Ohmstudio inside Google Chrome
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions1,305
- Collaboration207
- Leave feedback200
- Bug report378
- Miscellaneous520
In this Discussion
- andymc July 2012
- ashleyhales July 2012
- crimson_force July 2012
- eddyjohn July 2012
- lanmower March 2017
- nick.in.holland July 2012
- pljones July 2012
- red_force July 2012
Ohmstudio inside Google Chrome
-
Till now I'm still not able to install ohmstudio on my windows 7 computer : (.So I wanna suggest Ohmstudio inside of Google Chrome and behold it canbe done, simply by using http://www.roozz.com/. With this a program can berunned in the browser. This has a few advantages, Ohmstudio will be in theChrome web store (exposure of the product) it will be accessible everywherewith an internet connection and google chrome (so even on Linux heeeeee!!!).- Maybe this way you don't have to develop for different Os's anymore.Disadvantages:Ohmstudio has to be a free product if wanna offer it through roozz (why not freeversion with the basic stuff)- Another minus I think would be vst plugins, because since this set-up wasnever executed before. How would Ohmstudio in the browser find vst's?- A slow internet connection is another negative.- Does everybody love google chrome?
-
Hi eddyjohn,the best thing to do is to get the Ohm Studio application to work on your Windows.Please follow the instructions in our FAQ.Chrome is a fine browser - I'm using it too - but running a DAW inside a browser sets way too many limitations.
-
Hi Crimson,How funny that you are not willing to experiment with Ohmstudio. Thatsure is a creative standpoint!!!! I don't think you can say that for a fact thattheir are any limitations since you didn't test it.BTW I still can't install Ohmstudio. : (How strange that some people hold technology and haven't got thefaintest clue of WTF to do with it. please don't ban me I'll be a goodcitizen
-
I think they are doing the right thing making it it's own application, as this suggestion is a rather messy one. While it works for small games or even maybe basic jamming tools it would be a bit of a nightmare trying to run a fully fledged DAW in it. You have to rely one not one but two programs, one bad update to the browser might knock all usability from the app you're trying to run in it. Also what about things like ASIO/core audio? VST plugins? External devices? How are these things going to interact with your software correctly if they have to go through the browser first?As you can see this is a messy solution, it might work in future but IMO the technology needs to get further ahead before you can think about running demanding apps like DAW's through your browser.btw what's causing you not to be able to install it? Any anti virus running in the background? It installs fine on windows 7 here.
-
eddyjohn, with any product it costs money to produce, it has to be kept to a strict project profile. Ohm Force spend a lot to try make this a working program on 2 platforms. I think if they wanted to make it web based they could and wouldn't want to use a web based emulator or encourage people too use it. They would probably need to hire more staff just to cope with any problems, then there is the problem that may be out there hands and lay with roozz.You were totally insulting and flaming and this is why at the end you asked for it not to have you banned, because you knew you were.Maybe an apology for your angry outburst is in order.
-
Pljones I'm not a technology expert, I'm just a silly dreamer.Ashley things turn into a nightmare, when you stop dreaming aboutpossibilities and just don't try stuff. Here is some nice updates on myfoolish suggestion. Incase you wonder where I got the audicity from,any technical difficulty of what so ever. It also sees the vst's that I goton my system. If it can run on google Chrome, I don't think Ohmstudiodon't "STAND" a change. Unless we wanna stand around here and...In the future tell me to STFU, when I don't contribute to this community.We are musicians we think outside the box, but should sometimesthink inside the browser. KEEP DREAMING!!!!!
-
Andy I got a DAW that I paid for so actually i don't have to be here. But I'lle behonest it's the great idea of Ohmforce to bring people together 2 make musicthat attracted me. I do understand that they spend a tremendous time to workon this, but keeping things strict is the old way. The more free you think aboutthings the more free you become.I suggested that they start an Ohmstore, if musician can sell there music throughthis, Ohmforce could ask for a small fee. It would be great if fans could see and buyyour music on a outlet like this. I also suggested that they accept as many as possiblepayment methods, because just credit card or paypal woulden't do.I not attacking Ohmforce or whoever, this is a fun place to be. I just get frustrated whenpeople don't wanna explore. Ohmstudio in google Chrome can even have linux usersusing it.
-
Eddy, simply saying "run inside Chrome" doesn't answer very many questions. It basically raises a whole load of different ones and means loads of the answers you did have are all wrong. As the Ohm guys have said elsewhere, they've been working to get this far for over a decade. Losing all that work because "Hey, maybe using Chrome would be cool" isn't likely to inspire creativity.
