3 Feb
2004
3 Feb
'04
5:36 p.m.
Thanks a lot Kai and Eric (see below) for your help.
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 Kai Vehmanen wrote:
ecasound -a:1,6 -f:32,12,44100 -i alsa \
-a:1 -f:32,1,44100 -o t1.wav \
-a:6 -erc:6,1 -f:32,1,44100 -o t6.wav \
-a:2 -i t2.wav -ea:200 \
-a:5 -i t5.wav -erc:1,5 -ea:200 \
-a:2,5 -f:32,10,44100 -o alsa
Input object with the most channels determines the channel count of the
chain it is attached to. On the other end of the chains, if an output has
less channels than the chain it is attached to, extra channels are
discarded when writing to the output. With these simple rules you can
route audio between channels and chains, and without bloating the syntax
too much.
Shouldn't there be a '-erc:1,2' on the t2.wav chain (it should go to
ouput 2) ?
The '-ea:200' at the end of chains 2 and 5
helps to keep the volume
constant. This is ugly, but unfortunately something I cannot fix at this
point (I'd like to change the chain-mixing semantics from add'n'divide to
plain add'n'saturate like in most other systems, but unfortunately doing
the change now would break far too many existing scripts/sessions :( ...).
Why is this necessary ? Nothing should be mixed... unless alsa inputs
2 and 5 are also mixed in. If this is so, can it be prevented ?
and Eric Dantan Rzewnick wrote:
-a:t2 -i t2.wav -erc:1,2 -f:32,10,44100 -o alsa,hw:0
-a:t5 -i t5.wav -erc:1,5 -f:32,10,44100 -o alsa,hw:0
-a:t1 -f:32,14,44100 -i alsa,hw:0 -f:32,1,44100 -o t1.wav
-a:t6 -f:32,14,44100 -i alsa,hw:0 -erc:6,1 -f:32,1,44100 -o t6.wav
I kind of like this 'per chain' way of writing things. Would adding
'-erc:1,1' to the a:t1 chain hurt in any way ? It would be nice to
have a uniform syntax.
--
Fons