Linux-audio-user July 2005

linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

191 participants
230 discussions

[linux-audio-user] running jack and non jack aware audio apps in the same time

by Eric Robert

Hi list, for my needs as a musician i've configured my favorites audio apps to run with jack (mainly xmms, rosegarden, timidity and audacity), as i don't record anything yet but mainly transcript solos or compose midi stuff , or play with band in a box (through wine). I use jack as it makes it possible to open and use more than one app in the same time. Great! But sometimes i'd like to use non jack aware apps like sox (correct me if i'm wrong) or mpg123 or others. Those won't run unless i kill jack! How painfull as it is a very good friend of mine ;-) dev/dsp: Device or resource busy audio: Device or resource busy In the jack diagram (http://jackit.sourceforge.net/docs/diagram/JACK-Diagram-screensize.png) i can see that non jack aware apps can run in the same time using either the ALSA API or the OSS emulation layer. How comes that i can't run, say mpg123, and jack in the same time? xawdecode or xawtv for instance won't care if jack is running or not, why not sox or mpg123? Thanks Eric

19 years, 5 months

[linux-audio-user] debian libjack problem

by Joachim Schiele

hey, maybe anyone here can give me some hints: i don't want to loose my kde 3.4 but libarts1-dev depends (=) NOT (>=) on libjack0.80.0-dev so i can't install libjack0.100.0-dev ;P do i have to recompile everything now? i'm totally lost. greets, joachim root@knabber:/etc/udev# apt-get install jackd Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done The following extra packages will be installed: ardour-gtk-i686 jackeq libxml2 libxml2-dev Suggested packages: jamin ardour-session-exchange jack-tools meterbridge The following packages will be REMOVED: akregator amarok amarok-arts amarok-engines amarok-gstreamer amarok-xine ark arts artsbuilder cervisia cheesetracker dbus-qt-1 digikam digikamimageplugins digikamplugins hydrogen k3b k3blibs kaddressbook kaffeine kalarm kandy kappfinder karm kate kbabel kcachegrind kcalc kcontrol kde-core kdeartwork kdeartwork-style kdeartwork-theme-window kdebase kdebase-bin kdebase-dev kdebase-kio-plugins kdelibs kdelibs-bin kdelibs4 kdelibs4-dev kdepasswd kdepim kdepim-kfile-plugins kdepim-kio-plugins kdepim-wizards kdeprint kdesdk-kfile-plugins kdesdk-misc kdesktop kdevelop3 kdevelop3-data kdevelop3-plugins kdm kfind kget kghostview kgpg khelpcenter khexedit kicker kig kile kitchensync kivio kleopatra klipper kmail kmailcvt kmenuedit kmix kmtrace knode knotes koffice-data koffice-libs kompare kompose konqueror konqueror-nsplugins konsole konsolekalendar kontact kopete korganizer korn kpackage kpager kpdf kpersonalizer kpf kpilot kregexpeditor kruler kscreensaver kscreensaver-xsavers ksimus ksimus-boolean ksimus-floatingpoint ksirc ksmserver ksplash kspread kspy ksync ksysguard kteatime ktip ktnef kuiviewer kvirc kvoctrain kwin kword libarts1 libarts1-dev libbio2jack0 libcvsservice0 libjack0.80.0-0 libjack0.80.0-dev libkcal2a libkdenetwork2 libkdepim1 libkexif0 libkexif1 libkgantt0 libkipi0 libkjsembed1 libkleopatra0a libkonq4 libkonq4-dev libkpimexchange1 libkpimidentities1 libksieve0 libktnef1 libmimelib1a mplayer-k6 mplayer-k7 networkstatus oooqs-kde qjackctl specimen stk umbrello zynaddsubfx The following NEW packages will be installed: jackd The following packages will be upgraded: ardour-gtk-i686 jackeq libxml2 libxml2-dev 4 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 145 to remove and 246 not upgraded. Need to get 3290kB/3913kB of archives. After unpacking 379MB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue [Y/n]?

