Linux-audio-user February 2006

linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

207 participants
268 discussions

[linux-audio-user] Re: [ANN] Snd-ls V0.9.5.4 and Das_Watchdog V0.2.1

by Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen

Hartmut Noack: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hmmm... > basically a good idea, still it does not work for me (the same as the > mighty snd himself) snd-ls refuses to connect to jack 0.100 and any kind > of interacting with the GUI (changing selection, opening menues etc) > produces scratchsounds from hell. > > this is how i build it: > ./configure --with-gnu-ld --enable-jack --disable-nls --disable-sdl > > could you suggest a place where one can find out, how to fix this? > I don't understand whats happening or why. Could you give some outut from the shell? And where did you run configure, and why did you chose those flags? Please read the README file. You build it like this: "./build" and install it like this: "./install"

18 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] request: changing the subject marker

by Maarten de Boer

hello, would it be possible to change the [linux-audio-user] and [linux-audio-dev] subject markers to something shorter? [LAU] and [LAD] would be great. they make the subject lines rather unreadable, especially on a 80-character pine, but even on a mail client with adjustable column width (and certainly in combination with thread-view) i realize this will break filtering for people who filter on subject, but this is bad practice anyway (use List-Id instead), and it only has to be fixed once. maarten

18 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] [ANN] arcangel (and result of widget discussion)

by james＠dis-dot-dat.net

Howdy peeps, arcangel is a very simple distortion jack-enabled effect. It sounds warm and crunches nicely when you turn it up. If there was a competition for the simplest non-demo jack app, this would probably win. http://www.dis-dot-dat.net/index.cgi?item=/code/arcangel/ There's a demo mp3, too. If someone feels like playing a guitar through it for a new demo, let me know. My playing isn't up to scratch. And I'd love to hear a bass guitar through it... Thanks to all the people on the LAD list that made suggestions on widget sets. It was much appreciated. In the end, I went with xforms because it was so simple and small, although I might play with GTK at some point. 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)

18 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Re: Cheap Ass Gear

by philicorda

> Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:41:29 +0100 > From: Carlo Capocasa <capocasa(a)gmx.net> > Subject: [linux-audio-user] Cheap Ass Gear > To: linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu > Message-ID: <du220n$56o$1(a)sea.gmane.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 > > After throughly discussing the matter with myself in one of the recent > threads, I have decided to buy one of these babies. > > http://www.musicgate.ch/oxid.php/sid/ > 80a0861528715ba10d991d222b7cea8e/cl/ > details/cnid/6de41fdfcc49e8d26.98526461/ > anid/a64439d2dcebda552.04446416/Samson-C01U/ > > (For an explicit photograph of it it is necessary to piece together the > URL, but this is probably not the greatest length you have gone to to > find pleasing imagery online) > > I've been screaming all around how there is no linear scale of quality > and how everything is subjective while secretly drooling over Paul > Davis' latest phidelity discoveries. > > That's pretty hypocritical to say the least. I have one of them. It works fine with Linux, but it's noisy as hell. The a/d is fixed gain, and the level control is digital after the a/d. Not good for noise performance, but you don't have to worry about dither. :) If you don't need the portability aspect you will honestly get better results with the non usb version and a tiny behringer desk for the pre and an old soundblaster live card for your a/ds. The non usb version is a little cheaper, so getting it and a few other bits and pieces should not cost much more. > > It so happens that I'm living on a series of loans the Swiss government > is issuing to me on grounds I don't get into trouble (it has been a big > sacrifice) which aren't exactly designed to match up with the latest and > greatest in the QBDD* tested section of Pro Audio hardware designed to > be pleasing to people who bias themselves by reading the specs before > listening in order to give quality statements that are generally > accepted as non-biased. The good old government. :) > > Whew :) > > And since I have to decided to change this situation purely over sine > waves and my own sexuality (recorded in the waves) it makes sense to run > low overhead for a while. I've seen these two chicks recently, one of > them fat, causing quite a stir in me playing UKULELEs. One of them > smiles heftily enough to move a jackhammer through freshly pressed and > carefully crafted brick pavement (or whatever), and I like that. > > http://www.thehazzards.com > > I actually bought a CD from them, which I will never listen to, they > sound awful, but for some reason I wanted to give them money and there's > a pair of red luscious lips on the cover. A good album cover is equivilent to 4 extra bits of resolution in the recording. This may not be true, but it's a SCIENTIFIC FACT. > > Wish me luck with my el-cheapo USB mike! I'll be posting irrevent music > soon. Nobody will be speared. Uh, spared. I think. That's Carlo > Capocasa, reporting live from my uncleanly apartment in St. Gallen, > Switzerland. > > Carlo > > *Quadruple Blind, Deaf and Dumb >

