Audiobus: Use your music apps together.

What is Audiobus?Audiobus is an award-winning music app for iPhone and iPad which lets you use your other music apps together. Chain effects on your favourite synth, run the output of apps or Audio Units into an app like GarageBand or Loopy, or select a different audio interface output for each app. Route MIDI between apps — drive a synth from a MIDI sequencer, or add an arpeggiator to your MIDI keyboard — or sync with your external MIDI gear. And control your entire setup from a MIDI controller.

Download on the App Store

Audiobus is the app that makes the rest of your setup better.

NFTs – what do we know about them?

Does anyone here feel they have anything authoritative to say about the actual mechanism and process of releasing music (a thing that many of us do) as NFTs (a thing that probably not many of us have explored)?

What would be the detailed steps involved in being able to announce “ I have released a new song, and it’s an NFT”.

If you don’t know what an NFT is, go and find out. If you have a subjective opinion on the notion as a whole, that’s nice. However, let’s keep this thread to concrete best-practice actual instructions and guidance and recommendations.

«13456713

Comments

  • An NFT is just a certificate of authenticity, but with the carbon footprint of a small village.

    I think that ethically at least it would be better to use MS Word to make a certificate of authenticity, and print it out on your home laser printer. Same thing, less wasted electricity.

    In terms of actual practical advice: I would say that jumping on the NFT bandwagon carries some serious risks, because it's very likely that the whole thing is nothing but a speculative bubble. If Bitcoin crashes (and personally I think it will), then everything linked to it (Ethereum, NFT, silly GPU prices), will also come crashing back down to earth. My view is that this whole thing is just tulips dressed in high-tech clothing.

  • It’s an extremely illiquid market. There’s no best practice.

  • edited March 10

    @richardyot said:
    An NFT is just a certificate of authenticity, but with the carbon footprint of a small village.

    Or close to Netflix. (Globally comparing estimates of crypto to Netflix.)

  • Well, I’m not an expert for NFTs but I do know a lot about blockchain technology.

    An NFT is just a certificate of authenticity, but with the carbon footprint of a small village.

    Yes and no. For NFTs the blockchain is used as a certificate of authenticity - that’s correct. The blockchain ensures that this certificate and its ownership could not be changed, copied or manipulated. A printed certificate could not ensure this. The ethereum blockchain that is currently used for NFTs will be migrated to a better technology in the not too distant future. This new technology ‘proof of stake’ will consume only a fraction of the energy than the current technology ‘proof of work’. The trust in the blockchain is based on the consensus in the blockchain network and this consensus needs a proof. For now this is proven by solving a cryptographic problem which is very compute intense, in the future by proving the ownership of a stake.

    It’s an extremely illiquid market.

    This is true for most cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies use a blockchain to secure the transactions and wallets because it ensures that they cannot be manipulated. But their values are so volatile because of the markets, not because of the blockchain. In comparison to the stock market or foreign exchange the crypto markets are small and big players can have a huge influence. NFTs are sold for fiat money (dollars, euros, etc.) and the blockchain only ensures the NFT as a certificate as described above. Anyway, as all assets also NFTs can be traded and then their value is defined by the market. But as an artist you usually sell your artworks as NFTs for fiat. The market price volatility is only relevant for NFT holders. But that makes it not much different from any other collectibles.

  • The energy consumption is an out of date objection when POS becomes dominant. Well, admittedly it is still a current objection, but in the very near future it’ll be a thing of the past (except for actual Bitcoin, which is useless except as a currency – most other cryptos have some other utilisation other than just being money).

    Thing on proof-of-stake : https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/

  • @krassmann said:
    But that makes it not much different from any other collectibles.

    That is pretty much all I am curious about in a few years. If the idea of collectible NFTs will have any longevity. For me it has zero, but it is not like I never had a job making something I had no interest in, heh, so it is good to keep an eye on.

  • But will the NFT hype live long enough for the proof-of-stake alternative to become a reality? POS has been on the horizon for ever, but what if Bitcoin crashes in say the next year or two?

  • One thing that concerns me at the present (may not be the case in the future, or may be even more the case).

    The ‘value’ of an NFT and the value of the art – the assumption is that they’re the same, or at least connected. I think in these early days they have the potential to be highly unconnected.

    A piece of music might achieve prominence not because it is good as a work, but because of something clever about the way the NFT side of it was promoted.

    I don’t know why that concerns me, if I was on the receiving end of such a wheeze, I’d enjoy having a song I did achieve vastly higher traction than it deserves purely because of something about the NFT of it.

  • @richardyot said:
    But will the NFT hype live long enough for the proof-of-stake alternative to become a reality? POS has been on the horizon for ever, but what if Bitcoin crashes in say the next year or two?

    What if the £ crashes in the next year or two?

  • @u0421793 said:
    One thing that concerns me at the present (may not be the case in the future, or may be even more the case).

