV2 plugins (I even saw a couple released last week). If they have been developing to that standard it is likely they will stick to it. Reaper isn't necessarily even on their radar. Since Reaper requires a paid license, despite how inexpensive it is, well you know how it is with FLOSS people. I've even noticed discussions where some people are annoyed that Steinberg is even attached to VST.

I wouldn't expect a developer trying to sell plugins as LV2. However those plugins still exist and they are still being made.
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 09:07 AM   #20
mike@overtonedsp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 38
Default

Quote:
Personally, I'd love to see that too. The main reason, is that developers could develop for all three platforms at the same time for the same plugin, and there are countless numbers of plugin developers for the other platforms...
A long time ago I implemented the initial framework for native Linux VST2 support in Ardour. At the time my reasoning was this:
  • There was a wealth of plug-ins available for other OS, most in VST2 format, and most using the JUCE framework (which could already be used to build Linux versions). This would set the bar quite low for porting existing plug-ins and might encourage developers to port to Linux.
  • LV2 was still a bit experimental at the time and little understood by developers. It seemed less likely that developers who had VSTs on other OS would be persuaded to port to a completely different standard (which was unsupported on other OS) and was still evolving.
  • The greater availability of Linux plug-ins for one of the most popular Linux DAWs, at the time, might (I hoped) help greater adoption or at least interest in Linux as an audio platform - possibly more host applications and with it a greater incentive to port plug-ins to Linux etc.
  • No-one else wanted to do it.

I'm not sure to what extent any of this rippled out to other DAWs, developers etc - perhaps not at all - but several years down the line we now have Reaper, Bitwig, Ardour, Tracktion / Waveform, (and probably others I'm not aware of) available for Linux, and a significant number of VSTs available natively for Linux - and DAWs built on Ardour now also have cross-platform support for VST. I'm not sure we could have got there with LV2 alone.

Last edited by mike@overtonedsp; 08-06-2019 at 09:12 AM.
mike@overtonedsp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 09:14 AM   #21
audiojunkie
Human being with feelings
 
audiojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
Chicken / egg. LV2 has been around a long while and used with other Linux DAWs so it has become somewhat of a standard, as much as I hate to use the word. There are plenty of those plugins available and none of them will work in Reaper without using some kind of wrapper. Some people still develop LV2 plugins (I even saw a couple released last week). If they have been developing to that standard it is likely they will stick to it. Reaper isn't necessarily even on their radar. Since Reaper requires a paid license, despite how inexpensive it is, well you know how it is with FLOSS people. I've even noticed discussions where some people are annoyed that Steinberg is even attached to VST.

I wouldn't expect a developer trying to sell plugins as LV2. However those plugins still exist and they are still being made.
You make excellent points!
audiojunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 09:25 AM   #22
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,950
Default

Steinberg's SDK for Linux VST support was released back in March of 2017, so it's not like it's been out there for a real long time.

https://cdm.link/2017/03/steinberg-b...x-good-things/
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 09:32 AM   #23
mike@overtonedsp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 38
Default

Quote:
Steinberg's SDK for Linux VST support
Steinberg's SDK for Linux VST3 support. The SDK for VST2 has always supported Linux at some level (as far as I'm aware). Its just that host applications needed to provide a suitable implementation.

Last edited by mike@overtonedsp; 08-06-2019 at 09:37 AM.
mike@overtonedsp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 09:41 AM   #24
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike@overtonedsp View Post
Steinberg's SDK for Linux VST3 support. The SDK for VST2 has always supported Linux at some level (as far as I'm aware). Its just that host applications needed to provide a suitable implementation.
So now that Steinberg is dropping VST2 support does that mean anything at all, positive or negative for Linux users?
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 09:52 AM   #25
mike@overtonedsp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 38
Default

Quote:
So now that Steinberg is dropping VST2 support does that mean anything at all...
I can't speak for DAW (or other) developers. I guess its not much different to other OS. I'm still providing plug-ins as VST2 on Linux. I have done some experimental Linux VST3 builds and they seem to work.

