[GTALUG] Seeking help with a unique Linux project?

[Blaise Alleyne]

On 15/12/15 03:35 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> For music notation there are a couple, ABC Notation  is included
> in Debian, which I understand is a really simple tool.  there are
> some more complete doors though,

I wouldn't discount ABC notation as being too simple. I haven't used it yet, but
it's been on my radar for a while. It could be very useful for entry and
editing, because you can do that all in plain text, and then convert to MIDI or
typeset with Lilypond.

I had the sense there are a wide variety of tools like this for turning ABC into
something else. You can think of it like a sort of "source code" for your music
-- you can write in in ABC, but then "compile" or convert it to other forms when
you're finished.

I wouldn't rule ABC out for being too simple. It seems very powerful. I'd be
more concerned if it's too cryptic, i.e. are you comfortable managing music
notation with this syntax?


> Like muscript, for example :-)
>    http://www.pjb.com.au/muscript/index.html
> with its associated midi2muscript utility:
>    http://www.pjb.com.au/midi/midi2muscript.html
> Which lets you shift a midi file into notation..or so I
> understand.

Cool, I hadn't heard of that. In comparing Muscript to ABC Notation, I'd be
curious if Muscript has the same wide support for its standard notation.

ABC has tons of software avaiable around it:
http://abcnotation.com/software#linux

e.g. abcMIDI: http://abc.sourceforge.net/abcMIDI/
Or abc2ly, which comes with LilyPond

My sense is that ABC has a more mature ecosystem, with broader support, but
that's just the first I'm encountering Muscript, so I could be wrong!


> Then there are the tools for  monitoring and audio work,
> For Audio recording and processing by way of example,  there is
> Joel's Nama:
> https://freeshell.de/~bolangi/nama/

Very cool.


> [...] 
> I am told that ecasound  is needful for his program,
> http://www.eca.cx/ecasound
> I am equally told though that the package already exists in Linux
> distributions like Debian, but have no first hand knowledge of
> this being true.

Never heard of it or used it before, but, yes, it's in the Debian repos:
https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=ecasound

And it looks like it can interface with the JACK audio server, which you may
need for other pro audio software:
http://ecasound.seul.org/ecasound/Documentation/examples.html#rtjack

> For MIDI there is Midish:
> http://www.midish.org
> 

Cool! Looks like it's ALSA MIDI, but can interface with JACK MIDI using the
available bridge:
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2010-October/073533.html

This is also in the Debian repos.

> I am told that audio processing can be improved with good LADSPA
> and LV2 plugins.  Again either in the distros themselves, or
> search worthy via Google.

Yes, another reason IMHO to have an audio distro -- they'll package the latest
LADSPA and LV2 plugins. I get mine mostly from the KXStudio repositories.


> I do not know directly if this helps with
> the latency  kernel factor though?

No, that's not directly related. You'll want a low latency kernel, IMHO, to make
sure your plugins don't add to the delay in audio, but the plugins won't do
anything to improve the latency (if anything, they increase the need for a low
latency kernel I'd imagine).


> As for your Jack question, the answer is no.  In fact I am not
> even sure what that program does, but I am not as of yet using
> Linux directly on any computer of my own.

Ah, I see. Yeah, most GNU/Linux distributions use PulseAudio (/ ALSA) for sound
these days, but most pro audio applications use JACK. JACK is a low latency
audio server. You don't need it for all audio applications, but the more serious
ones tend to require it. This is another thing that an audio distribution might
help with -- though, if you're running JACK from the command line, might require
some manual work to get the right settings anyways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JACK_Audio_Connection_Kit
http://jackaudio.org/

> I am feeling that you are building a very strong case for my ssh
> telnet idea with the kennel situation as it relates to pro audio. I care far
> more about the machine's ability to let me make music
> at the professional level then I do about my using speech on the
> computer itself.  Since a server should, or can be a part of a
> properly configured Linux  installation though, I believe I can
> still do my work  even if the kernel does not support speech for
> me.
> 

A question I forgot to add about the SSH option: Where will the speakers be?

If you're using SSH to access your music machine, and your speakers are
connected to your music machine, and it's all still in the same room as you, I
could see that working.

Just making sure you're not expecting audio to be output through the other
computer that you're using as an SSH client!