Linux-audio-user July 2004

linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

172 participants
206 discussions

[linux-audio-user] ecasound/alsa question

by Aaron Trumm

Hello y'all - somebody's bound to know this one - i can't quite find it in tutorials or examples i'm trying to record multiple tracks at once (different tracks into ecasound) and also play them back as seperate tracks sent to seperate outputs (as i am always trying to do) i believe i succeeded at this last night using jack, like so: input: ecasound -c -r -b:64 -f:16,1,48000 -a:1 -i jack_alsa,alsa_pcm:capture_1 -o track1.wav -a:2 -i jack_alsa,alsa_pcm:capture_2 -o track2.wav and output: ecasound -c -r -a:1 -i track1.wav -o jack_alsa,alsa_pcm:playback_1 -a:2 -i track2.wav -o jack_alsa,alsa_pcm:playback_2 but i'd like to do it without jack now - possible? I would think so - using the same addressing as aconnect uses right? but i don't remember the syntax - can't find the emails mark k. wrote me about that very thing... anybody care to re-enlighten me? :)

20 years, 5 months

[linux-audio-user] 24-track setup question

by urban schlemmer

hi list, is there any _tested_ setup to record 24 tracks (with rme digiface or hdsp5296 preferrably) under linux? whitch distro ? whitch app? must be very _stable_ . any experiences greatly appreciated. urban http://www.nusurf.at/

20 years, 5 months

Re: [linux-audio-user] Note typesetting for Linux

by ricktaylor＠speakeasy.net

> From: tim hall [mailto:tech@glastonburymusic.org.uk] > Last Tuesday 13 July 2004 02:43, ricktaylor(a)speakeasy.net was like: > > > Entering textual representation of music and following certain _markup_ > > > rules is not programming. If it were so, simply scoring should be > > > considered programming, too. > > > > It probably is in csound. > > Surely it counts as scripting, like an html page or postscript file and thus > can be considered the 'source' of a piece of music. > > > I think the above methods need to somehow be extended to work with > > samples. Either that or computer audio needs its own form of musical > > representation. > > > > Maybe we need to just skip the idea of any sort of representation outside > > of a song or audio file? If so... maybe we need to break with tradition a > > bit and make "song" files themselves provide a higher degree of > > functionality? > > A score needs to be a human-readable explanation of how to realise the piece > of music so that it sounds the way the composer intended. The use of samples > in a piece would need specifying in the same place as the rest of the > instrumentation with clear directions of how to get hold of these samples. > These things could easily be represented by an icon and a link. So any net enabled computer could read this sound file... http://wam.inrialpes.fr/software/limsee2/ I really don't see the point of distributing the file with sequencing information. The audio itself is as descriptive of the sequence as the song file could be. If there were a sufficient number of online sample servers {with sufficient bandwidth...} it might begin to make sense. Most of what I use {that I call samples} is around the length of a standard song {1-8 minutes}. I really don't use loops as loops... I use them to generate longer sequences which, in turn, get mixed into the mix. :} {My stuff is probably more properly defined as "sound" than "noise".} > > > I don't think that computer programs should reflect the physical world > > > we operate in. Not always anyways, there surely are better ways of > > > dealing with certain issues. > > > > I think they should probably reflect the "reality" they deal with. > > I also think they need an overhaul. > > I think scoring is an art form in itself, I also think that the conventional > form of musical score is an anachronism that belongs with the musical > fashions of 1700 to 1950. I also enjoy working with the random factor of > interpretation so I like to present my performers with alien looking musical > maps to explore sometimes, but I wouldn't want to do that to my community > choir, I'd never hear the end of it! ~They get conventional scores ;-)~ I think you're probably right in calling it an "anachronism" and leaving it at that. I think it's time to move on to XML and SMIL {with appropriate extensions for sequencing languages like csound, ...midi, etc. } and to present stuff over the web or with large 4 color glossy inkjet prints. > If you deal with any amount of electronic instruments, then your scoring > language will require considerable extension. If it contains computerised > elements, then we may as well use existing computer conventions to describe > those elements. I think the reality of that is burning it all to CD and > distributing that with the score if it's that important to the piece. Then > you get to the point where it works out cheaper just to put the score on the > CD as well and have done with it! Usually I find there's enough room for > several demo versions, and there you have it, rehearsal copies for all into > the bargain. I'm for putting it on cd... Are we talking "language" or "file format" here? {Seems to me that any sufficently enabled file format should be readable in just about any language. :}} :} One file format to bind them all...