Last edited by mike@overtonedsp; 08-06-2019 at 10:00 AM.
mike@overtonedsp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 10:08 AM   #26
audiojunkie
Human being with feelings
 
audiojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike@overtonedsp View Post
A long time ago I implemented the initial framework for native Linux VST2 support in Ardour. At the time my reasoning was this:
  • There was a wealth of plug-ins available for other OS, most in VST2 format, and most using the JUCE framework (which could already be used to build Linux versions). This would set the bar quite low for porting existing plug-ins and might encourage developers to port to Linux.
  • LV2 was still a bit experimental at the time and little understood by developers. It seemed less likely that developers who had VSTs on other OS would be persuaded to port to a completely different standard (which was unsupported on other OS) and was still evolving.
  • The greater availability of Linux plug-ins for one of the most popular Linux DAWs, at the time, might (I hoped) help greater adoption or at least interest in Linux as an audio platform - possibly more host applications and with it a greater incentive to port plug-ins to Linux etc.
  • No-one else wanted to do it.

I'm not sure to what extent any of this rippled out to other DAWs, developers etc - perhaps not at all - but several years down the line we now have Reaper, Bitwig, Ardour, Tracktion / Waveform, (and probably others I'm not aware of) available for Linux, and a significant number of VSTs available natively for Linux - and DAWs built on Ardour now also have cross-platform support for VST. I'm not sure we could have got there with LV2 alone.
There is definitely truth to what you say. Native VST is definitely my first choice for plug-ins. The real problem that needs to be remedied is the lack of native plugins. I'm really happy to see a variety of DAW options available for Linux. My current discontentment is having to jump through the various hoops to get an adequate number and variety of tools (plugins). I know that one could argue that we already have an adequate number, but I disagree. It all depends on each user and what works for him or her. Personally, I'd love to have a native version of Kontakt. I don't see that happening for a long, long while (if ever). I'm sure there are others that have particular apps that they would like to have on Linux but can't currently. Each person will be different and have different apps that they want.

I think the only way that will happen will be if we cater to the musician in general, and not the computer tech/user musician. I suspect most people interested in making music don't want to spend time learning how to use linux first. We've got to make the Linux music-making experience as easy as possible, to entice more users. With a larger support base, more developers will be interested. As more developers are interested, the base will continue to grow.

Maybe LV2 isn't the route for that, maybe it's Native VST. But if it is, we've got to entice more developers to develop for Linux (as was mentioned above), and many, many more users to choose Linux over Microsoft or Apple. :-) How do we do that?

I think there are several ways that will help, but there are only some of those ways that we have any control over. Here are some ideas over all that could entice users:

-- Make the entire music-making experience (including tool availability) as easy as, or easier than Microsoft and Apple for the musician

-- Make cross-platform development tools as easy as setting a switch to cross compile binaries

-- Make documentation abundant, well written, and up-to-date

-- Be a welcoming and helpful community


I think as far as the Reaper goes, there is a great welcoming and helpful community. In fact, there are several communities that are great. I think we are all doing well in that area.

Documentation (including Linux in general), is a total and complete mixed bag. Occasional parts are documented very well and kept current. A lot of documentation hasn't been updated since the 2.x kernel days, and it no longer reflects Linux or the current state. A lot of things have no documentation at all. I think that we as a community can definitely assist in this area through constantly updating and maintaining well written and up-to-date documentation. There are noble efforts going on amongst even our very community, and I applaud the Herculean efforts that have been made. But I think we all have a responsibility (if we have the knowledge and understanding) to help those who know less than us, through documentation, if we really want things to succeed.

As far as development goes, that is a deep dark realm where only the wizards, warlocks and magical geniuses reside, I could never presume to imagine how hard it must be to write all of these tools! All of you developers have my absolute respect!! I VERY SERIOUSLY doubt that it is even close to being as easy to cross compile the musical tools we need by just setting a switch in the software. It's probably impossible, but it is a dream worth wishing for, and hopefully as tools improve, it will become little by little easier to accomplish the cross compilation of linux binaries.

As far as making the entire music-making experience (including tool availability) as easy as, or easier than Microsoft and Apple for the musician--I think that is a goal that everyone should work toward, and I don't think it will ever be any one thing. This goal will be composed of countless little things--things that every one of use can do to help improve the experience of others. Be creative. :-)

Overall, this entire thread has me realizing that the Linux music-making experience is much more complicated than just the adding of LV2 to the host (although it may still be worth the effort for the developer to support). It has opened questions to me that I don't know the answers to--What is the best plugin format for Linux plug-in development? (VST or LV2) Should plugin developers write plugins for both standards? Should hosts support all of the standards? Etc. etc. etc.

