On Sunday 05 Dec 2004 22:38, Hans Fugal wrote:
> > The DSSI JACK host will always try to start a user interface for
> > each plugin it loads. (It could easily have a command line switch
> > to tell it not to, but there isn't one at the moment.)
>
> Attached is a patch.
Committed to DSSI CVS, thanks.
Chris
Hi!
I've just one important - for me at least - question. Can the jack example
client be used without gui? Can it be used with midi only?
Thanks!
Kindest regards
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net - the Linux TextBased Studio guide
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 23:17, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:34:17 +0100, Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > 2. I can only understand the point of view of open source developers
> > here, since they also invested an awfull lot of time (and money that
> > they didn't get back!) into developing linux audio applications, many of
> > which are state-of-art at least with respect to technology. And they're
> > free as in beer/speech.
>
> That was their choice. Right?
Sure but the result is the _same_ with respect to what they
deliver(state of art technology), which has the same value for me. Not
the same with respect to what you get in the end.(a non-functioning
device you paid a lot for, just because this and that)
>
> > That said i really don't understand the point of view of those few how
> > actually kindof defend the position of RME (or any other manufacturer in
> > a similar position), no offense intended.
>
> RME's position, and I am only guessing here, is that they would be
> happy to release info to the Open Source community __IF__ that
> information didn't help their competitors develop hardware that
> competed with RME.
How? To achieve 1ms less latency?
> It is natural for people who have spent money to
> want to protect it's value. We are that way with our own purchases,
> correct? I (and I think you...) would not be happy if I bought
> something and then it stopped working,
Worse. It actually never worked in my case.
> or if the company you bought it
> from stopped supporting it.
Worse. They never did in my case.
> RME is the same way. They invest hundreds
> of thousands, if not millions of Euro's developing new hardware ideas.
Hence the analogy with oss developers. They do that too without being
cowards and misers.
> They create software to support it and make it work. Then all the
> technical information goes into the public domain and some low cost
> manufacturer from Taiwan or Russia or somewhere else knocks off a copy
> and sells it for 1/2 the price. No one buys RME hardware, RME doesn't
> make money and goes out of business.
Did this happen?
See how many RME cards are supported. Almost all. Perhaps all except
fireface. Did someone from russia or taiwan knock-off a copy? Does RME
suffer from us having alsa drivers? Are russian engineers or taiwanese
engineers(envy24 btw AFAIK) not smart enough to come up with their own
superb design? Is it too hard for smart people to reverse-engineer?
In other words - what are you talking about?
>
> What's so hard to understand?
Pretty much everything. Considering that they have used proprietary
protocols in their hammerfall series anyway.
> > Which seems like it's the beginning of end for linux pro-audio hw
> > support if we don't fight for it. Right now it concerns just me, but it
> > might concern everyone in the near future.
>
> This I agree with, but the best way to fight for it (speaking as a
> business man) is to develop a real market for it. We need thousands of
> buyers. Develop the market and hardware manufacturers will come.
Perhaps it's here already. I think there's more of us RME or M-Audio
customers than one might think.
Marek
> That sounds more sophisticated than what I did, but if it's not
> satisfactory (e.g. if you meant internet instead of ethernet), you can
> check out nmidi here: http://hans.fugal.net/src/nmidi-0.1.0.tar.gz
>
> It runs over tcp/ip, uses alsa, and was intended to be an MWPP (now
> called rtp-midi I think) implementation, but didn't quite make it there
> (yet), however it works pretty well anyhow.
Thanks. We'll check it out... mo
Has anyone got working code that reads/writes midi over ethernet with a
/dev or alsa-midi interface? Even better would be a solution that has
support on the MacOS and Windows side.
We'd like to integrate that technology into Receptor
(http://www.museresearch.com/receptor_overview.php) and our marketing
guys want to show something at NAMM (that's January!). We might be able
to shake loose some shekels if there is some code that's close but needs
some tweaks.
Cheers... mo
===================================
Michael Ost, Software Architect
Muse Research, Inc.
most(a)museresearch.com
(You are not seeing double. I posted twice: once for midi and once for
audio.. %)
Has anyone got working code that reads/writes audio over ethernet with a
/dev or alsa interface? Even better would be a solution that has
support on the MacOS and Windows side.
We'd like to integrate that technology into Receptor
(http://www.museresearch.com/receptor_overview.php) and our marketing
guys want to show something at NAMM (that's January!). We might be able
to shake loose some shekels if there is some code that's close but needs
some tweaks.