18 years, 1 month

Re: [linux-audio-user] Making a room sound smaller

by Phil Mendelsohn

> I have a recording from a lecture. It was recorded in a large > auditorium and of course it show in the recording. I'd like to process > the recording to get a more intimate sound. It there any way of > reducing that ballroom echo a bit? If it can be done with a ladspa > plugin so much the better. Hi, Alex, You can try various filtering things, but all are subject to a certain amount of failure. I don't know about plugin modules, but I can tell you in general, the way you'd fix this is using "Deconvolution." The idea is simple -- it's basically "unfiltering," but there are a couple of problems. 1: You have to have some idea what the room does to the signal. (Possibly some info can be taken from your recording.) 2: It's really sensitive to the numbers you get from the first step -- so even in theory (i.e., on paper) it doesn't work all that well. In practice it's pretty hard to make work -- this is really "black magic" DSP. [though there's no such thing.] So, having said all that, you will probably get *better* results by using noise gates with a fairly high "off" level, i.e., not hard-gating, and possibly by using a key input that is bandpass filtered at about 2500-3000 Hz (tune by ear to the speaker's voice -- and filter out lows and highs.) I'm pretty sure the last will be possible using LADSPA tools -- though I can't say exactly which you're looking for! If it's any help in the future, I've found that most speakers (if this were at University, not public speaking for $$) will let you park your recorder closer to the stage -- the best answer of all is to keep the reverb out of the recording to begin with. It'll never sound like a voice over recorded in a studio, but maybe something here is helpful. Cheers, Phil Mendelsohn -- Dept. of Mathematics, 342 Machray Hall U. of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2 Office: 446 Machray Hall, 204-474-6470 http://www.rephil.org/ phil at rephil dot org

18 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Re: Digital Fidelity

by Maluvia

>=-O > >I mean, this is uneducating to say the least. > >c. >-- >www.cesaremarilungo.com I have no idea what the word "uneducating" means, so I can't really interpret your remark - other than to guess you mean my comments are stupid and irrelevant. (I find that remark rather 'uneducating' as well.) Apparently digital fidelity is a non-issue around here. If you guys really feel that you can produce professional-sounding, commercial quality CDs with 16-bit sound cards and 'correct' dithering - be my guest, and good luck. Music that originates in the digital domain doesn't even need to be sampled. Perhaps there are many here just doing all this for fun or as a hobby - I have no idea. I am guessing that there are not many people on this list recording acoustic instruments or classical-type music. I doubt that a recording engineer trying to record a violin, harp or orchestra, would be happy using a 16-bit sound card. >Holy cow. > >Holy freaking cow. > >This must be why I have such an URGE to do all my synthesis and sound >prossessing and even mastering on the fly without any intermediate copies. > >I've been in the 'digital is interchangable' mindset for a long time >now, and this is groundbreaking. > >Maybe this is the time to throw in a little bit of telepathy and >energetic nature of the world theory. Perhaps the difference you hear >between the different generations is the amount of attention (=energy) >that has been focused on its hyperspace equivalent. >So you want gear you can't tell the difference with your husband with? >Find some gear that people made who are a lot like your husband. Then >spend enough time with that piece of gear so you get the same amount of >or greater emotional connection with it as you have with your husband. >(That's where the 'magic 24th bit' comes in... It's simply hard enough >to get to make you spend enough time with your gear, and proably also >less with your husband, and that's the only thing that can make the two >not only sound, but also BE interchangable, which is when you really >cannot notice the difference any more.) OK Carlo, I found that all to be gratuitously insulting - but whatever. There *is* generational loss in the digital domain, as well as in the analog domain. Sorry. If you think the subtle differences I hear are auditory hallucination or self-hypnosis, and you can't hear them yourself - I can't convince you otherwise - I see no reason to even try. But there is a big difference between saying that this loss is negligible and insignificant, and saying it simply does not exist. There are some physical laws working against your premise here but I won't go into them - I don't want to take this thread OT yet again and turn it into a discourse on physics. There are others - professional audio engineers - who also hear these kind of differences, but I guess they must all be into metaphysics, hocus-pocus and self-delusion as well. (A lot of money in that.) Here are a few articles that touch on this subject, and say a lot of what I have been saying: http://www.johnvestman.com/digital_myth.htm http://www.johnvestman.com/digital_myth2.htm (There's tons more great stuff on his site w/re to mastering - a real wealth of valuable information - highly recommended.) I have found that his perceptions regarding audio quality closely mirror my own, and his writings have validated much of what I was already hearing. What John and I share in common is having started out as musicians - we were both violinists. Doubtless that has a lot to do with why we hear things similarly - or I might say - *listen* to things in the way we do. Violinists have to train themselves to listen very carefully to things that perhaps other instrumentalists do not. But John is not alone in his views - there are other working professionals who also hear these kind of differences, but I don't feel like taking the time to track anymore of it down, since I don't think there is any interest in this subject here, and as they say: "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." I was completely serious and sincere about everything I said, but I can see that this topic is a non-starter here. I was tryng to bring about a constructive discussion concerning digital fidelity and how best to improve it - but it seems like it has elicited more of a 'hold-the-fort' response instead. That's too bad, because I am just interested in making good music sound as good as it possibly can, and demonstrating that independently produced music - with OSS tools to whit - can equal or rival commercially produced music with their multi-million (billion?) dollar recording studios and engineering departments. If we can't do it yet, than I want to figure out how we can. It seems a good many of you believe you have already accomplished this - so good for you. I only know what *we* are trying to achieve, and we're not quite there - yet. - Maluvia

