Linux-audio-dev

linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

7516 discussions

Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] dssi question

by Chris Cannam

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

20 years, 11 months

[linux-audio-dev] dssi question

by Julien Claassen

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

20 years, 11 months

Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more

by Marek Peteraj

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

20 years, 11 months

Re: [linux-audio-dev] Midi over ethernet

by Michael Ost

> 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

20 years, 11 months

[linux-audio-dev] Midi over ethernet

by Michael Ost

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

20 years, 11 months

[linux-audio-dev] Audio over ethernet (deja vu)

by Michael Ost

(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

20 years, 11 months

[linux-audio-dev] Doing the soundcard manufacturer tango (long)

by Dave Phillips

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...

20 years, 11 months

Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]

by Marek Peteraj

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

20 years, 11 months

[linux-audio-dev] [ann] caps 0.2.0

by Tim Goetze

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.html http://quitte.de/dsp/caps.html#Download Please forward as you see fit. Cheers, Tim

20 years, 11 months

[linux-audio-dev] Re: Been to the movies lately, FreeBob?

by Daniel Wagner

> > 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

20 years, 11 months

Jump to page:

2025

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