The Linux Audio Conference 2008 in Cologne (Feb 28th - Mar 2nd 2008)
is just one month away now. The programme is shaping up, concerts are
being organized and coffee is about to be ordered.
To help us with planning the LAC2008 we kindly ask you to register now
at the conference website. This helps us to estimate how many visitors
we may expect, what individuals the audience is made of, and allows to
produce name tags for all attendees so that it becomes easier to
identify each other.
To register, please use the "Registration" form at
Also we now have put accommodation info plus some maps of the
conference location online. You can find these on
http://lac.linuxaudio.org under "Visitor Info".
Finally if you're living in Cologne or nearby: We are looking for
volunteers who would like to help out in any way, e.g. to host artists
and paper presenters in their flat. If you want to offer your help,
please contact the LAC2008 orga team at lac(a)linuxaudio.org
The LAC2008 chair is looking forward to have another great conference
with you all.
All the best
Frank Barknecht and Martin Rumori
Chairs of LAC2008
>> On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 23:36 +0100, Yann Orlarey wrote:
>>> A fully functional jack application can be easily generated using the
>>> faust2jack command or by pasting the above code in the online faust
>>> compiler (http://faust.grame.fr). The performances on my Vaio laptop
>>> (Intel Core 2 CPU T7400 @ 2.16GHz) is approximately of 2%.
>> I think they call that "game, set and match".
> Not really, but still I'm impressed :-)
> - Even fdelay4 is not up to the task. There are
> gain variations of more than 6dB for a 20 kHz
> signal, Fs = 48 kHz. Even stranger, they are
> not symmetric w.r.t. the fraction of the delay,
> e.g. 10.3 samples shows a different gain than
> 9.7. Which makes me suspicious.
> - My usual grunge: unless you want me accidentally
> destroy some very expensive equipment which is not
> even mine, the generated JACK apps
> MUST NOT AUTOCONNECT --- NEVER --- TO ANYTHING.
We discussed this two years ago. I both respect and understand
your reasons to take your position on this issue, but I still
strongly disagree with you, and I also think its a bit sad
that you use such strong wording about an issue which there
clearly are two different views upon. Its also sad if you
destroy your equipment, but you are actually
yourself to blame if it happens.
And just to repeat my position: Unless someone can make
it probable that most people prefer jack applications not
to autoconnect by default, all jack programs should
autoconnect by default.
Anyway, this is a jack-dev issue, and there are various
ways to fix the jack server so that it will be possible
to turn off autoconnect  for those who prefer so.
However, you (the non-autoconnect people) must push this new
API or functionality into jack, because the rest of us are
satisfied with the current situation where almost all jack
clients autoconnect by default, and therefore its unlikely
for us to find the motivation to push this.
 One simple hack you can do is simply just to create some
new dummy ports and set those as being the system default
instead of the real system default.
That hack shouldn't take more than a few hours to
implement. If you feel so strongly about this issue,
you should make such a modification to jack.
Note, this is just a hack to fix the problem temorarily,
not a long-term solution.
> Okay, I'll see if I can make up for my awful post from before with a
> constructive question.
> If you wanted to quickly prototype an idea for a DSP routine, how would
> you go about it? It would need to work in real-time, but it wouldn't
> really need to be super-efficient for testing ideas.
> Thank you for the help.
For quick and interactive, imperative or functional,
realtime or non-realtime, development of dsp routines,
clm is your choice:
and in realtime:
Lots of example code:
+ many other files.
If you don't need tight feedback loops (As Albert calls it),
you might want to look at pd, csound, supercollider, etc. instead.
If you _really_ like functional programming and aren't
afraid to learn a really different syntax, faust might probably
be a very good alternative. I don't think you'll get the kind of tight
interactive development environment with it as the other systems
though. ie. you have to write code, compile up, run test, etc.,
while in the other systems, you can just write code and test directly.
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:13:02 -0500
Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:28 +0000, pete
> shorthose wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:44:46 -0500
> > Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:22 +0000, pete
> > > shorthose wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:41:39 -0500
> > > > Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:00 +0000, pete
> > > > > shorthose wrote:
> > > > > > virtually nobody cares what you think.
> > > > > > how's that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Virtually nobody even knows who you
> > > > > are, let alone what you think. How's
> > > > > that?
> > > >
> > > > i'd agree with that entirely. i'm not very
> > > > active on this list nor in the community
> > > > in general. it's even truer in the wider
> > > > context. so, pejorative implications
> > > > aside, yeah, that's also a fair statement
> > > > to make. quite what it has to do with the
> > > > matter at hand, i'm not so sure.
> > >
> > > You started it, don't complain when you get
> > > what's coming ;)
> > ok. get back to me when you can justify your
> > statement with something other then an ad
> > hominem.
> You say X to me.
> I say X to you.
hardly. even if you missed the point (which i
doubt, having sparred with you on irc numerous
times, to altogether more humorous effect) i even
explained on irc that it was not intended as an
insult, that i was illustrating an invalid
debating tactic by using it against you.
in order to tackle it directly you cannot avoid
undermining your own use of it. and you knew it
too. hence you changed the subject to how i was
a nobody and hence irrelevant.
now, in the scheme of things, that may even be
true, but it doesn't make me wrong.
so there, that's cleared that up. _again_.