19 years, 5 months

[linux-audio-user] Re: linux-audio-user Digest, Vol 22, Issue 81

by philicorda

> > Message: 10 > Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:26:03 +0200 > From: Wolfgang Lonien <wolfgang(a)lonien.de> > Subject: [linux-audio-user] hi list... > To: A list for linux audio users <linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu> > Message-ID: <42DF945B.80001(a)lonien.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi LA users, > > after approx. a 20-year-break as a musician, I decided to get some MIDI > equipment and do something more fun with all these computers. > > And wow it seems hard. I still remember someday when I bought my first > MIDI stuff and started with DOS - so this was pre-Cubase & Co, and > everything worked fine with some soundblaster and the Y-cable. Things have moved on a little. :) > > Now I am reading since days about low-latency, tried both the live and > the install of DeMuDi, configured an older companies' laptop (Asus with > P3-750) to make use of my MidiSport2x2, and since then I'm fuddling > around with jackd, alsa, rosegarden4, muse, and all the like. > > The latencies are horrible. Ok; it's UNIX/Linux, and that is meant for > more than one person, I know, but I didn't assume it to be *that* hard. What sort of latency problems are you having? Remember, latency is only a monitoring issue, and should never affect timing of audio to midi etc on playback. If the laptop and soundcard just aint gonna play nice with jack at low latencies whatever you do then use the direct analog monitoring in the sound cards mixer for monitoring while recording audio rather than software monitoring. Softsynth latency can't be got round this way, but if your midi keyboard has some sounds built in, you can record listening to them, and then play back the midi parts with whatever softsynth you like. > > So I'm greeting all members of this list, and since I'm obviously a > (rather old, I know) "newbie", don't kill me because of the questions I > might ask here. > > Oh, andd thanks to all the authors of these great & free applications - > as well as all the others who are writing good articles about them. Life > is fun again ;-) > > cheers, > wjl aka Wolfgang Lonien > from Bremen, Germany > > - -- > Key ID 0x728d9bd0 - public key available at wwwkeys.de.pgp.net > Honda NTV '94 still running on fuel - everything else here runs Debian > GNU/Linux > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFC35RbqrjTanKNm9ARAm8OAKCDiuAuraQvu8rf+/AVD3rweM4CSwCfe4lJ > EkIW0jJr6GSjFdjPYDEXSqM= > =GV7R > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

19 years, 5 months

[linux-audio-user] Call for collaboration

by james＠dis-dot-dat.net

It's me again. I've been going back over some stuff I did a while ago, and found something that I decided to take in a slightly different direction. I have a rough cut of the new track at http://dis-dot-dat.net/content/music/sv_WIP.ogg What I want now is a collaborator or collaborators. Mainly vocals and guitars. There're plenty of open spaces in the track for focusing on the new parts, so you can show off in the breaks. If anyone would care to have a listen and knock up some parts, I'll fiddle with putting them in the track. Vocalist must bring own "lyrical skillz" - I've tried writing lyrics before and ended up with the most puerile and naive drivel. I hope someone takes the bait, er, I mean opportunity; it would be interesting to see how something like this would work. Thanks, James -- "I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you." (By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)

19 years, 5 months

[linux-audio-user] A hand please?

by james＠dis-dot-dat.net

Hi peeps. As usual, I really want a guitar part in a track I'm working on and can't play any more than the first few bars of "Everybody hurts" at half speed. So, I have created a sound file with the tune I want, played by a pretend guitar and hope that someone on the list can play it for real. If you prefer the notes, that's no problem either. The sound I was after didn't quite work - I wanted something fuzzy, and a little less sharp than I managed. The soundfile is at http://dis-dot-dat.net/content/music/fl_git_rubish.ogg Your help is appreciated and I promise to get a quick test of the track out within about a day of getting a soundfile from anyone who helps me out. So you can see what I'm doing with it ;) Thanks peeps! James -- "I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you." (By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)

