7 ms·

Do any of these browser projects support existing plug-ins? A lot of people making music have spent $$$ on plugins, and just on the sheer R&D they've received,

by tomc1985 4y ago

Do any of these browser projects support existing plug-ins? A lot of people making music have spent $$$ on plugins, and just on the sheer R&D they've received, are going to sound considerably better than anything someone who is focused on writing a DAW can make. Plus, from my own experience, I have 20+ years working with FLStudio and know the program inside and out. Abandoning that plus my investments in VSTs is simply a no-go. So, good luck, but you've got some significant barriers to overcome.

crubier 4y ago
Let's make WASM VST plugins!
- tomc1985 4y ago
  My other thing is... why does something like this need to run in a browser? What's wrong with desktop apps? I have FLStudio mobile and some other mobile DAW on my iphone and ipad. And to be honest, I never use them, other than as a tapping BPM counter. Do people actually feel productive tapping this stuff in on an iPad?
  - virgil_disgr4ce 4y ago
    What's wrong with browser apps?
    - fwsgonzo 4y ago
      Audio is real-time and performance is everything. Freezing tracks should take the least amount of time possible and no skipping should occur unless you are using the most complex modular VST out there. With WASM being like 1/3 of native and having extremely limited SIMD support I would probably expect it to not work at all for serious work. Quite frankly, even native performance is often not enough. That said, I can see it being relevant for learning audio, synthesis and how signal processing works. And of course, just for fun! Source: Worked with DAWs for a decade. Also currently writing a paper on the role of native performance.
      - awongh 4y ago
        I’ve played around with ableton before- im wondering what are the high-level aspects of a DAW that take up that compute? Off the top of my head if you have like 10 channels of synths, what in there is super intensive? What does freezing tracks mean and why is it so expensive?
        tomc1985 4y ago
        > you have like 10 channels of synths, what in there is super intensive The synth itself. Samplers, hardware emulations, and effects can eat a lot of memory and CPU, to say nothing of a monster 100+ voice synth patch (very easy to achieve with unison, used in supersaw-type sounds) > What does freezing tracks mean and why is it so expensive? Freezing tracks means recording the output of that track to a WAV and using that output as a stand-in for the real thing. Freezing tracks isn't expensive, it's what you use when another plug-in is too expensive and you want to reduce your CPU load.
        duped 4y ago
        It's not the high level aspects, but the low level ones. Audio DSP is doing a lot of math. CPUs are good at it, sure, but modern synths and effects are legitimately pushing up against how much math a CPU core can evaluate in the few milliseconds you have to render (in the worst case, low latency realtime rendering time is actually dominated not by how much DSP you can do, but how long it takes to move audio from userland to kernel and out to the hardware and back). Some of the DSP algorithms are really hard to optimize with SIMD, in fact most of the common audio DSP operations can't be trivially converted to SIMD forms (and when they are, they aren't N times faster for N more lanes). Filters are especially tricky because converting the math from one form to another changes the topology of the signal flow, which is only equivalent in the steady-state of non-linear and time-invariant filters. DAWs are using non-linear time variant filters that are being modulated in realtime, so your super fast SIMD optimized biquads might not sound as good as the converted SVF that can't be trivially optimized (there are tricks, but it's a game of tradeoffs). And there's the other aspect of the scene that there's just a lot of bad or naive code out there. There is a lot of know-how floating around, but a lot of tools are designed by folks without it to begin with. That's a good thing because it makes a lot of interesting and cool tools, but it also means that institutional knowledge is kind of locked away. It doesn't help that some of the largest examples for newcomers (JUCE's DSP module, RAFX/Aspik with the accompanying text), as well as classic (and new!) textbooks teach people to do things in the least performant way possible, and those algorithms make it into production.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > What's wrong with desktop apps? Shoddy support for platforms other than Windows, not to mention VSTs going out of support by the developers and then unusable when something changes (e.g. Apple dropping support for 32-bit x86 years ago). WASM is at least a common denominator supported everywhere... basically Java just better.
    - tomc1985 4y ago