20 years, 5 months

Re: [linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux

by ricktaylor＠speakeasy.net

> From: tim hall [mailto:tech@glastonburymusic.org.uk] > Last Tuesday 13 July 2004 20:38, ricktaylor(a)speakeasy.net was like: > > That freedom of choice is what I'm thinking to preserve. ...And what you > > say above that you want to deny others. > > > > How do you justify denying others the same rights that you have? > > How am I denying other people's rights? > I don't understand your point here. You're denying them the right to chose whether they want to write shareware or "free" software. {Hypothetically...}

20 years, 5 months

Re: [linux-audio-user] distros

by ricktaylor＠speakeasy.net

> From: mik [mailto:mprims@skynet.be] > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:11:41 +0100 someone called David M wrote: > > > One point though if somebody knows how to set global environment variables > > that work within the point and click environment within kde (.profile doesnt > > seem to work) I certainly would like to know. > /etc/environment ? There is a section in khelpcenter that tells how to change most of the things that effect kdesktop. Other than that you should be able to change things normally. I don't use the actual desktop anymore... {Just the applications from windowmaker} I'm not 100% certain but can't recall having problems with setting things from a terminal or set up files.

20 years, 5 months

Re: [linux-audio-user] Note typesetting for Linux

by ricktaylor＠speakeasy.net

> From: Michal Seta [mailto:mis@creazone.32k.org] > ricktaylor(a)speakeasy.net writes: > > > I think the above methods need to somehow be extended to work with samples. Either that or computer audio needs its own form of musical representation. > > That's a good point. Not only samples, though, synthesis and DSP as > well. However, there are as many 'scoring' systems as > there are composers. Stockhousen has actually realized a score for > his 'Studie II' which is an electronic composition for tape. The > score provides enough information to exactly recreate the work using > an oscillator (or a number of them, I can't recall) and a tape > recording/dubbing machine. Someone has actually used it to generate > the piece in real-time with Max/MSP. However, synthesis methods have > evolved in complexity a lot in the past 50 years... http://www.stockhausen.org/ {In case you're not aware of it.} I had the impression that synthesis and dsp were fairly well taken care of by traditional notation. {At least to the extent that dsp can be.} > > Maybe we need to just skip the idea of any sort of representation outside of a song or audio file? If so... maybe we need to break with tradition a bit and make "song" files themselves provide a higher degree of functionality? > > Well, must be _the_ reason I started improvising :) I must have been, > like: ' Ahh... stop trying to write down what you mean. Just get out there and _play_!' > > Also, no notation system is complete. Not even text. I'm talking > from a performer's point of view, of course. :} Therein' lies the rub. In order to describe much of my stuff you'd have to play it. It's as much about the sounds as it is anything else. The sound file is the representation. Performance would be sort of redundant. ...Hence the visuals. {At least that's one justification... one is meant to be the basis {an aspect} of the other.} Text does have its uses...

