Linux-audio-dev

linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

3 participants
7520 discussions

by Marek Peteraj

I'm forwarding my first email so that the lad jury can decide whether it's my personal agenda. I can post the second one aswell in case anybody is interested. Let me know what you think. Marek

21 years, 11 months

[linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org

by holborn

Hi! My two cents: For me, any kind or consortium, coorporation or what ever you want who promote the use of audio with linux was a good idea, i hope this can help to their members (projects) to be really competitive. That will be good for all. But .... i have an ethical question with the use of this domain name, hope in the future will be useful for all the linux users, with that name probaly many people go to this domain serching audio solutions, and hope they will find and don't lost their time. And that is a big effort for any kind of project. I think this kind o domain name need to be a project supported by the members, not a members supported by the project. Josep

21 years, 11 months

Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org

by Tim Orford

hi Daniel Thanks for replying. I do hope you find this thread constructive. While we have a different emphasise on some things, i think our aims are broadly similar, and i dont mean to harangue you:-) actually i hesitate to send this mail as i guess it is preventing you from making your case properly. I think i made my initial point re open discussions, and the thread has mostly moved onto other areas that i dont have such strong feelings about. But anyway here goes..:-) On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 05:27:07PM +0000, Daniel James wrote: > > the problem for me is that it purports to represent linux pro audio > > in general > > Only as far as it represents its members - what's wrong with that? > > I am trying to work with everyone here. However, the feeling I'm > getting is that certain LAD mailing list members believe they have > some kind of proprietary ownership over the whole area, by virtue of > membership of a mailing list alone. That I find bizarre. i dont see that. I think people are just expressing concern over developments which undermine the list. Its not about 'ownership' or 'rights', just about respect and building a commons. but I can understand some of the more serious players finding the list relatively amateurish, and desiring to move to a more serious front, but i hope that doesnt backfire. Personnally i would hate to see development fragmented any more than at present. I imagine this list is a good way to draw in new or potential developers. > > > sound engineers are not organised as either projects or companies. > > So can i join? > > We'll have to find some way that individuals can get involved. I'm > very open to suggestions. > > > You cannot work with a corporation on an "equitable basis". You > > lick their asses till they hand over the money. > > Well, that's not the way I usually work, personally speaking. I'm not what do companies have if not money and resources? > sure you can divide corporations into good and bad so easily. Let's > bear in mind that many of the companies working on Linux audio are > very small. ok, i'm possibly using the word corporation wrongly. I will use the term large company instead. I have nothing against small companies, only large ones. And i agree that there is indeed some chance of an equitable relationship with a small company that doesnt have a large market share (and corresponding lack of influence). but i'm not clear which companies you are trying to court and why. > > > > So far, Microsoft has not asked > > > to join. > > > > I'm not sure what we are sposed to make of that statement. > > File under attempts at humour. i'll try and lighten up:-) > > > pro audio is way behind mainstream linux concerns. > > Quite. Let's see what we can do to help change that. > > > I dont see it > > happening, but i dont want eg Steinberg here. > > If they want to produce a Linux based product, I'm afraid they can do > it without your permission - that's libre software for you. of course. But the question is not whether it will happen but whether it should be encouraged. > > > Both the scale and the principle are different. OSDL and CELF are > > 'selling' their 'product' to large-scale enterprises and hence need > > a corporately acceptable face. With the exception of some media > > companies, audio users are either individuals or companies of less > > than 10. > > Most businesses are small, audio or not. Windows got to where it is > today on the small business desktop, not through the 'enterprise'. > Besides, just because professional-quality audio tools exist on Linux > does not mean that they will be used exclusively by professionals. but large corps are where the money is. If you get a nice contract with IBM, Disney, Germany, you are set! so do you disagree that OSDL and CELF are aimed at large companies? I'm asking cos I dont know. i take it then that you want to target small companies? > > You are presenting it as a done deal. > > No, I'm presenting the beginning of a possibility. > > > You already have > > a web page and a large number of members > > What would you say if there were no web page and no members? 'Not much > of a project?' i certainly wouldnt say that. > > > who have apparently agreed > > to some fairly strong legal commitments. > > The membership policies have little legal weight - they are just an > expression of good faith. No-one has signed anything yet. :-) > > > 1-project coordination. a consortium should mainly concern itself > > with represention to the outside world. Cooperation > > should be handled using normal open development methods, imo. > > Sure, but you have to get people to agree to do open development > first. > > > 2-promotion. Agreed that this could be useful in the future. > > That's the main focus of what I am doing personally, taking Linux to > audio industry trade shows. > > > Currently i believe promotion should be aimed at developers not > > users. > > There's plenty of usable software out there now. If there are no > users, why have developers at all? you need developers before there can be users:-) i'm afraid i think we disagree on how useable the software is. Imo the really good software only covers some niches at present. I'm hesitant to go into details as that is a v tricky area of discussion!:-) > Besides, the LAD conference is > already aimed at developers. sure but surely thats in addition to and somewhat separate from any other organisation/event? > > > I dont see how corporate involvement will help here. > > I bet you've never booked a stand at a trade show. They are > fantastically expensive events to participate in. Without > sponsorship, it just wouldn't happen. Sure they're expensive. Dont fight the 'enemy' on their own ground. The introduction of large sums of money can change anything, and usually not for the better. We have better weapons. > > Should companies that have > > no interest in pro audio or music production be involved? > > If they have a fringe interest in audio, it could be in their > interest. What's good for pro audio - eg ALSA - may also be good for > more general use. However, I personally wanted to concentrate on > supporting software like JACK or Rosegarden, which is of little > interest to mainstream users. neither of those two projects is completed yet, although jack nearly is. Just out of interest, are you a Rosegarden user? I do think that Jack is terrific, but its a hard sell against competing systems where the wiring is almost a behind the scenes feature of a highly polished user app. Jack is not enough. Yes the 'infrastructure' is pretty much there. Now its time to finish building on it. I'm afraid my experiments with Rosegarden were not encouraging. This is partly because it uses a model which i dont personally favour, but perhaps its time for me to give it another try... > > > For such an organisation to have respect from > > outside, it needs to be seen as representative. And to a large > > degree your consortium already is, having most of the major players > > as members. Therefore it speaks for me whether i want it to or not. > > I don't quite follow that. I'm not out to exclude anybody. my point was that if the organisation is succesful then i will have to become a member if i want to have any infuence. If i disagree with the aims of the organisation and dont become a member then i will be excluded from many discussions and decisions that i perhaps have important opinions about. That is not neccesarily a bad thing, but i just want to see it done in the best possible way. > > > unless you think it through some more and seriously > > acknowledge that your actions are underiming the egalitarian nature > > of the community and have the potential to split it > > That's a pretty serious charge. a bit melodramatic perhaps:-) I just wanted to point out the potential negative effects that you had perhaps overlooked in your enthusiasm. > > I believe there's a limited window of opportunity for Linux on the > desktop in general, and audio/music applications are just a tiny part > of that. Pro applications are an even smaller niche. I think there's > a serious risk that without some organised advocacy aimed at building > a significant user base, libre software in this area will eventually > wither away. I don't want to see that. i dont beleive there is a limited window. The effects of the GPL are only just beginning! It cant be stopped. Even if it coexists with proprietory systems, i am convinced that the successor to Linux will still be here in 20 years, and Jamin will be the default software in mastering houses worldwide. This will happen not because of promotion but because it is better. Too many people have seen the good life and cannot go back to proprietory software. i am reminded of the excellent Coen Bros film The Man Who Wasnt There. He had a good thing going but ruined it by being greedy. Of course you can find many more films with the opposite moral:-) anyway, the think the important isssues here are: 1-which companies are you courting and why? 2-is it yet the right time for promotion? Does the software really compete with proprietory products enough to justify major expenditure? (btw this is taking up way too much of my time today, so i'll probably have to go completely offline tomorrow:-)) thanks for listening:-) -- Tim Orford