    The ‘value’ of an NFT and the value of the art – the assumption is that they’re the same, or at least connected. I think in these early days they have the potential to be highly unconnected.

    A piece of music might achieve prominence not because it is good as a work, but because of something clever about the way the NFT side of it was promoted.

    I don’t know why that concerns me, if I was on the receiving end of such a wheeze, I’d enjoy having a song I did achieve vastly higher traction than it deserves purely because of something about the NFT of it.

    I guess it's the equivalent of a limited edition picture disc or the like. You might have a rare Bay City Rollers picture disc that is musically worthless but still somehow valuable to a memorabilia collector.

  • @u0421793 said:

    @richardyot said:
    But will the NFT hype live long enough for the proof-of-stake alternative to become a reality? POS has been on the horizon for ever, but what if Bitcoin crashes in say the next year or two?

    What if the £ crashes in the next year or two?

    It could - but which is more likely:

    The pound loses 80% of its value in the next 12 months,

    Or Bitcoin loses 80% of its value in the next 12 months?

    Bet carefully 😮

  • edited March 10

    @richardyot said:
    But will the NFT hype live long enough for the proof-of-stake alternative to become a reality? POS has been on the horizon for ever, but what if Bitcoin crashes in say the next year or two?

    More of an issue for investors than creators. Unless wasting your time is a concern.

  • I need to read the Michael Lewis take on cryptocurrency and NFTs. (Does such a thing exist?)

    Google "Bitcoin myths" and you get a bunch of garbage listicles from places like Investopedia that seem to have been written with no critical eye at all. The writers dismiss any reasonable counterargument with the blind zeal of a teenage girl who wants a puppy (No. 3, Walking the Dog. This won't be a problem at all because I will LOVE LOVE LOVE my new puppy and walking him will actually make ME happy! <3 <3 o:) :* <3 )

  • Only realistically valuable in a few scenarios like trading game assets. Otherwise mostly bunk.

  • edited March 10

    Seriously, this is from Investopedia under the article Top Bitcoin Myths Debunked!

    Under the fourth debunked myth ("Cryptocurrencies Are Bad for the Environment"), the author acknowledges that some people see a problem in all the electrical power used by Bitcoin. But then he quickly bats away that assertion: What's worth remembering, however, is that the value of mining for a cryptocurrency nearly always outweighs the real-world cost that is required in order to complete that mining operation.

    Well, what a relief! It nearly always outweighs the real-world cost!

    I know I'm cherry-picking, but bitcoin fandom is as weird to me as Elon Musk fandom.

  • @ExAsperis99 said:
    Seriously, this is from Investopedia under the article Top Bitcoin Myths Debunked!

    Under the fourth debunked myth ("Cryptocurrencies Are Bad for the Environment"), the author acknowledges that some people see a problem in all the electrical power used by Bitcoin. But then he quickly bats away that assertion: What's worth remembering, however, is that the value of mining for a cryptocurrency nearly always outweighs the real-world cost that is required in order to complete that mining operation.

    Well, what a relief! It nearly always outweighs the real-world cost!

    I know I'm cherry-picking, but bitcoin fandom is as weird to me as Elon Musk fandom.

    Fandom of anything requires suspension of disbelief.

  • @ExAsperis99 said:
    Seriously, this is from Investopedia under the article Top Bitcoin Myths Debunked!

    Under the fourth debunked myth ("Cryptocurrencies Are Bad for the Environment"), the author acknowledges that some people see a problem in all the electrical power used by Bitcoin. But then he quickly bats away that assertion: What's worth remembering, however, is that the value of mining for a cryptocurrency nearly always outweighs the real-world cost that is required in order to complete that mining operation.

    Well, what a relief! It nearly always outweighs the real-world cost!

    I know I'm cherry-picking, but bitcoin fandom is as weird to me as Elon Musk fandom.

    The whole edifice is built on dodgy beliefs, and is based on a libertarian fantasy. First of all you have to believe that fiat currencies inevitably end in hyperinflation, and then you have to believe that artificially scarce bitcoin can replace gold in a techno version of hard money, despite the fact that the average transaction takes about 30 minutes and it's too volatile a "currency" to actually be able to set prices with.

    But what's the endgame for government-free decentralised money? No government, no social fabric, no public services. Welcome to dystopia.

    IMO it's just a solution in search of a problem: the distributed ledger allegedly resolves issues of trust between parties, but that's precisely why we have a legal system and a government to enforce the law: so that parties can do business with each other without fear of being ripped off. The fantasy of Bitcoin is that you can do away with the legal system and the government and just use Blockchain instead. No thanks.

  • Excellent point.

  • I’m surprised nobody has linked https://everestpipkin.medium.com/but-the-environmental-issues-with-cryptoart-1128ef72e6a3 yet!

    @u0421793 said:
    The energy consumption is an out of date objection when POS becomes dominant. Well, admittedly it is still a current objection, but in the very near future it’ll be a thing of the past (except for actual Bitcoin, which is useless except as a currency – most other cryptos have some other utilisation other than just being money).