I don't know the answers to any of this.

The only thing I know is that I want to use Linux and I want to have an experience as good or better than Microsoft or Apple users someday. I want to help in whatever way I can. :-)



--

Last edited by audiojunkie; 08-06-2019 at 10:18 AM. Reason: Intentions not clear.
audiojunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 10:25 AM   #27
audiojunkie
Human being with feelings
 
audiojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike@overtonedsp View Post
So, from a plug-in developer point of view - one thing most plug-in developers don't really like is yet another plug-in format (even something with the 'weight' of VST3 has struggled to get adopted).
When a new standard is introduced, it normally means no-one will buy your existing range any more unless you support the new format (even if they don't need it) because, future-proofing. So you have maybe six months of work converting (and testing) everything to a new format which, by definition no-one is using and there is very little support for. You will also be expected to make these new versions available for free for existing users. So its six months or more of unpaid work, to get back to where you started. The only difference being you now have an exponentially growing complexity of testing and maintenance. Possibly the only exception is if the plug-in format brings some essential new capability.
LV2 is not a new format, but as far as I can tell (and I have developed LV2 plug-ins in the past) it does not add anything that you can't do already - at a technical level. It does seem more compatible with open-source licenses than e.g. VST2, but so is VST3.
LV2 is extensible - but so is VST3 (and VST2 if you want to). There's nothing stopping the addition of custom features to VST2 or VST3 (indeed some already exist), if the host supports them (same requirement with LV2).
LV2 often cites its ability to discover plug-ins without loading them as an advantage - but in reality, this simply means that I get a list of LV2 plug-ins in my DAW, all of which seem ok. But, when I load the bad one it will still crash the host, only this time it will do it when I'm in the middle of a session, rather than e.g. having been safely blacklisted at scanning / startup.
LV2 exists to address some very Linux-specific issues. As a plug-in developer, I'm not convinced it brings anything of significant extra advantage at the present time.
So, in your opinion, do you see Linux-native VST plugins as the way forward and the future accepted defacto standard? In other words, do you see it as pointless to invest time and energy into LV2 support?
audiojunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 10:26 AM   #28
audiojunkie
Human being with feelings
 
audiojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna View Post
Seems like the simplest solution would be to get more developers to build their VSTs for Linux.
Agreed!
audiojunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 11:14 AM   #29
mike@overtonedsp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 38
Default

Quote:
I think the only way that will happen will be if we cater to the musician in general, and not the computer tech/user musician. I suspect most people interested in making music don't want to spend time learning how to use linux first...
Yes - but using Linux (for audio) on modern hardware is now as easy as installing a recent Ubuntu LTS, downloading Reaper for Linux and you're good to go. In my opinion performance will be subjectively at least as good as other OS. That's the message we need to get to people thinking of trying Linux for audio.

You will still read a lot on various forums about low latency tweaks, and realtime kernels and all manner of other stuff beloved of those who want to get heavily into customisation, and perhaps would rather do that than make music, but it isn't essential (I know I risk triggering a cascade of replies about how every little tweak a user does is essential but its really not). I've been developing plug-ins for Linux for the past decade, and I've never needed a realtime kernel. Mostly I just use a standard Ubuntu LTS distro.

I provide plug-ins which come with their own installer - you just click to install, just like on Windows (or you can just drop the plug-in into your plug-ins folder). I've also found Linux builds of Reaper trivially easy to install and update. So it is possible to make Linux easy to use for audio.

Last edited by mike@overtonedsp; 08-06-2019 at 11:23 AM.
mike@overtonedsp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 11:54 AM   #30
audiojunkie
Human being with feelings
 
audiojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike@overtonedsp View Post
Yes - but using Linux (for audio) on modern hardware is now as easy as installing a recent Ubuntu LTS, downloading Reaper for Linux and you're good to go. In my opinion performance will be subjectively at least as good as other OS. That's the message we need to get to people thinking of trying Linux for audio.

