Linux-audio-dev February 2008

linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

49 participants
41 discussions

by Kjetil S. Matheussen

Fons Adriaensen: > >> You can be as much of a professional user as you want to. >> It doesn't change the fact that other professionals might >> not want the system to behave like you do. > >Which again means it should be configurable. Absolutely. I think a new function for jack would be better than an environment variable though: int jack_autoconnect_playback (jack_client_t *, int portnum, const char *source_port); int jack_autoconnect_record (jack_client_t *, int portnum, const char *destination_port); The reason is that this API will make it easier for programs to make autoconnection configurabe. Autoconnecting the old way (which includes finding the physical ports and/or checking environment variables for ports to connect to, etc.) is a lot more hassle than just calling the functions above. > BTW, JSB may turn in his grave, but I _do_ like the > sound of sandysth... I still have to go through the > works to understand the algorithm... Thank you very much. :-) I don't understand the algorithm myself, so if someone else understood it, that would be great. I think its quite similar to green noise, which I read about later, created by moore at ucsd if I remember correctly.

16 years, 2 months

Re: [LAD] jack client autoconnection (fwd)

by Kjetil S. Matheussen

Jonatan Liljedahl: >> >> >> Thanks for clearing up. But I'm pretty sure your idea is too >> simple. We also need a way to create ports which are not >> autoconnected. >> >> The ideal way, if we follow this thread of thinking, would >> be to add another type of jack_port_register function, which >> does not autoconnect: >> >> jack_port_register_no_autoconnect(client,...); >> >> However, this new API will break a lot of current programs >> which are using the old jack_port_register function instead. >> Infact I don't think there is any (sane) way to make your >> proposal work without creating lots of mess with ports >> in old programs who are autoconnecting when it shouldn't. > > I think my proposal with a JackPortAutoConnect bit in JackPortFlags is > sane, it would not break old applications; they would continue to > function exactly as they are now. but updated code can get rid of their > own autoconnection and use this autoconnect bit in the flags to > jack_port_register() instead. > Yes, as long as JackPortAutoConnect is false by default, that's definietely a sane solution. Its basically the same kind of proposal I made, just using a flag to jack_port_register instead of a new function. But there is one problem with it: jack_client_t *client=... jack_port_t *out_port[0]=jack_port_register(client,...JackPortAutoConnect); jack_port_t *out_port[1]=jack_port_register(client,...JackPortAutoConnect); <something happens> jack_port_t *new_out_port[0]=jack_port_register(client,...JackPortAutoConnect); jack_port_t *new_out_port[1]=jack_port_register(client,...JackPortAutoConnect); The problem is that new_out_port[0] and new_out_port[1] will connect to physical port number 2 and 3 instead of 0 and 1. How do you fix this problem without adding a new function to jacklib?

16 years, 2 months

ALSA & daemon

by Fons Adriaensen

Is there any reason why raw ALSA MIDI streams would stop working if the process that opened them switches to daemon mode ? (see mand daemon(3)) Ciao, -- FA Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica Parma, Italia Lascia la spina, cogli la rosa.

16 years, 2 months

Re: [LAD] [OT] an ogg vorbis player for Java ME mobile phones?

by Joern Nettingsmeier

nick, thanks for your reply - i guess you intended it to go to the list as well? anyway, in case anyone else is interested, Nick Bailey wrote: > http://www.jcraft.com/jorbis/ any use? cool, thanks! it's not java ME, but SE, but i may be able to steal code from it. best, jörn -- jörn nettingsmeier home://germany/45128 essen/lortzingstr. 11/ http://spunk.dnsalias.org phone://+49/201/491621 Kurt is up in Heaven now.

16 years, 2 months

Re: [LAD] Prototyping algorithms and ideas

by Kjetil S. Matheussen

Fons Adriaensen: > >> 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 [1] 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. [1] 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.

16 years, 2 months

Jackdmp

by alex stone

As a complete aside to the gaiety and good natured frollocking going in the GPL discussion, I'm writing to say thanks to Stephane and the Jackdmp team. I've installed the latest incarnation (0.69), and it works a treat. The system's never run so well. Thanks fellas, your skill and determination is appreciated. Alex Stone.

16 years, 2 months

Re: [LAD] Prototyping algorithms and ideas

by Kjetil S. Matheussen

Darren Landrum: > > 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: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/clm/ and in realtime: http://www.notam02.no/arkiv/doc/snd-rt/ Lots of example code: http://snd.cvs.sourceforge.net/snd/cvs-snd/clm-ins.scm?view=log http://snd.cvs.sourceforge.net/snd/cvs-snd/animals.scm?view=log http://snd.cvs.sourceforge.net/snd/cvs-snd/dsp.scm?view=log + 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.

16 years, 2 months

Re: [LAD] jack client autoconnection

by Kjetil S. Matheussen

Fons Adriaensen: > Well, for the record, I am a professional user in every sense > of the word you could imagine. I'm being paid to design and > develop audio systems running on Linux, and that is my main > source of income. > > If it works, and if it doesn't make a mess of the calibrated > gains for each channel, and if you can convince the users of > this system that they need it, you will be paid very well and > then you can consider yourself a professional. You can be as much of a professional user as you want to. It doesn't change the fact that other professionals might not want the system to behave like you do. >A simple environment variable tested by >all apps will do (e.g. something similar to 'EDITOR' which >is used by most apps that need to start a text editor). > >Any app that directly connects to the sound card, without >even offering the option not to do so, is like a musician >walking into a studio and plugging his synth directly in >the the control room's power amps. Even if he promises not >to do that again next time, there's a good chance he won't >be welcome anymore. We agree about this. Snd has the environment variable SND_AUTOCONNECT_PORT, or something, but a common name for all programs would be much better.

16 years, 2 months

REACT for Linux

by Joshua Boyd

Has anyone had a chance to look at this? http://www.sgi.com/products/software/react/linux_overview.html Does anyone know if it really adds any capabilities other than some debugging tools over regular real time linux?

16 years, 2 months

Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 " isn't well thought out ?" LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)

by pete shorthose

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. > > Um... > > 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. cheers, pete.

16 years, 2 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Linux-audio-dev February 2008