20 years, 5 months

Re: [linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux

by ricktaylor＠speakeasy.net

> From: tim hall [mailto:tech@glastonburymusic.org.uk] > > Last Tuesday 13 July 2004 01:33, RickTaylor(a)speakeasy.net was like: > > To me... the variety of choices available on linux is much more important > > than the open source thing... The copyleft idea strikes me as a really > > usable and actually somewhat noble alternative to a traditional corporate > > structure... > > Yeah, I like copyleft too. > > > The idea of an entirely open source strikes me as a bit > > dillettante and maybe a bit too high minded and idealistic to be practical. > > It's simply too open to politics, cliquishness and similar sorts of abuse > > {even racism... see Elvis} to be practical. {:} 'Course I sometimes feel > > this way about the internet itself. I'm probably wrong in those feelings. I > > don't think I am in my feelings about "open source".} > > I don't think there's anything wrong in your feelings, it's not the same thing > as objective reality (whatever _that_ is ;-), but I think you're talking > about the problems of 'freedom' itself here. Let's remember that the term > 'Open Source' is a spin on 'Free' for people who suffer from fear of freedom. > I use Debian, the idea of entirely free is practically realised on my desktop > everyday :-) I don't think it's impractical or too idealistic. It is, > however, an interesting tightrope walk - Freedom doesn't necessarily mean > opening all the valves and removing all the safety mechanisms. Yeah I get > heartily sick of having to share this beautiful planet with bullies, racists, > abusers and exploiters, but I fully recognise that feeling like that isn't > going to change a damn thing. I'm seeing "open source" and copylefted "free" stuff as two different creatures. When I think of "open source" I think of a totally open source... no licenses whatsoever. "Free" is a different matter entirely. > > } the whole thing tick and even worth using at all (ignoring the wonderful > > } unix-y benefits that Macs now have too) is that it's free. I think the > > } reaction, "Everyone else is releasing free stuff, you can bloody well > > } release free stuff too!" isn't entirely unjustified. As for music > > > > I think it's totally unjustified and that it's that very attitude that is > > at the heart of the problem I described above. > > We're all going to have to agree to differ on this one. Anyone who has spent > long hours in font of a monitor developing free software _is_ perfectly > entitled to expect others to do the same. The fact that having any kind of You choose to do something one way so everyone else has to do things the same way? We do differ on that. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. > expectation is likely to lead to disappointment is something for that > individual to deal with. How we decide to pay them back is also a matter for > our self-assessed consciences. Any rule we may make will limit freedom, so we We have no perfect freedoms. All freedoms are matter of balances. That's life. > can only attempt to agree on best practice. Personally, I believe that there > is a certain magic in not quantifying this transaction, suggesting a level of > contribution only seems to serve to put an upward limit on things - Do you > ever give more than the 'suggested donation' - do you ever tip _more_ than 10 > percent? I know I generally feel like I can't afford to, which is an entirely > subjective position. Usually closer to %20. It depends on the service and the servers apparent need. I have tipped up to 30-40 percent. I'm really not sure what this has to do with anything though. > Most of my life I've been a drongo musician, that is people are very keen to > hear me play and tell me they like it, which is all well appreciated, > however, the financial remuneration seems to have got lost in the post. After > 20 years of hand to mouth existence I discover the existence of a vast > repository of free tools. I have the ability to develop what non-music lovers > can recognise as a useful set of skills and make my own products. Anyone who > has ever heard of Marx will understand the importance of 'ownership of the > means of production', so I have a double onus, to actually support myself by > earning a living and also to pay back those who have helped me along the way. I'm familiar with Marx. I'm familiar with the concept of the "ownership of the means of production." I'm not quite sure what this has to do with life in a capitalist society. It does make for lovely discussion fodder... I think it's probably important to be able to distinguish between the rhetoric and reality. > I don't think my position is terribly different from most others on this list > in terms of my relationship to free software. Obviously I got to eat & pay my > bills and so do the people who have developed all this lovely software I'm > using, we all do. Actually I think this is a really good example of a > community built on gift transactions. I take a 'render unto Caesar' approach, > my work is fairly clearly defined between commercial (all rights reserved) > work and communal (some rights reserved). Again, it's up to us as individuals > to decide how we license our work. That freedom of choice is what I'm thinking to preserve. ...And what you say above that you want to deny others. How do you justify denying others the same rights that you have? > It's an interesting discussion point, but fundamentally I don't think anything > is actually broken. Your mileage may differ from what the clock says ;-).

20 years, 5 months

Re: [linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux

by ricktaylor＠speakeasy.net

> From: Eric Dantan Rzewnicki [mailto:rzewnickie@rfa.org] > My understanding is that apps need to follow a certain model (call-back > base processing vs. block processing, iiuc) in order to function > properly within the jack graph to meet it's low-latency and synchornous > execution requirements. There were some pre-existing apps that fit this > model and some that didn't. The authors of some of those that didn't fit > rewrote their apps or wrote new ones. Some other authors either didn't > care about jack's goals or disagreed with them and so their apps aren't > jackable. I don't think there are any behind the scenes political > maneuvers going on to keep certain apps out of the jack family. Again... I'm not suggesting that.