You will still read a lot on various forums about low latency tweaks, and realtime kernels and all manner of other stuff beloved of those who want to get heavily into customisation, and perhaps would rather do that than make music, but it isn't essential (I know I risk triggering a cascade of replies about how every little tweak a user does is essential but its really not). I've been developing plug-ins for Linux for the past decade, and I've never needed a realtime kernel. Mostly I just use a standard Ubuntu LTS distro.

I provide plug-ins which come with their own installer - you just click to install, just like on Windows (or you can just drop the plug-in into your plug-ins folder). I've also found Linux builds of Reaper trivially easy to install and update. So it is possible to make Linux easy to use for audio.
I haven't compared recently, so I don't know how many xruns for vanilla kernels vs xruns for RT or Low Latency kernels for the same project and hardware stack up anymore, but I'd love to do a comparison again and get my own opinion on this. I generally use older and slower hardware for my audio system, so it may well make a difference in my case. I can see how a modern, up-to-date system might be able to run fine on a vanilla kernel though--if the system isn't pushed to use too low of a buffer setting. I'd find others' experiences interesting on this subject as well.

As for ease of use...

There's no question that it's getting better and better! :-) Most of the RT kernel patches have been incorporated into the mainline kernel, and according to what I've been reading recently, the rest may be incorporated very soon. This may do away with having to do any optimizations at all in the future. :-)

Furthermore, the Pipewire project is making progress and may soon do away with the need for Alsa, Pulse Audio, and JACK, which would further simplify things! :-) I do agree that things ARE getting better. However, the experiences needs to get even better than this. It needs to be so simple that someone who knows nothing about computers can use the tools to make a song. It's getting there, but it's not there yet.
audiojunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2019, 12:25 PM   #31
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,668
Default

Currently with a stock kernel all you have to do is some RT user configuration, which is automatically done if you install Qjackctl. Also maybe set your CPU frequency governor to "performance" (similar to making a change in Windows power settings). After that, it performs very well. Only more demanding low-latency use will require anything beyond this in terms of modification. And switching to a realtime kernel is easily handled by the update manager. This is assuming you're using a distro that's more user-friendly for ex-Windows/Mac users (and a lot of distros are that way now).

It actually required fewer system tweaks for me to get Linux (MX Linux, Mint, Xubuntu) working well for Reaper than it did for Windows 7...and it performs significantly better, all else being equal.

Then there's this. So things will be easier in the future in this regard.

As for "standardizing" software in/for Linux to make things "universal" (to keep it simple for beginners): it's Linux. It's not just one distro with one set of packages. Unless Linux becomes one distro that everyone uses, I don't think it's going to be able to meet your expectations of being simple for everyone (too many moving targets). That being said, I made the switch to Linux at this point because I realized how easy it would be for me. With the JS plugins (they work on any OS), Reaper's own plugins, plus whatever Linux VST that exist (especially the ones available as .so files you can just treat like Windows VST .dll files), I was already good to go. I don't want to run JACK, Wine, or any bridges. Since I don't have to, it keeps my system really simple. (I only installed Qjackctl to have it in case I needed it for the odd thing, and realized later that it had done some RT user config for me.) If someone is sticking to native-Linux-only software, it can be as simple as Windows or OSX (as long as a person sticks to one of the more user-friendly and common distros).
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2019, 10:53 PM   #32
4duhwinnn
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiojunkie View Post
I just double-checked. Qtractor supports: LADSPA, DSSI, native VSTi, LV2 plug-ins, and also JACK. That's the whole gamut of linux plugins. Personally, I don't care about DSSI, and I don't care as much about LADSPA (old format replaced by LV2), but I do think REAPER should have LV2 support.
I'd also like lv2 support, would make using Guitarix and the
jalv effects converted from rakarrack, much easier to use in Reaper.
I've found 'support' and 'success' to be two different realms,
so if qtractor or any other linux daw supports, but does not
successfully scan and load some certain plugin, we still have
quite a range of alternatives, free or affordable for many people.
Cheers
4duhwinnn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2019, 08:45 AM   #33
J Riley Hill
Human being with feelings
 
J Riley Hill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 121
Default

I think it would be pretty sweet. LV2 is a really good standard.
J Riley Hill is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.