19 years, 5 months

[linux-audio-user] hearnet - paniq mod

by Leonard "paniq" Ritter

maybe some of you people know hearnet, a tool that turns incoming packets into audio. i made a little mod to it that makes it play polyphonic bellsounds. http://downloads.paniq.org/hearnet-0.0.3-paniqmod.tar.gz just for fun :) -- -- leonard "paniq" ritter -- http://www.paniq.org -- http://www.mjoo.org

19 years, 5 months

Re: [linux-audio-user] Opening up the discussion

by eviltwin69＠cableone.net

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:54 , Wolfgang Lonien <wolfgang(a)lonien.de> sent: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Christoph Eckert wrote: > >> The latter one is the target group we're discussing. Users who >> already know about audio, audio synthesis and audio >> processing. > >Hi Christoph, > >so this includes *me*? As I explained in an earlier post, I did MIDI >when we were still using DOS, but audio was (at that time) far without >reach - with *any* operating system. Audio was still pre-ADAT, so we're >talking 24-track tape machines... > >The first versions of Cubase (on Atari and later on PC) I saw *were* >somewhat fire&forget, so I see the point of the whole discussion (I >think). Is it easier nowadays? If we speak only Linux, then maybe (with >regards to DeMuDi and the planet), but if we see the big picture and >think about the time in between and the demand of a "simple" musician >who wants to plug & play, then there maybe is a point to that article on >O'Reilly. > Let's get back to the original premise of the article - Ardour is difficult to use without reading some documentation. Let's also get another thing straight - Cubase is a toy. It is *not* Pro Tools. Ardour is designed to do the same kinds of operations that Pro Tools (full blown, ridiculously expensive version) does. No one, to my knowledge, including experienced analog audio engineers, ever walked into a studio and started running Pro Tools from scratch without reading some of the documentation. I personally don't care how easy Cubase, GarageBand, Cakewalk, and other simple audio applications are. I want a full scale, multi-track recording system that will do all, or nearly all, of the things that Pro Tools does. Could Ardour be made more intuitive? Probably. Is that a major problem for anyone who wants to do serious audio work. No. Let's at least compare apples to apples here. Jan

19 years, 5 months

Re: [linux-audio-user] Opening up the discussion

by eviltwin69＠cableone.net

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:35 , Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> sent: >On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 12:47 -0700, eviltwin69(a)cableone.net wrote: >> >> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:34 , Lee Revell rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> sent: >> >> >On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 10:46 +0200, Mario Lang wrote: >> >> That is the point, I absolutely dont feel reading up on something >> >> is necessarily a bad thing. My hair stand up if I watch >> >> a typical no-clue windows user more or less randomly hitting >> >> buttons in the interface until "something" works. I do feel this >> >> "it has to work out of the box without me having to know anything >> >> about it" attitude is childish. >> >> >> > >> >I disagree violently with this line of reasoning. Software should >> >ALWAYS work the way the user expects it to unless there is a DAMN GOOD >> >REASON, for example if you are offering a much more powerful interface >> >than the user is used to. >> > >> >For example, most apps (Firefox and IE) use "Ctrl-F" to 'Find in page'. >> >Except Evolution, which forces you to use "Ctrl-S" to 'Find (Search) in >> >page', because they have already bound Ctrl-F to 'Forward message'. >> >> >> Ah, but Ctrl-S has been search in all versions of Emacs for the last couple >> of decades. I think that predates IE and Firefox. They must not have felt like >> doing it in the normal way ;-) And you don't need to point out that Emacs isn't >> a browser since Evolution isn't one either. >> > >Correct, but I'm talking about the modern UNIX GUI desktop, the one that >we expect to be intuitive to Mac and Windows users. You know, KDE or >Gnome, Firefox, OpenOffice, Evolution or kmail. The type of stuff that >will meet the needs of 99% of computer users (yes we all know we are in >the other 1%). For better or for worse, Emacs is not a part of that. > Actually, Xemacs has been a part of that since before Firefox/IE. Jan