Cheers... mo
===================================
Michael Ost, Software Architect
Muse Research, Inc.
most(a)museresearch.com
Greetings:
As I skim over the various messages regarding Marek's tribulations,
first with RME, then with apparently the entire LA* community, I started
thinking that there was some basic flaw in the whole thing. After some
reflection, a few thoughts on the matter:
Frankly, who gives a a flying fsck what gear you're using ? I'm
*far* more interested in what you're doing with it than who makes it,
whether it's "pro" audio gear, if it's the latest trend, or even if it's
"The Future" (TM Disney Corp., I'm sure) of audio technology throughout
the known universe. There seems to be this prevailing fear motif that
somehow if we don't have firewire or whatever that we will somehow
become disabled as musicians and kept forever from creating and
recording good music. What a lot of horse hockey. Over and over again we
see/hear artists who do their work on whatever's available, making it
work because for them it has to work, they have no choice. Early rappers
single-handedly revived a slew of vintage drum machines and synths, the
Seattle punkers said "No thanks!" to the technical indulgences of the
big-hair guitarists of the 80s, returning to the *song* as the logical
focus of a rock band, and if I had to make the point further I'd bring
up Conlon Nancarrow and Harry Partch. Geez, people, stop talking and
start singing ! Where's "Marek's Blues" or "The RME Fight Song" ?? Come
on, the talent's here, we know it is. And I've never heard a single
"normal" listener say anything like "Wow, they really knew how to use
[Pro Tools, Cubase, Ardour] on that song!".
I think we're barking up the wrong tree. Maybe letters to
manufacturers make a difference, but I'll bet one successful song will
do more to attract manufacturers and users to Linux. Even touting
numbers isn't nearly so effective an attention-getter as would be a
single successful recording. And by "successful" I mean that it reaches
tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
Then during the interviews you can say "Ja, I used Linux, ya know,
it's da bomb"...
We're also still missing the potential in the academic scene.
Professors and researchers also have pull, and if they can be convinced
to use Linux in their audio labs, they can also bring pressure on
manufacturers to provide them with drivers et cetera. Plus, a great deal
of hardware work could probably be done at university level, they have
the resources. The home recording market is another potentially powerful
force. In other words, no change will come from the high end, because
there's simply no incentive. Large studios have money for
state-of-the-art equipment and software, they're all scrambling to stay
ahead of the competition (because there isn't really very much of it) by
having what the other guys don't, and there's just no reason for them to
even take an interest in anything other than what they know or are told
to know via Mix magazine. So, no market for Linux there, sorry, not at
this moment in time. But the home studios and smaller scale pro studios
are more budget-minded, ditto for academic studios. Lots of possibility
there, lots of people, lots of potential pressure on manufacturers to
stand up and notice the movement around them. But we won't reach them by
writing messages on mail-lists, we'll reach them by showing them what
can be done.
It's often overlooked how incredibly conservative the whole industry
really is. Innovative trends like Linux may be perceived more as
disruptive than smoothly continuing "things as we've always known and
liked them to be", especially to the higher-level professional studios.
Mark, I'll buy you a case of Iron City Light if Digi ever decides to
support Linux in any way. It's just not in their best interest to do so.
They have created a locked-in market as completely as M$ has done, even
moreso because of the narrow market base. They'll continue to eke out
their innovations to keep them ahead of their competitors and they'll
continue their so-far successful policy of keeping everything closed. I
think it's important to note that such companies are not necessarily
hostile to their user-base, they simply have the power to define that
base and they'll do everything in their power to maintain the lock-in.
It's how they're making their money now, it's been working for them for
many years, and there seems to be no pressing reason for them to change.
So, what to do ? Well, AudioScience has a developer who could perhaps
persuade his company that there's a growing market for high-end
pro-audio cards for Linux, and his company could literally corner the
market for a while simply by providing either their own open-source
drivers or by giving the specs to the community and letting the ALSA and
OSS guys do the driver dance. There's already been some exchange, but
perhaps a little more concerted community effort in that direction can
help ?
Ivica has been working on new ways to promote Linux audio software in
academia, perhaps more people could work with him in a more directed
fashion ? Like a mass-mailing of live Linux audio CDs to the heads of
music tech departments around the world ? I'm sure there are a lot of
ways to create inroads to academic studios.
And we need to make more music with the gear we have. Y'know, I'm sure
that all that virtual hot air blown over on the RME lists could be
utterly dispelled by someone writing, recording, and posting a "Marek's
Lament". I'll bet the cats at RME would be far more interested in
hearing that one song than reading yet another dozen or so screeds.
So get it on, folks. I'm tired of finding my LA* message boxes filled
with diatribe and pointless blame, I want to hear some more *music*.
Isn't that really why we're all here ?
