linuxDSP Pro-Channel plugins updated

8 replies [Last post]
linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 days 2 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

The linuxDSP Pro-EQ, Dynamics and Gate plugins have been updated. This is version 2.0.2. This update makes some GUI improvements, while maintaining the original high quality processing.

http://www.linuxdsp.co.uk/screenshots/pro_channel/pro_channel_screenshot.png

As usual, this update is free if you have already purchased the previous verisons, either from the linuxDSP website or as part of the Harrison Mixbus bundle. If you haven't already purchased them you can do so here:

http://www.linuxdsp.co.uk/download/lv2/download_pro_channel/index.html

This is professional quality DSP developed by and in association with engineers who have worked for some of the world's top pro-audio companies. An opportunity not to be missed.

fernesto
fernesto's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 week 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2010-10-26
Posts:

i bought them as part of mixbus bundle, how do i update?

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 days 2 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

If you are running on Ubuntu, there are ubuntu packages in the download, just (double) click on the appropriate .deb file(s) in the download and it should install. For other distributions you will have to manually copy the .lv2 bundle for each plugin to your lv2 plugins folder (which is normally at /usr/lib/lv2) - you may need to be root (admin) to copy them. From the terminal you could do (for example) :

sudo cp -r pro-eq2.lv2 /usr/lib/lv2

after first 'cd' ing to the directory (folder) in the download that contains the pro-eq2.lv2 bundle.

You would need to do this for all the plugins.

Full instructions are provided in the "README" files in the download. As usual with software updates, it is not advisable to upgrade in the middle of a critical session, and you should always make sure you have a backup of your original plugins in case you need to revert them for some reason.

jkokosa
User offline. Last seen 2 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-12-06
Posts:

On my 64bit Ubuntu 11.04, I had to copy to /usr/lib64/lv2 directory. After that they ran and sound great. When I tried to install the .deb's the system complained the package is of bad quality.

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 days 2 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

Thanks for the information. I was not aware of there being an issue with copying them to /usr/lib64/lv2 for 64Bit, as although this is perhaps the more *correct* location, historically ardour used to look in /usr/lib/lv2 on 32Bit and 64Bit architectures - which actually makes it much easier to manage plugin installs. (perhaps something has changed in ardour?). This is something that is very difficult to manage properly since various hosts look in /usr/lib/lv2, usr/lib64/lv2, /usr/local/lib/lv2, /usr/local/lib64/lv2 etc etc and to compound the problem if you install the plugins to more than one of the locations at the same time it can cause all manner of crashes.

As regards the warnings about packages being of bad quality, I'm surprised by this - there was an issue a while ago with the (in my opinion, somewhat half-baked, ubuntu software center) complaining about packages of bad quality and issuing dire warnings that were completely unfounded. But I believed this had been fixed. I'll check this again but in the meantime I think you can safely choose to "ignore and install anyway" or just use a more reliable package installer, such as gdebi

jkokosa
User offline. Last seen 2 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-12-06
Posts:

gdebi did the trick for installing the .deb's. My lib64 comment was wrong for 64bit Ubuntu 11.04. /usr/lib64 is linked to /usr/lib. Guess it was habit from a previous distro.

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 days 2 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

@jkokosa: Ok, that makes sense - they are normally tested here on A2.8.11 on both 64 and 32 bit and as far as I know there were no problems with the latest release. I guess it was earlier versions of ardour that used to look in /usr/lib64.
I'll check the installer warnings - I have to say that there were a lot of issues with the ubuntu software center when I first tried it (It is now the default package manager on 11.04 unfortunately) but I was sure the latest packages were ok. The Ubuntu documentation is very specific about some of the insanely pedantic file formating required, unfortunately the documentation is also very specifically wrong in some of its own examples which is always good for wasting a lot of time..

macinnisrr
macinnisrr's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 weeks 23 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-01-14
Posts:

linuxdsp: since your install packages are the same for demos and full-installs, would you consider hosting a repository so that people can just update their apps the same as everything else?

Also, what about including a *.desktop file for the JACK apps that install to /usr/share/applications, so they'd show up on a menu? I do this myself manually right now, but I'm sure lots of users would appreciate it.

And last but not least, Ubuntu Software Center has a pay-for apps section now. Have you looked into selling your plugins there?

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 days 2 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

@macinnisrr: All of those options are being looked at at the moment, and the Ubuntu Software Center is certainly interesting, although personally I would prefer to drive more traffic to my own site, and / or encourage users to seek out software and resources on the wider internet rather than rely on App Store(tm) style solutions by default. However if such things improve the user experience and increase the number of potential users then it would be a (commercial) necessity to consider it.