19 years, 5 months

Re: [linux-audio-user] Opening up the discussion

by eviltwin69＠cableone.net

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:19 , Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> sent: >Jay Vaughan wrote: > >> i think, somewhat, that we're talking about taking a computer and >> turning it into a musical instrument. > >Umm, that's exactly how I approach the thing. Ditto for guys like Paul >Lansky and a host of other musicians who use the computer to compose, >record, and produce music. Otherwise computers aren't really very >interesting things for me. > >> when was the last time you ever required someone to read the manual >> for their 6-string before they could play it? or their bass? or a >> flute? or the violin? > >They don't usually come with extensive manuals anyway, but at the first >lesson I do describe the instrument to the student so they know what to >ask for or say when they take it in for repairs or even a simple >restringing ("Which E string did you need replaced, sonny ?"). I don't >make them memorize the details, they'll "get it" if they stay with the >study. > >> sure, it takes skill to play an instrument.. but its the doing that >> makes the skill, not the reading. > <snip> >> users should -never- be -required- to get trained before the >> instrument will work. the instrument should work, by itself, by >> default, anyway.. > >I'll speak here as a professional instrumental teacher. > >The only context in which "the instrument should work, by itself" >applies is whether it's actually playable, i.e., it isn't a broken or >otherwise flawed or unplayable instrument. > >The statement that "users should -never- be -required- to get trained >before the instrument will work" is too weird for me to comprehend. How >exactly does a guitar "work" by itself ? It can sit there, look good, >and do nothing, and that's all it can do before someone who knows how to >play it (i.e., they are trained, either by self or other) picks it up >and plays it. > Yeah, here's the scenario I envision - you give someone a guitar and say "You can't ask any questions about it from anyone who knows how to play, you can't read your friendly Mel Bay chord book, you can't download tab from the internet". Then you sit back for a few years and wait for the poor schlep to become the next Segovia. Everybody gets some training one way or the other. >Much of my discomfort for the "it should just work" mantra comes from >knowing that it takes real effort to acquire any degree of performance >skill. I happen to like the fact that the arts are still non-democratic, >i.e., you *must* be able to put up, or you should shut up. Don't get me >wrong, I'm most happy that the arts are open for anyone's involvement, >and computers have made it possible for more people to try their hands >at making music *without having to master an instrument*. > I agree with both points. As I get older (and hopefully wiser :) I think that it's a really good thing that someone with no mastery of an instrument can make interesting music. Who knows, the greatest as yet unknown song writer in the world may actually not know how to play anything. He/she may just hear it in their head and use a computer to play it out. Jan