I've not specifically looked at what Chrome could offer but, in my experience, a browser frame has no need to provide very many of the services that a real-time collaborative VST host would need (although indeed some would be there: many of these are provided as standard by an OS and a browser frame makes them platform-independent). As such, the additional requirements would need developing - and would almost certainly be CPU and OS-specific - regardless of running in Chrome or not (although how you developed them could well be different).
So Chrome is not an answer, just a new set of problems, really.
(I can see how much of the collaboration side could fit into a browser frame; it's more the real-time VST side that needs platform-specific code, which wouldn't be the same as that needed running outside the browser.)
-
eddyjohn said:
Pljones I'm not a technology expert, I'm just a silly dreamer.
Ashley things turn into a nightmare, when you stop dreaming aboutpossibilities and just don't try stuff. Here is some nice updates on myfoolish suggestion. Incase you wonder where I got the audicity from,any technical difficulty of what so ever.
Audacity isn't a DAW, it's an audio editor so it wouldn't put such demand on your system as a fully fledged DAW would. Emulating a full DAW inside a web browser sounds like a nightmare to me, it's not something I would touch with a barge pole, especially on different platforms.I just think you're looking at an excuse not to solve whatever technical issues are preventing you from installing this as running such an app through a web browser is not something most would put up with. -
Dear Ashley,I don't know if you took a look @ the system requirements before you made that remark.A Daw or audio editor????? They both contain sound files, both got plugins, both export and important soundformats, what's the difference? Oooh yeah the name, how cute!!!!BTW this was not an excuse, this was me trying to look for other place that Ohmstudio can also inhabit. Time will tell...
-
A DAW has a sequencer. You can trigger parts on tracks based on a time line. It supports MIDI in, processing and out (that's a hint, OhmGuys ;) ). It supports real-time processing of audio, in and out.
That's more than "just a name".
System requirements of 2GB implies a very poorly designed app for an audio editor with huge, unneeded overheads. These are likely to make it perform comparatively poorly.
-
Eddyjohn, a DAW is a very demanding application for any computer. Keep in mind it's about streaming very large amount of data, process them in highly cpu intensive operations, and deliver them with nearly no latency. Now if you're used to game, you may think that it's true for those as well but actually it's not. A game always has a tiny input in term of data flows compared to a sequencer. That data stream and a heap of other inherent difficulties (ASIO, VST, ressources on your rig like samplers, etc.) explain why no one tried to make a full featured DAW in chrome (or even in Java). AFAIK (I am not a dev...) this simply is not a realistic project to this day.
-
Eddyjohn I do think it's a good work around for anyone on Linux but if you have enough tracks loaded up they could find huge playback problems.
For putting OHM in a browser almost turns it into a toy, I'm hoping ohm grows into a full fledged DAW, not a toy for n00bs. All I can see happening there is loops galore, lots of kiddies making dubstep tracks from loops. But it could be cool one day for there to be a simple basic version of OHM almost like a learning stepping stone for using the Full version of OHM.
You have some valid points but you shouldn't feel offended when there not taken up.
The idea of an eventual OHM Store selling people's music could work, but atm it would have very little people visiting it or buying from it. Many many good idea's exist in the world today but for most they don't become because the costs, logistics and return out-way the idea.
TBH I think OHM has more chance and less costs, work etc selling a distribution packages to itunes, spotify etc from the start.
Making a store to sell music requires a very large user base, extreme revenue to advertise. Most that have built into stores have huge company's with massive resources or they have taking years to grow big enough user bases to start selling to to make money. Youtube is extremely popular but don't make money yet.
So there's a lot more than just the idea needed, no matter how good it is.
-
When is Ohmstudio coming out as and Android app ? :-B
( nick hides in the corner like a little school boy that just smashed the neighbours shed window with an egg )
-
When is Ohmstudio coming out as and Android app ? :-B
( nick runs and hides in the corner like a little school boy that just smashed the niebours window with an egg -
I always have two eggs don't you ?
-
Actually I see no reason why it can't be paired up with the browser.From a performance point of view, saying it will be slower is short sighted, truth is native code, in browser, runs near the speed of the original code, its not suddenly slower.Audacity in browser proves that (literally) everything is in place to make it happen except for labor. VST's have been shown to work in this environment too.Some things will have to be assessed, like ASIO and general timing issues, as well as how drag and drop gets handled, this is the only relevant obstacle I see and those fears could be cleared away with a proof of concept demo.There are two possible approaches, one the GUI from web as a native GUI, another is develop a native library for web GUI.In fact, the approach of making a DAW with a minimal native library for processing, bouncing, playback and a web GUI for easy editing.The whole native app directly reduced to a processing library that backs up a web gui, and the rest of the program rolled out in web gui's using some modular project oriented display library like eclipse che, the DAW could probably be remade faster than it could be finished.