21 years, 11 months

[linux-audio-dev] [ANN] GNUsound 0.6.2 released

by Pascal Haakmat

Hi, GNUsound 0.6.2 was released. Changes from 0.6.1: Fixed bug where mute/solo buttons weren't correctly being selected when tracks were vertically scrolled. Added mouse wheel support, mouse wheel now controls zoom. Download at the usual place: http://awacs.dhs.org/software/gnusound Thanks, Pascal.

21 years, 11 months

[linux-audio-dev] [linux-audio-user] Re:M-audio products

by nick

This card has an ESS Maestro-1 (a.k.a AGOGO / es1948) APU. But unlike the consumer cards (which use a low quality ac'97 codec) this card uses nicer CS4222 codecs for better sound. The current drivers only work in conjunction with an ac'97 codec. There is no driver for this currently, but I am working on one, although it will be my first soundcard driver :) http://dman2044.sourceforge.net/ If anyone has any info that could help me out, I'd be grateful. Does anyone have data sheets for the es1948? -Nick > I have a Dman2044. Oldy but goody with a nice chunky breakout box. 4 by 4. > > Alsa list this for a cs46xx driver. > Knoppix install detects it as an AGOPO Maestro card > Alsa's auto install detects it as an es1968, also Maestro. > > None of these alternatives work. The OSS Maestro driver will load but not > play. The alsa's will kick at the modprobe > > Any one know what to do? (I have posted on this before.) -- nixx(a)nixx.org.uk | amSynth lead developer JabberID: nixx(a)jabber.org | http://amsynthe.sf.net

21 years, 11 months

[linux-audio-dev] License for sounds

by David Olofson

I'm trying to figure out what license to use for the demo sounds and songs that come with Audiality. I don't think the songs are of much interest beyond demonstrating the engine, so I'll probably just ask that people don't use them in their projects without permission. However, the sounds (or rather, the scripts that render them) are intended to be usable in about the same way as the rest of Audiality. That is, as is or modified, in Free/Open Source, freeware and commercial projects. No royalties, no advertising clause or anything. Here's the problem: I'd like derived sounds to remain open source, but I'm not sure it makes sense to require it, like the LGPL does. The X11 license might be more sensible. What do you think? //David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate .- Audiality -----------------------------------------------. | Free/Open Source audio engine for games and multimedia. | | MIDI, modular synthesis, real time effects, scripting,... | `-----------------------------------> http://audiality.org -' --- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---