20 years, 5 months

Re: [linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux

by ricktaylor＠speakeasy.net

> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Pickett [mailto:chris.pickett@mail.mcgill.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 05:06 PM > To: 'A list for linux audio users' > Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux > > RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net wrote: > > On 12-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote: > > } Just a clarification: everything is copyrighted, unless it is explicitly > > } released into the public domain. That's why these licenses work. > > > > I'm familiar with copyrights. :} Artists have been using them since, maybe, > > before programmers. > > You did say, "linux audio... copyrighted stuff to > pretty much excluded," and later, "Much of that software is > copyrighted," so I don't think that was particularly unfair. > > > } The truncated paragraph said: > > } > > } "However, non-free software companies often want to create vendor > > } lock-in, and they've shown a good way to do this is to decrease > > } interoperability between programs and flexibility in the system. They > > } allow for only one box per program, and furthermore make one subscribe > > } to their whole subsystem of boxes to get something usable. It's like > > } when Lego started making wall pieces instead of just individual blocks > > } to build them." > > > > You mean like the idea that Jack works with only a select set of programs? > > I wasn't aware that Jack not operating with all programs was a > competitive thing, and involved money or patents or nasty licensing at > all ... I thought it was because other apps simply hadn't caught up yet. > I guess I'll have to read about it a bit. Don't get too serious about it... I just tossed that out as an example. It's probably a bad one. It "is" simply for the sake of discussion. I'm not sugggesting that there's anything evil afoot. Why do other programs need to "catch up" with a program that's designed to enable them? > > } I realize the Lego analogy is a little broken. > > } > > } Anyway, at the end of the day, if Linux Audio started to need non-free > > } stuff to be good, I'd just buy a Mac. For me, the core of what makes > > > > Linux has always included a large number of non-free programs. If you're > > obsessive like I am and run around checking out every available program that > > a given platform has to offer... Linux can include a very large number of > > traditionally copyrighted and commercial programs. I think linux needs to > > include a number of large commercial offerings like those solutions provided by > > Oracle and IBM. {Money... and all of the benefits that might be derived from > > it.} > > I think those kind of things can help corporations who have more money > than time to throw at a problem, but am unclear as to the benefit that > the ordinary user derives from them, although it probably exists. :} Trickle down software economics. In this case I think it has some basis in fact: "Sgi has a fairly large corporate structure in place... they devlop software. They have the means to make software that is "Sgi-like" {for lack of a better word.} If they give you their software {which is a unique product of their capabilities, market and experiences.} and you give them yours in return... everyone benefits." You use their tools to make a buck... you benefit. You both benefit at different levels. > > To me... the variety of choices available on linux is much more important than > > the open source thing... The copyleft idea strikes me as a really usable and > > actually somewhat noble alternative to a traditional corporate structure... The > > idea of an entirely open source strikes me as a bit dillettante and maybe a bit > > too high minded and idealistic to be practical. It's simply too open to > > politics, cliquishness and similar sorts of abuse {even racism... see Elvis} to > > be practical. {:} 'Course I sometimes feel this way about the internet itself. > > I'm probably wrong in those feelings. I don't think I am in my feelings about > > "open source".} > > To my knowledge, my system is entirely open source, with the exception > of acroread and flash, and it runs well. On the desktop, I think > paid-for corporate involvement can help with unification efforts, > packaging, and hardware support issues, but that it's better if the > changes are freed eventually. I'm thinking that both flash and pdf are pretty nice additions to linux. I don't think the changes can help but be "freed" occasionally. {Regardless of license.} Maybe we need to specify what we mean by "open source". > > } the whole thing tick and even worth using at all (ignoring the wonderful > > } unix-y benefits that Macs now have too) is that it's free. I think the > > } reaction, "Everyone else is releasing free stuff, you can bloody well > > } release free stuff too!" isn't entirely unjustified. As for music > > > > I think it's totally unjustified and that it's that very attitude that is at > > the heart of the problem I described above. > > I give away free time to F/OSS, and have made less-than-profitable > career choices (i.e. grad school) so that I could hack on free software, > why should I be expected to receive with open arms people who want to > build upon this free base and not give back, let alone _pay_ for it? Because you made that choice? > > } shareware developers, frankly I think they'd have a better time writing > > } for OS X anyway, as a real shareware community actually exists. > > > > Then they should just go away? > > I think corporations are the only ones really willing to pay for > individual applications on Linux. I'm personally not shelling out for > shareware when I can read, test, and contribute to free software. Time > is money, I guess, and that's how I'd like to pay, even if it costs me > more after the conversion (which indicates "libre" is more important > than "gratis" to me). I think other people feel the same way. I had the impression they have nothing to do with each other > So, yes, from a business perspective, shareware developers for Linux > should go away and target OS X instead. From an ethical perspective, as > long as I'm not forced to use it and there always exist alternatives, I > guess I don't mind. I start to mind when everybody just uses the > non-free stuff and this results in the death of otherwise good free > projects. > > Like Tim just said, I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree, > since I'm not likely to convince you that 100% free is a good and > realistic thing, and you're not likely to convince me otherwise (I know > _I'm_ starting to repeat myself). I hope at least we can see a little > where the other is coming from now :) :} Tim's message was first in the queue. I answered this there.

20 years, 5 months

[linux-audio-user] remapping midi notes

by Joey Reid

hi all - i hope this message gets through, since i seem to have been having a problem posting to this list - well here goes! i was wondering what would be the best way to remap midi notes. what i mean by this is turning a "C" into a "G". The reason why I want to do this is because I am using hydrogen as a drum sequencer, and I want to be able to control it with my el-cheapo yamaha digital (midi) drum kit. unfortunately, the pads on the drum kit trigger the wrong notes. they are programmable, but the kit does not preserve memory when the unit is switched off, so I would have to reprogram it every time. the other alternative would be to create custom drum kits, but that would be time-consuming, and i would like to be able quickly switch instruments within the kit. i keep seeing people mentioning pd for this kind of stuff, but i haven't found any documentation that would help me understand how to use pd. if someone could point me at a tutorial on manipulating midi with pd for idiots i would be grateful. -- Joey Reid aka Dr.Whiz-Bang Geek, musician, and friend of God http://www.joeyreid.com

20 years, 5 months

← Newer
1
...
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
...
21
Older →

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-user July 2004