I need to combine two HDSPe MADI FX cards to one virtual device. I have a
working driver, which is alsa-compatible. I can select each single card in
any alsa-compatible application and all channels work flawless.
For combining the MADI FX cards to one virtual device, I created an
.asoundrc with 194 inputs for each card. When I start that virtual device
via
jackd -R -d alsa -C madifx_record_all -P madifx_playback_all
I get this error:
> creating alsa driver ...
>
madifx_playback_all|madifx_record_all|1024|2|48000|0|0|nomon|swmeter|-|32bit
> jackd: pcm_multi.c:1060: snd_pcm_multi_open: Assertion
`!slave_map[sidxs[i]][schannels[i]]' failed.
However, it works when I reduce the amount from 194 to 64 channels per
card. I tried to use 128 channels per card, but that fails the same way.
See my alsa-info attached, which also includes the .asoundrc content.
I also found this, which might be related:
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/mirrors/lalists/lad/2005/06/0202.html
To me, this looks like a bug. What do you think?
I am getting this error "Jack Error: zombified - calling shutdown
handler" with default timeout of 500ms. Increasing timeout to 4000ms
helps, but it isn't clear why 500ms isn't sufficient.
Jack thread only connects with the actual client code through the
process() callback. I timed process(), it never takes longer than 5ms.
Given that the system has very low CPU load, why does the process become
zombified? And why other apps, like Ardour, don't suffer from this?
Client: newly written Jack backend for qTox.
jack-0.125.0 on FreeBSD 11.
Yuri
jack_set_buffer_size limits frame size to the powers of 2.
The Opus codec (http://opus-codec.org/) doesn't like such frame sizes.
It defines frame sizes in milliseconds, and allows 5 ms, 10 ms, 20 ms,
25 ms, ... which in case of 48,000 sample rate are never a power of two.
It seems like Jack shouldn't be so strict in limiting frame rates to the
powers of 2.
How to solve this problem?
Yuri
On Thu, July 20, 2017 5:35 am, Yuri wrote:
> The fact that any DBus-linked program requires X indicates some
> problem. This should never happen.
It did not require X, just that the DISPLAY environment variable be set.
Explained later by Rowan.
--
Chris Caudle
I'm trying to run a script in my Odroid-U3 which launches Jack and Pd,
but Jack doesn't start.
This is my script, called 'launch_jack_pd.sh':
#!/bin/bash
jackd -dalsa -dhw:1 -i2 -o4 -p512 -r48000 &
pd -jack -inchannels 2 -outchannels 4 -nogui -open
I've tried launching it with cron (user's odroid cron, not root), by
appending the following line at the end:
@reboot sleep 30 ; sh /home/odroid/scripts/launch_jack_pd.sh
I've also tried launching it with rc.local, by placing the following
line before 'exit 0':
sudo -c '/home/odroid/scripts/launch_jack_pd.sh' - odroid &
None of them seem to work. Pd runs, but Jack doesn't. The script is
callable manually and works as expected. The Odroid runs lubunty 14.04.2
LTS, and Jack is jackdmp 1.9.10
Any tips?
The recommended download site http://jackaudio.org/downloads/ suffers
from these problems:
* It is http:// making it vulnerable to MITM attacks.
* It doesn't provide tarball fingerprints (md5 or sha256)
I recommend you discontinue it, and just use GitHub instead. A lot of
projects do this successfully. GitHub is already usable this way.
Yuri
Hello everyone,
I have recently discovered JamRouter
https://github.com/williamweston/jamrouter
the use of which resulted in a subjective improvement in feel when playing
percussive parts on high-throughput MIDI controllers such as the QuNeo or
the Linnstrument over a2jmidid. The documented test cases in the readme seem
rather impressive as well.
It appears to me that JamRouter is highly undervalued and I would like to
ask for your opinions as a Jack users on whether it has simply been
overlooked, or whether there is a technical reason it is not receiving more
attention.
Thank you very much!