    Thing on proof-of-stake : https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/

    For my thesis in 2012, I researched Bitcoin and the blockchain with a fair amount of depth. Researchers were already clamouring for alternatives to Proof of Work. People have been saying “in the very near future it’ll be a thing of the past” for 10 years :)

    Please don‘t make NFTs, they‘re so tacky.

  • @richardyot said:

    @ExAsperis99 said:
    Seriously, this is from Investopedia under the article Top Bitcoin Myths Debunked!

    Under the fourth debunked myth ("Cryptocurrencies Are Bad for the Environment"), the author acknowledges that some people see a problem in all the electrical power used by Bitcoin. But then he quickly bats away that assertion: What's worth remembering, however, is that the value of mining for a cryptocurrency nearly always outweighs the real-world cost that is required in order to complete that mining operation.

    Well, what a relief! It nearly always outweighs the real-world cost!

    I know I'm cherry-picking, but bitcoin fandom is as weird to me as Elon Musk fandom.

    The whole edifice is built on dodgy beliefs, and is based on a libertarian fantasy. First of all you have to believe that fiat currencies inevitably end in hyperinflation, and then you have to believe that artificially scarce bitcoin can replace gold in a techno version of hard money, despite the fact that the average transaction takes about 30 minutes and it's too volatile a "currency" to actually be able to set prices with.

    But what's the endgame for government-free decentralised money? No government, no social fabric, no public services. Welcome to dystopia.

    IMO it's just a solution in search of a problem: the distributed ledger allegedly resolves issues of trust between parties, but that's precisely why we have a legal system and a government to enforce the law: so that parties can do business with each other without fear of being ripped off. The fantasy of Bitcoin is that you can do away with the legal system and the government and just use Blockchain instead. No thanks.

    Not to be forgotten, Bitcoins big supporters are people whose money is from dodgy sources that they want to keep hidden.

  • I never in my live read the acronym "NFT".
    For what does this stand?

  • @tja said:
    I never in my live read the acronym "NFT".
    For what does this stand?

    Google is your friend:

    https://www.theverge.com/22310188/nft-explainer-what-is-blockchain-crypto-art-faq

  • @espiegel123 said:

    @tja said:
    I never in my live read the acronym "NFT".
    For what does this stand?

    Google is your friend:

    https://www.theverge.com/22310188/nft-explainer-what-is-blockchain-crypto-art-faq

    UhMmnn.

    Thanks.

    I read that.

    I'm still not completely sure what it is.

    The acronym does not explain much.

    It seems that it is a way to prove ownership of some digital content, which may be some art (picture, music, whatever).

    It seems to be possible to speculate on such things ... but why would you?
    If you like a GIF or image you could use it, wether you own it or not.

    So ... beside some arbitrary notion of ownership, this would only be useful if the content could only be used by the real owner. But this is not true for images or music.

    And any protection that make this secure would only work on the the digital original, byte by byte. But an image or music can be changed slightly without any noticeable effect. So how could that ever work?

    Thanks for the URL!

  • @tja this video might be of interest:

  • @tja, the article explains what it is -- it is a method of marking and authenticating that something is the "original" digital file and it uses blockchain technology to accomplish that. It doesn't prevent file copying or anything -- but copies won't authenticate as the true original.

  • @richardyot

    Many thanks. interesting video!

    Indeed, this is just some way to create speculation objectsß

    I could make photo of the Eiffel tower, only show a small thumbnail of it and if I find someone who still pays $1 for it, the prices will increase as soon as others want to get it.

    Same as with hyped stocks.

    The real value does not matter, also not if you can do anything with it or not, as long as there are others that are willing to bet on increasing prices.

    And people seem to have enough money to speculate like this.

    The world is breaking apart.

  • wimwim
    edited March 10

    I'm waiting for the Donald to start selling his tweets as NFTs. He probably missed the boat for new tweets, but I wonder if he could sell some retroactively.

  • tjatja
    edited March 10

    @espiegel123 said:
    @tja, the article explains what it is -- it is a method of marking and authenticating that something is the "original" digital file and it uses blockchain technology to accomplish that. It doesn't prevent file copying or anything -- but copies won't authenticate as the true original.

    Yes, i believe that I wrote something like this above, in non-enlightened words 😅

    Interesting concept and sure great for artists, if they can find people willing to speculate on their stuff.

    But for this to work, you could use anything - a photo of a handful of sand, or whatever else.
    It only matters that you find people to bet on this.

  • @wim said:
    I'm waiting for the Donald to start selling his tweets as NFTs.

    😂😂😂

  • edited March 10

    @wim said:
    I'm waiting for the Donald to start selling his tweets as NFTs.

    What you are describing I believe is what theoretical physicists call the Singularity and evangelicals call the Rapture.
    Either way, THE END TIMES.

Sign In or Register to comment.