Hi,
I wonder what the LAD community thinks about Non Session Manager
http://non.tuxfamily.org/nsm/API.htmlhttp://non.tuxfamily.org/nsmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui-gC_ZMeGMhttp://youtu.be/xzspJXbEoc0
From a user POV I must say that it works very smooth at first sight.
It's easy to use and one of the strong points seems to be the
flexibility, e.g. the ability to copy and change existing sessions, run
multiple sessions (also via network). But I cannot comment on the
technical goods and bads of the API and how easy it will be to implement
this in a Jackaudio application. It seems to use OSC messages and
depends only on liblo.
Thanks in advance,
\r
Hi Everyone
Im would like to experiment using microphone arrays ( 24 channels ) and I
am just wondering if it is possible for me to use 3 units of Behringer
ADA8000 connected via ADAT to HDSP 9652. My tools run only with ALSA
supported devices and I checked through ALSA website, the HDSP 9652 seemed
to be OK. Im just wondering if the set-up I mentioned is possible ? Will
there be any issue at all if i use the ADA8000 as far as ALSA is concerned
? Thank you very much, I really would appreciate any suggestions or
comments. Thank you
Phil
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 09:03:12AM +0100, Emanuel Rumpf wrote:
> Am 21. März 2012 18:28 schrieb Joel Roth <joelz(a)pobox.com>:
> >
> > https://github.com/navicore/Jacks
> >
>
> hm ...
> The code uses a mutex_lock in the process callback:
>
> _lock(_this_);
> _this_->nframes = nframes;
> _unlock(_this_);
>
>
> From the doc of pthread_mutex_lock: "If the mutex is already locked,
> the calling thread blocks until the mutex becomes available."
>
> A try-lock (pthread_mutex_trylock) may be less likely to disturb jacks
> process flow.
>
> --
> E.R.
Hi folks. I'm the author, new to the list, new to audio, been on
vacation but back now and hoping to learn and contribute. Programming /
playing with jack has been fun!
Emanuel, thx for the suggestion. The job of that mutex is to block the
callback until the user code has run, _trylock wouldn't do that.
It is the same approach jack uses when you call jack_session_reply, an
event completion token pattern that runs this code from jack engine.c
<code>
static void
do_request (jack_engine_t *engine, jack_request_t *req, int *reply_fd)
{
/* The request_lock serializes internal requests (from any
* thread in the server) with external requests (always from "the"
* server thread).
*/
pthread_mutex_lock (&engine->request_lock);
</code>
I intend to change to _timed_lock for safety but the mutex is there to
serialize execution between the callback and the perl/python/ruby/lua
user code. Open to different designs but this one lets me expose the
Jack API to multiple languages with one swig.i file and lets the user
program in a synchronous style.
The overhead of the context switching and locks is unfortunate. Works
fine for me reimplementing the example-clients with 48000 sample rate
but I'm a n00b and don't know what real processing looks like.
Can anyone point me to a way to stress test? I'd like to know at what
point all the overhead of my approach plus the costs of the host lang
VMs breaks things.
Btw, I'm sure the main value of a pkg like this is the session api and
not the processing. If you don't open any ports it won't register the
process_cb callback with Jack and you won't have the processing costs.
Regarding the build/install, I intend to make the main build system
generate platform distribution-friendly installable dist files rather
than the ./configure stuff it uses now. CPAN-friendly, rubyrock,
luarock, etc...
Sorry for the long post
-Ed
Hi phil,
i used different distros... at the moment im using linux mint 12 with rt
patch, ubuntu studio 9.04 to 10.04 with lowlatency kernel. on any system
the 9652 was running fine.
if you just want to record stuff you dont need rt.
only if you want to do processing of any kind, rt is needed.
the 9632 has no expansion board, therefore it only has 16 in and 16out.
the 9652 is the same card but with the expansion board, capable of 24
in/out.