Best regards,
dp
PS: Much of this message should be read with a healthy dose of good
humor, followed by a refreshing walk in the crisp morning air. Which is
where I'm headed now...
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:35, R Parker wrote:
> --- Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:21, Lee Revell wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner
> > wrote:
> > > > Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to
> > say this. Personally,
> > > > open source is not a religion for me so a closed
> > source driver would be
> > > > fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now
> > where did I put my
> > > > asbestos underwear?
> > >
> > > Eh, it's a slow day, I'm bored. But I mean it
> > 100%. Flame away...
> > >
> > > So, the next question is, what would it take to
> > make a closed source
> > > driver happen? They should start the bidding on
> > alsa-devel at "one free
> > > FireFace"...
> >
> > Lee and Jan,
> >
> > i talk to you as an owner of fireface. :)
> >
> > I really like the philosophy of not letting any
> > closed source drivers
> > into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset
> > because their XY
> > nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working. Besides they'd
> > need to provide it
> > themselves, which means a lot more money than just
> > handing out
> > documentation or perhaps one free unit.
> >
> > My point of view - either open source alsa driver,
> > or i'll just sell
> > that unit. And now that they have accused me of
> > causing damage to RME
> > specifically because of this thread, i can only say,
> > i'll stay away from
> > any of their products. Speaking of damage, i'd like
> > to see a slashdot
> > story about this so that 30.000 people can judge for
> > themselves. :)
>
> I really hope you don't do that.
My intention wasn't to post that on /. at least not now. I was thinking
out loud. Of course, in case we did a market survey it would definitely
be needed.
> RME has provided
> "Pro" grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it
> in order to become a legitimate alternative to
> proprietary solutions.
Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the
name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side.
They got a lot of units sold in return and built a very good reputation
based on that fact and this went beyond the linux audio world i believe.
> I hope you consider how much
> work has gone into Linux Audio
But that's what i'm talking about. So much effort, oustanding
technologies(although i know the authors won't admit ;)
and they(hw manufacturers) don't care!
> and how difficult it is
> to develop that type of business relationship.
There is no relationship. The only real manufacturer from the POV of
linux audio is audioscience(.com), which unfortunately does only
broadcast hw.
They do ALSA drivers, provide support and invest their time and money in
doing so. They deserve highest respect for that considering the current
situation.
That's how it should be. And this is what we should fight for.
>
> Whether you are in the right or wrong, is it
> inconcievable for you to act for the interests of many
> people by selling the unit and getting something else?
Not sure i understand. I'm about to sell my fireface copy as i declared
previously. Of course if there's any way i could help out other people
here in keeping the unit, i'm prepared to do so.
Marek
The CAPS Audio Plugin Suite reincarnates as caps 0.2.0.
* By popular demand, a 'true stereo' version of the Plate reverb
plugin makes its appearance in this edition, so the numerous original
Plate fans can get their favourite thing to play nice with hosts
having trouble dealing with mono-in, stereo-out effects.
* Both versions of the Plate reverb sport revised 'bandwidth' and
'damping' knobs. The 'log' hint set on the damping control caused the
unit to be virtually useless on hosts having trouble handling the hint
combined with the range of the parameter. The revised code eliminates
this hint and maps the now linear parameter directly to the respective
filter cutoff, at an extra cost of about 200 processor cycles per
audio cycle.
* The Preamp plugins as well as the Amp units in this edition feature
Renormal Technology (!tm), so ab-normal CPU usage due to de-normals in
hosts choosing to route perfectly silent audio through these plugins
should be a thing of the past.
* The all-new AmpIV plugin features complete tube amplifier circuit
emulation including a 4-band tone control set.
Get your copy before they are all gone:
http://quitte.de/dsp/caps.htmlhttp://quitte.de/dsp/caps.html#Download
Please forward as you see fit.
Cheers, Tim
> > For the record: Pieter Palmers has written (in a tremendous effort) a
> > large part of AV/C descriptors parser. This part is still not
> > completed and needs some clean up, though a great job! Meanwhile, I
> > have been working on the basic framework (design and implementation).
>
> Ok, would this make a good addition to libavc1394?
Pieter Palmers and Girish Wadhwani are planing/wokring to incorporate the
generic parts of the parser into libavc1394.
> Yeah, I read about these proprietary protocols from links off your blog,
> but I can't help but believe they are probably just some variant of the
> IEC 61883 AMDTP protocol and can be likely figured out -- at least for
> the core functionality. However, I do not have a device to know for
> sure. Probably special register addresses and value formats are used for
> proprietary controls - not so easy to figure out.
For the time being, we will concentrate on the devices which are
standard complient. The M-Audio device will be considered later.
daniel