      Bitwig's pretty good as a cross-platform DAW, from what I hear. There's entire ecosystems of plugins out there. Yes they can be reimplemented but if the authors use the same quick algorithms as everyone else it's going to sound plastic-y and dull. IMO plugin dev is one of those things where every hour spent makes a cumulative difference in output quality. WASM may be great, but unless they can run as their own binary in their own windows you're going to have browser overhead for each window, nevermind those of us that spread our DAWs out across multiple screens.
    - stevenjgarner 4y ago
      Ummm ... Audacity is fully cross-platform (Windows, macOS, GNU/Linux and other operating systems) and open source [0]. ProTools (the elephant in the room) was originally developed (and still) on the Mac [1] [0] https://www.audacityteam.org/ https://www.audacityteam.org/ [1] https://www.avid.com/pro-tools https://www.avid.com/pro-tools
      - cheschire 4y ago
        Audacity isn't available on iOS or iPadOS. This browser tool, however, is.
      - Forgeties79 4y ago
        Audacity isn’t a DAW. Powerful tool, been using it for ~15 years, but it isn’t a DAW and folks shouldn’t use it like one tbh.
        stevenjgarner 4y ago
  - npigrounet 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - BizarroLand 4y ago
    The only thing I can think of would be that it would be great if you could easily record with people on the same interface over the internet. Maybe not live jamming or anything, since the delay would be murderous at best, but that it would be great to be able to have your drummer lay down a track at 3am and your guitarist lay down a rhythm to it at 7 and wake up and do vocals when you're ready instead of having to schedule time to all meet together.
  - Forgeties79 4y ago
    >why does something like this need to run in a browser? Same reason I like Squadcast and other browser-based podcast recording software - works on (virtually) every machine, no one needs to download anything, cloud storage baked into it, easy for my other producers/colleagues to hop on and check things out, etc.
- vnorilo 4y ago
  There's been some work on Web Audio Modules, including glue for prior native plugin frameworks like Juce. https://www.webaudiomodules.org/ https://www.webaudiomodules.org/
- mxmilkiib 4y ago
  The DPF framework is moving towards WASM build targets; https://cardinal.kx.studio https://cardinal.kx.studio - web version of the VCV Rack wrapper Cardinal https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/issues/287 https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/issues/287
- lostgame 4y ago
  Question; because I just don’t know - is it possible to wrap a VST host/bridge in WASM?
ksm1717 4y ago
Yea what an idiot to not make this free proof of concept of a browser daw targeted at 20+ years power users
- tomc1985 4y ago
  > Yea what an idiot You are saying this, not me.
  - ksm1717 4y ago
    Yea I’m mocking you because if you couldn’t tell how annoying your obvious “constructive” criticism was going to sound, you’ve got some significant barriers to overcome
    - cjaybo 4y ago
      If you know anything about music production, you'd know it's a very valid critique. Not sure why you took it so personally, though.
      - thr0wawayf00 4y ago
        It's also such an obvious question though, isn't it? You think that the developer pouring so much of their free time into a browser-based DAW wouldn't have considered the idea of supporting plug-ins at all? People far too often approach projects like this with "this app is only useful for me if it does x..." and I think that framing is poor when someone is just exercising their passion on a project. I'd personally respond with "great, go build your own that supports your plug-ins. Have fun."
        tomc1985 4y ago
        A lot of people have dropped their side-project in-browser "DAW" projects on HN, several of them did seem like they wanted to be taken seriously
        Forgeties79 4y ago
butwhywhyoh 4y ago
Would you give this same critique to someone who was building a go-kart in their backyard for fun? "Car companies like Honda and Ford have been around for decades, and those vehicles are going to drive considerably better than anything someone working in their backyard could make. Plus, from my own experience, I've been driving these cars for the past 20 years, and abandoning that experience in how they feel and handle is a no-go. So good luck, but you've got significant barriers to overcome"
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tomc1985 4y ago
  - tobr 4y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html “Show HN is for something you've made that other people can play with”. It doesn’t have to be a product, and I can’t see anything in the guidelines that precludes sharing “toy projects”. On the contrary, a “Show HN needn't be complicated or look slick.” It’s up to the community to use upvotes to determine what’s interesting to the audience, not individual self-censorship of what might offend those “grognards”.
  - RobbieGM 4y ago
    > "Do it in a browser" is not interesting enough. I disagree. DAWs are huge pieces of software to begin with and doing high-performance audio work in the browser would be very impressive.
  - all2 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

crubier 4y ago

Let's make WASM VST plugins!