bye
Ck
On 28.03.2012 14:59, Phil T wrote:
>
> Hi Christoph,
>
>
> Thank you ! I am really new to hardware and stuff. I am just
> wondering what linux distro are you using ? Do you think ubuntu may
> suffice ? I have read some threads suggesting to manually compile a
> kernel enabling rt and Im just wondering if you have manually compiled
> a kernel in your case ? Lastly, in the RME homepage, it says that the
> HDSP 9652 can have up to 16 inputs. However if I am not mistaken, it
> also says it has 3 ADAT input so Im just wondering with 3 ADAT input,
> it could be possibly take in 24 inputs all in all. Thank you very much.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christoph Kuhr <christoph.kuhr(a)web.de
> <mailto:christoph.kuhr@web.de>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> im running it for a few year... works perfect
>
> bye
> Ck
>
> On 28.03.2012 01:44, Phil T wrote:
>> Hi Everyone
>>
>> Im would like to experiment using microphone arrays ( 24 channels
>> ) and I am just wondering if it is possible for me to use 3 units
>> of Behringer ADA8000 connected via ADAT to HDSP 9652. My tools
>> run only with ALSA supported devices and I checked through ALSA
>> website, the HDSP 9652 seemed to be OK. Im just wondering if the
>> set-up I mentioned is possible ? Will there be any issue at all
>> if i use the ADA8000 as far as ALSA is concerned ? Thank you very
>> much, I really would appreciate any suggestions or comments.
>> Thank you
>>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
>> Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org <mailto:Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org>
>> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
> <mailto:Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org>
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>
>
Hi all,
Pretty strong consensus is that the LV2 specs being a bunch of packages
is a nuisance. So, I plan to start releasing them all in one package.
People have asked for this, but I'm not positive it's what they want.
The main odd consequence would be packages checked by configure scripts
(via pkg-config) will not correlate with tarballs. For example, a
program may check for lv2-state-2.4 but no tarball with that name will
actually exist. It will be in lv2-everything-2012-03-21 or whatever.
It would be difficult to correlate which version of lv2-everything
contains a recent enough version of what you need, if something is
failing to configure.
I don't think it's feasible or wise to mash everything in to one package
right down to the pkg-config level, but I'm open to arguments otherwise.
Extensions are independently versioned so changes to them don't affect
the version of others. In all the ways that count, extensions are
completely decentralized and separate (anyone can make one and
distribute it, or not, on their own), but maybe that doesn't mean they
need to be packaged that way?
In short, I am ready and willing to reshape the packaging to make life
easy and to ease adoption as much as possible, but nobody has come up
with exactly what that is. All suggestions welcome, including blatant
"this is all ridiculous crap and you should just <painfully simple
approach here>" kind of thoughts...
Cheers,
-dr
> > "Shared data plus locking" is a pretty crap model in general, really.
> > When people talk about all the complications that threads introduce,
> > they're really talking about this. Shared mutable state is the
> cancer of multi-threaded programming.
This should be tattooed on every newbie. ;)
Visualize your GUI running on a 64-bit iPad in Madrid, and your DSP running
on 32-bit Ubuntu in Seattle. Design your API accordingly.....
Best Regards,
Jeff
> Lignux systems only have write access to their home directories, which
> the system does not run software from by default.
So Malware can trash your personal documents and steal your identity.....but
the kernel is safe?
> Windows isn't a victim of its own popularity, it's a victim of being
> crap.
Yeah, While the average programmer makes 20 errors per 1000 lines-of-code.
Linux programmers, having being on a mission form god, NEVER make such
mistakes, therefore Linux is has no exploitable flaws.
;)
Seriously though, this is *SO* off topic.
Best Regards,
Jeff
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 20:15:23 -0400
> From: David Robillard <d(a)drobilla.net>
> Subject: Re: [LAD] Linux Malware
> To: Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>
> Cc: Linux Audio Developers <linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
> Message-ID: <1332548123.6586.15.camel(a)verne.drobilla.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 18:17 +0300, Louigi Verona wrote:
> > Hey guys!
> >
> > This is an Offtopic question, really, but I wanted to ask people I
> > know and people who are developers - what are the reasons there are
> > (almost) no viruses on Linux?
> >
> > The typical argument is that there are not too much users.
>
> Maybe "typical" in Redmond... the typical sane argument is that users
> on
> Lignux systems only have write access to their home directories, which
> the system does not run software from by default.
>
> Windows, on the other hand, traditionally had users running with
> complete access to the system. Add to the mix notoriously flaky
> low-quality code, slow moving development, and a core system built from
> numerous layers of piled legacy crap, and it'd be shocking if exploits
> *didn't* run rampant.
>
> Anyone claiming that any system would have been as badly affected in
> Windows' situation has no idea what they're talking about. The system
> essentially didn't have any form of security whatsoever. The security
> model wasn't flawed, it *wasn't there*. You didn't have to exploit the
> system to get viruses and malware on it, you just had to get the user
> to
> run something.
>
> Windows isn't a victim of its own popularity, it's a victim of being
> crap.
>
> -dr
>