> You accuse me of ad hominem.
indeed. you didn't tackle my point directly,
preferring instead to question my right to
criticise you at all for reasons unrelated to the
topic of discussion. text book ad hominem.
i doubt that even you would attempt to dispute
that. (well, perhaps doubt is too strong a word)
> I'll get back to you when you know something
> about discourse other than being able to quote
> fancy words you don't seem to understand.
you just served up some fresh insults and still
didn't justify what you said. i tell you, i'm
not in the least bit fucking surprised.
now, if you feel the need, concoct some juicy
combination of pejoratives and craft them into
a rejoinder. it's a free shot at the basket
because i'm well and truly done talking to you.
i might as well be debating an ATM.
I'd like to clarify a few questions regarding GPL and LinuxSampler.
The GPL implicitly prohibits third parties from selling a computer program
licensed under the terms of GPL, by only allowing the following, quoting
"...if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a
"... You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy..."
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in
part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
1. selling a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL and
2. charging a fee for distribution of a computer program licensed under the
terms of GPL / charging for a physical act of transferring a copy
are 2 entirely different things.
When you sell a computer program you are charging for the costs(human
resources - developers, designers; technical resources - computers etc) you
have put into *developing a computer program* plus you are charging an
adittional fee based on your estimation of value that your product would
have on the market(offer/demand stuff)
When you distribute a computer program or charge a fee for physical act of
transferring a copy you are charging for the costs you have put into
*distribution of a computer program* plus you are charging an additional fee
based on your estimation of value that your *distribution service* would
have on the market.
This means that:
1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a hardware
product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a computer
program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL.
2. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, whether
modified or not, in a software product, the intention of which is not to
distribute a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, is not a
distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is
thus prohibited by GPL.
No.1 of course has an exception, you would have to sell a computer that has
a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL installed on it as a part
of distribution, for the purpose of selling the computer(for example with
preinstalled Linux distribution)
No.2 has several scenarios:
a) a distribution is an obvious case where a given computer program licensed
under the terms of GPL is a part of a bigger software product, the sole
purpose of which is to distribute, thus a distribution is fully GPL
compliant whether made available for transfer at no charge, or selled as a
package in stores.
b) a scenario where computer program must not be modified in order to become
part of another comuter program "...thus forming a work based on the
Program..." This means that if a computer program as a whole, whether
modified or not, becomes part of another computer program at *source-code*
level, then the terms of GPL apply to such derived work.
You can derive a work from another at source code level(by modifying the
original, by adding code to it while not modifying the original, or both)
but you can also derive a work at binary level. And if fact, the GPL doesn't
differentiate between source-code and binary level derived works:
"...any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part
contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof..."
So suppose a software developer goes on developing a cool GUI for a computer
program licensed under the terms of GPL which he intends to sell.
The GUI talks to the GPLed computer program via some kind of IPC.
He can claim that he's charging for his own program and distributing the
GPLed computer program along with it, since the two are in fact 2 separate
applications that communicate through IPC.
This might be true, but consider the following - the GPLed computer program
is capable of functioning as a standalone application, whereas the GUI
application is practically useless without the GPLed computer program, ans
is thus a derived work at *binary-level*.
The GPL states, that "...in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
Program...", which means, whether at source code level or binary level.
This has the following consequences:
A proprietary computer program that is not capable of functioning as a
standalone computer program, and is communicating with a computer program
licensed under the terms of GPL, in order to ensure its purpose and proper
functioning, is a derived work under the terms of GPL, thus the terms of GPL
apply to such work, and a software developer of such proprietary computer
program is *also* violating the terms of GPL by not distributing the
computer program licensed under the terms of GPL for the sole purpose of
So to summarize that with respect to LinuxSampler, the exception
"LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that USAGE of
the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED" is in fact no exception at all, and is
already covered by GPL.
If someone finds such interpretation too vague for his own taste, he can
simply make an amendment to the GPL license, stating that you can only
charge for distribution of Program for the sole purpose of distributing it,
but not for the actual Program, which would basically equal to the above
Also note that this only applies to *third parties*, not the actual
copyright holder. He can issue another license if someone finds GPL too
restrictive for his needs, and charge for it.
So LinuxSampler is basically a pure GPLed computer program.
> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:08 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>> - My usual grunge: unless you want me accidentally
>> destroy some very expensive equipment which is not
>> even mine, the generated JACK apps
>> MUST NOT AUTOCONNECT --- NEVER --- TO ANYTHING.
> Hear hear. This setting really must be moved into Jack. Let the user
> specify the auto-connect ports (or none).
Yes, exactly. And by default, the auto-connect ports are
the same as the physical ones. Those with special setups
are also the ones who must make special configurations.
i post to this list the official position of Brett Smith, Licensing
Compliance Engineer at Free Software Foundation.
He hasn't time to partecipate to the list but i could forward his
The GPL makes a distinction between charging for a copy of the program,
and charging for a license. If you were charging for the license, that
means that you could require *everyone* who receives the software to pay
you a fee, even if they get it from someone else, and that's what's
against the rules.