tomc1985 4y ago
My other thing is... why does something like this need to run in a browser? What's wrong with desktop apps? I have FLStudio mobile and some other mobile DAW on my iphone and ipad. And to be honest, I never use them, other than as a tapping BPM counter. Do people actually feel productive tapping this stuff in on an iPad?
- virgil_disgr4ce 4y ago
  What's wrong with browser apps?
  - fwsgonzo 4y ago
    Audio is real-time and performance is everything. Freezing tracks should take the least amount of time possible and no skipping should occur unless you are using the most complex modular VST out there. With WASM being like 1/3 of native and having extremely limited SIMD support I would probably expect it to not work at all for serious work. Quite frankly, even native performance is often not enough. That said, I can see it being relevant for learning audio, synthesis and how signal processing works. And of course, just for fun! Source: Worked with DAWs for a decade. Also currently writing a paper on the role of native performance.
    - awongh 4y ago
      I’ve played around with ableton before- im wondering what are the high-level aspects of a DAW that take up that compute? Off the top of my head if you have like 10 channels of synths, what in there is super intensive? What does freezing tracks mean and why is it so expensive?
      - tomc1985 4y ago
        > you have like 10 channels of synths, what in there is super intensive The synth itself. Samplers, hardware emulations, and effects can eat a lot of memory and CPU, to say nothing of a monster 100+ voice synth patch (very easy to achieve with unison, used in supersaw-type sounds) > What does freezing tracks mean and why is it so expensive? Freezing tracks means recording the output of that track to a WAV and using that output as a stand-in for the real thing. Freezing tracks isn't expensive, it's what you use when another plug-in is too expensive and you want to reduce your CPU load.
      - duped 4y ago
        It's not the high level aspects, but the low level ones. Audio DSP is doing a lot of math. CPUs are good at it, sure, but modern synths and effects are legitimately pushing up against how much math a CPU core can evaluate in the few milliseconds you have to render (in the worst case, low latency realtime rendering time is actually dominated not by how much DSP you can do, but how long it takes to move audio from userland to kernel and out to the hardware and back). Some of the DSP algorithms are really hard to optimize with SIMD, in fact most of the common audio DSP operations can't be trivially converted to SIMD forms (and when they are, they aren't N times faster for N more lanes). Filters are especially tricky because converting the math from one form to another changes the topology of the signal flow, which is only equivalent in the steady-state of non-linear and time-invariant filters. DAWs are using non-linear time variant filters that are being modulated in realtime, so your super fast SIMD optimized biquads might not sound as good as the converted SVF that can't be trivially optimized (there are tricks, but it's a game of tradeoffs). And there's the other aspect of the scene that there's just a lot of bad or naive code out there. There is a lot of know-how floating around, but a lot of tools are designed by folks without it to begin with. That's a good thing because it makes a lot of interesting and cool tools, but it also means that institutional knowledge is kind of locked away. It doesn't help that some of the largest examples for newcomers (JUCE's DSP module, RAFX/Aspik with the accompanying text), as well as classic (and new!) textbooks teach people to do things in the least performant way possible, and those algorithms make it into production.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > What's wrong with desktop apps? Shoddy support for platforms other than Windows, not to mention VSTs going out of support by the developers and then unusable when something changes (e.g. Apple dropping support for 32-bit x86 years ago). WASM is at least a common denominator supported everywhere... basically Java just better.
  - tomc1985 4y ago
    Bitwig's pretty good as a cross-platform DAW, from what I hear. There's entire ecosystems of plugins out there. Yes they can be reimplemented but if the authors use the same quick algorithms as everyone else it's going to sound plastic-y and dull. IMO plugin dev is one of those things where every hour spent makes a cumulative difference in output quality. WASM may be great, but unless they can run as their own binary in their own windows you're going to have browser overhead for each window, nevermind those of us that spread our DAWs out across multiple screens.
  - stevenjgarner 4y ago
    Ummm ... Audacity is fully cross-platform (Windows, macOS, GNU/Linux and other operating systems) and open source [0]. ProTools (the elephant in the room) was originally developed (and still) on the Mac [1] [0] https://www.audacityteam.org/ https://www.audacityteam.org/ [1] https://www.avid.com/pro-tools https://www.avid.com/pro-tools
    - cheschire 4y ago
      Audacity isn't available on iOS or iPadOS. This browser tool, however, is.
    - Forgeties79 4y ago
      Audacity isn’t a DAW. Powerful tool, been using it for ~15 years, but it isn’t a DAW and folks shouldn’t use it like one tbh.
      - stevenjgarner 4y ago
- npigrounet 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  The only thing I can think of would be that it would be great if you could easily record with people on the same interface over the internet. Maybe not live jamming or anything, since the delay would be murderous at best, but that it would be great to be able to have your drummer lay down a track at 3am and your guitarist lay down a rhythm to it at 7 and wake up and do vocals when you're ready instead of having to schedule time to all meet together.
- Forgeties79 4y ago
  >why does something like this need to run in a browser? Same reason I like Squadcast and other browser-based podcast recording software - works on (virtually) every machine, no one needs to download anything, cloud storage baked into it, easy for my other producers/colleagues to hop on and check things out, etc.
vnorilo 4y ago
There's been some work on Web Audio Modules, including glue for prior native plugin frameworks like Juce. https://www.webaudiomodules.org/ https://www.webaudiomodules.org/
mxmilkiib 4y ago
The DPF framework is moving towards WASM build targets; https://cardinal.kx.studio https://cardinal.kx.studio - web version of the VCV Rack wrapper Cardinal https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/issues/287 https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/issues/287
lostgame 4y ago
Question; because I just don’t know - is it possible to wrap a VST host/bridge in WASM?