Carlo
--
View this message in context: http://jack-audio.10948.n7.nabble.com/Considering-JamRouter-a-low-jitter-MI…
Sent from the Jackit mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hello again,
as elaborated in my previous mail (bad news) the jackaudio.org page is
kind of in trouble.
Before these problems can be resolved, there are a few things that have
to be made clear:
1 Who has currently access to the webspace hosting jackaudio.org? I
know Paul has, I think Stéphane has and somewhere in the back of my head
a voice tells me the Filipe might have access?
2 What I know is, that whoever has access to the webspace of
jackaudio.org has not been monitoring the jack-devel list for my pull
requests. I asked Paul directly and it was done, but I think that should
not be required all the time, so here are some proposals:
2.1 Allow me to access the webspace and do the updates myself. I do not
need a real shell, some kind of file system access should be sufficient.
Pro:
* technically easy, depending on how it's done
* simplifies communication for me (no need to send pull requests to the
List)
* will result in fast updates in the future
* adds no more dependecy on GitHub services
Con:
* trust/security/legal concerns
* shifts more responsibility on me, reduces control for the webspace owner
* still fails in case I am not available
2.2 Set up continuous integration process
GitHub offers an API for interacting with external services in case a
repository is updated. This could be used to deploy changes in the
jackaudio.org repository automatically to the webspace. I would need to
look up how this could work in detail and if there are additional costs
involved. Maybe it can be done in the same way as the ardour.org
homepage is set up?
Pro:
* removes more need for manual intervention in the long run
* no need to authorize additional users to access the webspace
* keeps working even if the maintainers of the website changes
Con:
* requires an external or internal service to be authorized to access
the webspace
* requires some amount of initial setup and testing
* adds a dependecy on GitHub services
* needs documentation and maintenance cost might be to high
2.3 Remove the webspace from the chain completely.
The page will then be hosted only on GitHub pages under the
jackaudio.org domain.
Pro:
* simplifies deployment considerably
* Deployment does not depend on multiple people anymore: faster, less
work hours wasted
* Deployment of updates will be much faster
* more features of the GitHub Pages service can be used, like fetching
repository metadata, hosting of binaries, etc...
* Adding/removing maintainers is easy and handled through access to the
GitHub repository
Con:
* Makes the page dependant on GitHub, if GitHub goes down or evil, so
will the page. Still, it will be possible to host the static page on any
webspace when that happens and just change the domain record.
* Domain owner has less control over the page content.
* Needs some setup by the domain owner, I remember there have been
concerns about the records for mail adresses and the jack mailing lists.
(not entirely sure since the lists seem to sit on a subdomain, this
probably also entails security concerns...)
2.4 Migrate to something completely unrelated. aka Your suggestions?
3 hosting of binaries
This needs input by those who manage the releases of jack1 and jack2
since it is tied into the release process.
What users usually expect is the following ordered by importance
(subjective):
a) one official location for downloads
b) a predictable and consistent naming convention for files and archives
and the contents (especially for packaging)
c) predictable and consistent URLs for all versions and
variants(especially for packaging)
d) complete source tarballs
e) patchnotes
f) additional mirrors
g) checksums
h) release announcement
b, d, e, g, and h are usually provided by the ones responsible for the
releases, the rest depends on which approach was chosen in section 2.
If the webspace is used, I strongly suggest to use it also for the
binries and in case I get access I can offer to put the binaries there
for you in the right place. Otherwise there is the opportunity to create
tags on your GitHub repositories and attach the files there, which is
also a nice place to put checksums, patchnotes and other version
information and also provides automatically a source archive of the
tagged commit.
I will not add the binaries into the repository of the webpage and git
LFS does not sound especially compelling to me too since it requires,
surprise, external hosting of the files anyway and in that case, there
is almost no gain over just using the webspace or the GitHub releases
features.
Dear Paul, dear Stéphane, dear Filipe,
maybe talk to each other on the LAC about it and come to a conclusion,
because I am at a loss here and can not go any further without your
intervention. It's not the end of the world, but it kind of keeps
bugging me and the users.
best regards
Markus