If you're charging only for the copy that you provide, the license
doesn't care about the details of the transaction. Whether you're
distributing the software by itself, as part of a collection of
software, or preinstalled on some kind of physical hardware, you can
charge a fee for it and still comply with the GPL.
You can see the practical results of this distinction in our FAQ; if you
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMo…>, and read the two questions after that one, you'll see the answers change from "Yes" to "No."
P.s. If anybody has further questions you could contact Brett writing at
licensing(a)(NOSPAM)fsf.org with this subject : gnu.org #354583.
Just to clear up a few recent misunderstandings that have been aired on the
list, I'd like to clarify my position on the various nekosynth plugins (that
is, nekobee, nekostring, nekoplunk, the organ, and the as-yet unreleased and
waaay unfinished Hera plugin):
You may use these plugins in accordance with the GPL for any purpose. If you
want to produce a piece of commercial hardware that utilises a version of my
plugins, that's fine - but I'd like you to send me some demo hardware. Toys
are good, and you can be sure that your hardware will always be supported by
the freshest versions of the software.
You may use these plugins on any recording, commercial or non-commercial. If
you make a shitload of money from a record where you use one of my plugins,
I'd like it if you mention me on your website or maybe somewhere in the
sleeve notes. If you could see your way clear to providing a short demo (30
seconds or so) that would be really great, and will earn you the right to ask
for special custom versions.
You may sell copies of the software, as long as this complies with the GPL.
In general, include the source if you've modified it, and leave my copyright
message in. Simple, eh?
On the subject of selling software, I'd like to offer the following range of
For £5/6.75EUR/US$10 you can get all the nekosynth plugins, in their current
state, on a CD. Not only that, but I'll throw in the full Subversion dump,
all tagged-stable tarballs (even from before I was using svn), and the demo
For £25/33EUR/$50, you can get the nekosynth Producer Pack, which comes with
some drum loops and six cans of McEwans Export.
For £50/66EUR/$100, you get nekosynth Studio Edition, which comes with the
drum loops, 12 cans of Deuchars IPA, and some random electronic components I
hoovered up off the floor in my studio.
For £750/1000EUR/(not applicable in US markets) you can get nekosynth Super
Mega Fun Box edition, which comes with the drum loops, a Cheetah Telecaster
copy, and a 1993 Ford Escort with six month's tax and a year's MOT (but no
beer, because we can't possibly encourage drink-driving).
Finally, for the true enthusiast, you can order the nekosynth Ultimate Eternal
Natural Beauty edition, for the low, low price of £36,000 (not available
outside UK). This has the full source tree, CNC-milled onto 8'x4' slabs of
natural Ballachulish slate, packaged in mahogany presentation cases, and a
free Leyland Roadrunner 7.5 tonne truck to ensure that you can take your copy
of the source code with you wherever you go!
Now you can't say any fairer than that, can you?
I've still got some problems with my LS. I can load smaller gigsampler (upto
650M for sure) and even larger ones, bUT...
But when I load my Old Lady Grand (1.3G) it loads perfectly, but when I try
to connect LS to JACK the following happens:
Caching initial samples...OK
cannot complete execution of the processing graph (Resource temporarily
zombified - calling shutdown handler
Noise-shaped dithering at 16 bits
jackd watchdog: timeout - killing jackd
what's the trouble. I just compiled JACK 0.109.1 (svn from 29.01.2008) and
0.5.1 (tarball). My kernel is:
host # uname -a
Linux bach 126.96.36.199-rt11 #2 PREEMPT RT Sun Dec 30 22:43:22 CET 2007 i686
I've got 512M RAM (no Xserver running), so mostly unused.
I compiled my LS with 8 diskstreams min and 140 max, and max 128 voices, the
rest was decided by the configure script. I even tried reverting the
disk-stream options and the voices to normal.
Jack was compiled without a lot of drivers I don't need, and with
--enable-resize --enable-timestamps --enable-sse --enable-mmx
I start my jackd with:
jackd --timeout 4000 -R -d alsa -d hw:1 -r 48000 -H -M -p 256 -z shaped
I've got a 1.8Ghz CPU and my soundcard is an MAudio Delta 1010LT.
One last note: I checked memory sage with top: Even with the big gigasample
it only takes 41% and CPU-usage is marginal.
So where would you suspect the most possible source for my problem?
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
May I remind all of you of a few facts :
- We have currently 736 members on this list. Those of you math lovers
will have guessed that sending an email to this list implies having
(736 - number who have disabled mail delivery ~= 700) receipients.
- When one of you sends bull crap on this list, 700 people can have
the pleasure of receiving (reading?) it.
- When someone flames over a topic that has been debated countless
times, without reaching an interesting conclusion, I would say at
least 600 people would have rather read the old arguments in the
You might also want to read the Linux Audio Dev's homepage :
Interesting quote :
"The Linux Audio Development Mailing List is unmoderated. No matter
what you post, the list will see it. Please take responsibility, keep
your postings on topic and help maintain the friendly and respectful
atmosphere that we have here"
Thank you to keep those in mind when posting.