21 years, 11 months

Re: [linux-audio-dev] Project: modular synth editor

by Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen

Luke Yelavich: > > At 05:53 AM 14/01/2004, Nathaniel Virgo wrote: > > >I think another great application for such a thing would be a JACK patch > >bay. It would be so much easier to use something like this to connect > >apps (and internal ardour connections) than it is at the moment. I always > >wanted to write such a thing myself but never really had the time. In > >many ways a JACK patch bay would be one of the most demanding applications > >for this because it has to handle both many-to-one and one-to-many > >connections and JACK graphs can be very complicated, so I would suggest > >bearing it in mind while designing it, on the grounds that if it can > >handle that it will be able to handle many other things as well. I also > >think that having the option of embedding synth GUIs into the graph is > >very important. > > There already is. Check out http://qjackctl.sourceforge.net. > Yes, it can do everything. But when having many many clients with lots of connections, it gets quite complicated. It would be nicer with a more loose patchbay type of pd/jmax/alsamodularsynth/etc. --

21 years, 11 months

[linux-audio-dev] Re: Project: modular synth editor

by vanDongen/Gilcher

> At 05:53 AM 14/01/2004, Nathaniel Virgo wrote: > >I think another great application for such a thing would be a JACK patch > >bay. It would be so much easier to use something like this to connect > >apps (and internal ardour connections) than it is at the moment. I always > >wanted to write such a thing myself but never really had the time. Me too. I am still playing around with ideas, but I never find the time to really implement them. I am thinking there should be different representation of the graph, that you can switch between. Two ideas I have been thinking of: 1) A matrix like connection view, rows are output-ports, collums are input-ports Very useful when you look at it port-centrically. You see all the connections of a single port at once. 2)Some kind of graph layout algorithm. More like pd, but maybe the connections on the side. Useful for looking at the signal path through multiple modules/jack-clients. There are some OS libraries/apps and a lot of literature for this. But I think most of it is too heavy for a patchbay. A complicated jack-graph is _very_ simple for program meant for 1000+vertex graph layout. Luke Yelavich wrote: > There already is. Check out http://qjackctl.sourceforge.net. > That is not what is being discussed though. The patch-representation model of qjackctl is pretty much useless (unreadable) for anything beyond connecting an application to the pcm. Although it _is_ a great app, it is a bad patchbay gui. I regularly use a session with: 10 channel pcm, 8 channels fluidsynth 2 channels hydrogen drum machine 16 channels ardour 2 channels rosegarden (only used for sequencing, but it still connects it self) When I finished routing, I see a blur between input and output ports in qjackctl. Gerard -- electronic & acoustic musics-- http://www.xs4all.nl/~gml

21 years, 11 months

[linux-audio-dev] Tascam US-122

by Klaus Bickert

Recently bought a Tascam US-122 interface (24bit/96khz 2 in/2out w mic phantom preamp, 2 midi, phones, direct monitoring). Works great on Megascrap. Found a hint on US-428 driver supporting it but doesnt work on a Suse 8.2 (Kernel 2.4.20), seems to lack other parts of module stack, cant identify. Suggestions anyone, please ? Ciao, ufo <kfb(a)mpe.mpg.de>.

21 years, 11 months

[linux-audio-dev] ANNOUNCE: JAMin [0.8.0] first JACK Audio Mastering interface release

by Jack O'Quin

The first stable release (0.8.0) of JAMin - the JACK Audio Mastering interface is now available for download. JAMin is a GPL licenced, state-of-the-art realtime mastering processor designed to bring out the detail in recorded music and provide the final layer of polish. Every effort has been made to ensure a clean, distortion-free signal path. All processing elements use linear-phase filtering, ensuring that no phase distortion is introduced. JAMin runs on Linux using the JACK Audio Connection Kit, a low-latency audio server, which can connect a number of different applications to an audio device, and also allow them to share audio among themselves. Homepage http://jamin.sourceforge.net/ Download http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/jamin/jamin-0.8.0.tar.gz?download http://plugin.org.uk/jamin/ http://www.joq.us/jamin/ Installation instructions + requirements http://jamin.sourceforge.net/ALSA_JACK_JAMin.html Usage instructions http://jamin.sourceforge.net/Using_JAMin.html Features * Linear filters * JACK I/O * 1024-band hand-drawn EQ with parametric controls * 30-band graphic EQ * Spectrum analyser * 3-band peak compressor * Lookahead brick-wall limiter * 3-band stereo processing * Presets and scenes * Loudness maximiser -- JAMin is (c) 2004 J. Depner, S. Harris, J. O'Quin, R. Parker and P. Shirkey.

21 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