ksm1717 4y ago

Yea what an idiot to not make this free proof of concept of a browser daw targeted at 20+ years power users

tomc1985 4y ago
> Yea what an idiot You are saying this, not me.
- ksm1717 4y ago
  Yea I’m mocking you because if you couldn’t tell how annoying your obvious “constructive” criticism was going to sound, you’ve got some significant barriers to overcome
  - cjaybo 4y ago
    If you know anything about music production, you'd know it's a very valid critique. Not sure why you took it so personally, though.
    - thr0wawayf00 4y ago
      It's also such an obvious question though, isn't it? You think that the developer pouring so much of their free time into a browser-based DAW wouldn't have considered the idea of supporting plug-ins at all? People far too often approach projects like this with "this app is only useful for me if it does x..." and I think that framing is poor when someone is just exercising their passion on a project. I'd personally respond with "great, go build your own that supports your plug-ins. Have fun."
      - tomc1985 4y ago
        A lot of people have dropped their side-project in-browser "DAW" projects on HN, several of them did seem like they wanted to be taken seriously
      - Forgeties79 4y ago

butwhywhyoh 4y ago

Would you give this same critique to someone who was building a go-kart in their backyard for fun? "Car companies like Honda and Ford have been around for decades, and those vehicles are going to drive considerably better than anything someone working in their backyard could make. Plus, from my own experience, I've been driving these cars for the past 20 years, and abandoning that experience in how they feel and handle is a no-go. So good luck, but you've got significant barriers to overcome"

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tomc1985 4y ago
- tobr 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html “Show HN is for something you've made that other people can play with”. It doesn’t have to be a product, and I can’t see anything in the guidelines that precludes sharing “toy projects”. On the contrary, a “Show HN needn't be complicated or look slick.” It’s up to the community to use upvotes to determine what’s interesting to the audience, not individual self-censorship of what might offend those “grognards”.
- RobbieGM 4y ago
  > "Do it in a browser" is not interesting enough. I disagree. DAWs are huge pieces of software to begin with and doing high-performance audio work in the browser would be very impressive.
- all2 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]