19 years, 5 months

Re: Re: [linux-audio-user] Opening up the discussion

by eviltwin69＠cableone.net

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:33 , philicorda <philicorda(a)ntlworld.com> sent: > >> Message: 2 >> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 07:59:12 -0700 >> From: eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> >> Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Opening up the discussion >> To: A list for linux audio users >> linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu>, Wolfgang Lonien >> wolfgang(a)lonien.de> >> Message-ID: 1122303552_36501(a)S4.cableone.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain >> >> >> >> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:54 , Wolfgang Lonien wolfgang(a)lonien.de> sent: >> >> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >Hash: SHA1 >> > >> >Christoph Eckert wrote: >> > >> >> The latter one is the target group we're discussing. Users who >> >> already know about audio, audio synthesis and audio >> >> processing. >> > >> >Hi Christoph, >> > >> >so this includes *me*? As I explained in an earlier post, I did MIDI >> >when we were still using DOS, but audio was (at that time) far without >> >reach - with *any* operating system. Audio was still pre-ADAT, so we're >> >talking 24-track tape machines... >> > >> >> >The first versions of Cubase (on Atari and later on PC) I saw *were* >> >somewhat fire&forget, so I see the point of the whole discussion (I >> >think). Is it easier nowadays? If we speak only Linux, then maybe (with >> >regards to DeMuDi and the planet), but if we see the big picture and >> >think about the time in between and the demand of a "simple" musician >> >who wants to plug & play, then there maybe is a point to that article on >> >O'Reilly. >> > >> >> >> Let's get back to the original premise of the article - Ardour is difficult >> to use without reading some documentation. Let's also get another thing straight >> - Cubase is a toy. It is *not* Pro Tools. > >I entirely disagree. I'm not sure if you have used Cubase since Sx1,2,3 >appeared, but I respectfully say you do not know what you are talking >about. > >I use Cubase professionally almost every day. Please point out one area >(apart from proprietary DSP hardware support) where Cubase appears as a >toy compared to pro tools. I mean, PT only got proper automatic plugin >delay compensation in v6.4 in 2004. How the hell did people mix a drum >kit on the thing before that? (Well, they didn't. That, coupled with the >problematic integer mixer summing is why most people used to use an >analog desk with PT). > I'm not talking about PT LE or whatever that thing is called ;-) >Sure, there are things I feel are done better in Ardour, but there are a >hell of a lot of useful features in Cubase that make recording and >editing a joy, particularly when time is limited. And these are not >features to make it easier for a newbie, they are the kind of thing you >discover after a few years of using it. > >> Ardour is designed to do the same >> kinds of operations that Pro Tools (full blown, ridiculously expensive version) >> does. No one, to my knowledge, including experienced analog audio engineers, >> ever walked into a studio and started running Pro Tools from scratch without >> reading some of the documentation. I personally don't care how easy Cubase, >> GarageBand, Cakewalk, and other simple audio applications are. I want a full >> scale, multi-track recording system that will do all, or nearly all, of the >> things that Pro Tools does. Could Ardour be made more intuitive? Probably. Is >> that a major problem for anyone who wants to do serious audio work. No. Let's >> at least compare apples to apples here. > >I think that for every person asking for Ardour to be easier, there is >another saying 'Noooo, pleeese! Proper multitracking on Linux at last! >This works reliably! I can use it professionally in my studio! Don't >mess it up, for gods sake!!!'. > Agreed. >In my humble opinion, that's not a danger. Seeing Pro Tools as the alpha >and omega all of audio DAWs, however, is. Because, though it is popular, >it ain't the best or fastest software for everyone, amateur or pro. >I do prefer it to the unbelievably obtuse and tedious Logic and DP >though. :) > It's not the alpha and omega. It is the most widely used professional DAW by a very large majority. That doesn't make it great but it does mean that there must be some kind of reason for it. It is either easier to use, has more features, costs less (not bloody likely ;-), or has some other driving force behind it. Also, when I started in with Ardour I was advised to read the Pro Tools documentation to get a good idea of what features are or will be available in Ardour. That gives me a clue that Pro Tools was, at least in some respects, the starting goal for Ardour. >I don't find Ardour hard to use, and am surprised when a Cubase user >would suggest it is. The steps to set up a session and begin recording >are pretty much identical on both. The problems for me with Ardour are >when I do something that intuitively *should* work, (like selecting >multiple clips and dragging a fade handle should affect the fades on all >the selected clips).. and it does not. Or drawing a box around multiple >automation points and dragging them all up and down... >That what people mean by 'intuitive' and 'easy to use'. > I agree completely. It's very simple to just start recording. Hopefully the features you describe will be available at some time in the near future. >The problem as I see it is that people go through the palava of >installing Ardour, Jack etc, and are then faced with a multitrack. >No beats, no preset samples, no tracker style looper/arranger, the only >way you are going to get good music out of the thing is if you record it >into it. To my mind, that is how it should be, but for many people it's >a cold awakening to the fact that *you* make the music, not the >computer, and they simply don't know what to do next. > Exactly. >BTW, CCRMA has made the installation issue irrelevant as far as I'm >concerned. Many thanks to all involved. Sorry for the long rant. > What he said ;-) Jan

19 years, 5 months

← Newer
1
...
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
...
23
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 2005