18 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] RE: [linux-audio-dev] More about consolidation of the Linux audio online resources (was: linuxdj...)

by ico

>===== Original Message From Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <rzewnickie(a)rfa.org> ===== >What type of hosting service does linuxaudio.org have now in terms of >space, bandwidth, accesibility of physical site admins and access for >remote site maintainers? Currently, the server hosting Linuxaudio.org has been arranged by Daniel James, so my guess is that it is hosted somewhere in UK, other info is unknown to me (ironically the site is currently inaccessible for whatever reason). Daniel? That being said, in my department (Virginia Tech) I've got an ok to offer hosting for LA purposes which would mean direct physical access to the mainframe, virtually unlimited data storage (I am not sure how much we have right now but we should have probably close to 1TB and there is plenty of empty slots left on the mainframe for more disks to be added), and most importantly unlimited bandwidth (although the actual outgoing line is limited to 100MBit from the node where the mainframe is, but the actual monthly bandwidth is unlimited). Finally, all data is backed-up weekly with one backup always being off-site in the case server melts down, dissapears, decides to grow legs and walk away, or whatever. Hope this helps! Best wishes, Ico

18 years, 1 month

Re: [linux-audio-user] [ANN] Bristol Audio synthesiser

by David Baron

> Thats jacklaunch, not jackstart. It's a simple wrapper for oss apps to > reroute their inputs and outputs to jack. (It also works well with > ReBorn) I was able to get it running with jack, but I had to edit the > startBristol script and put it in front of bristolengine. Actually > using bristol with jack was the only way I could get it to run. I > couldn't get it to use oss or alsa without segfaulting. So ... maybe doing it as jacklaunch startBristol is no good? Why doing this freezes up my CPU? Need to run it with a startBristol with jacklaunch bristolengine? Bristol runs fine for me in OSS. ALSA will give me sound but cannot connect the MIDI for whatever reason (/dev/midi1 == 128:1 ??).

18 years, 1 month

Re: [linux-audio-user] [ANN] Bristol Audio synthesiser emulation

by David Baron

> Did i already answer? No Jack support yet, but is high on the list of > requests. So what was one poster doing with jackstart ./startBristol ?? Choosing -alsa, the program comes up fine. I am having trouble getting input to it from my usb keyboard -middev /dev/midi1 (this is the one that gives data if I simply cat it). Not much fun to click the "Moog" keyboard with the mouse. Anyway, once it works with jack, one connects things at will if need be using qjackctl or the patchbay or whatever one has.

18 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Re: Digital Fidelity

by Maluvia

>unless you can detect them in a double blind test, they do not exist. >this has been hashed to death in audiophile journals for ten years, with >those claiming that double blind tests are not needed resorting to all >kinds of completely bizarre and utterly dubious statistical theories. Come on Paul - just admit it: you simply don't agree with the concept that these differences exist, and think anyone who does is nuts. That's your *opinion*, not an irrefutable fact. If these 'scientific' theories, tests, and evidence are your religion and scripture - fine. I'm a strong believer in freedom of religion, and in the final analysis, that is all science is - another dogma, and another religion. I left a scientific career in academia because I found the dogma too restricting. >first, audio CD "copies" are not "digital file copies" at all. audio CD >playback mechanisms have error correction built in, and it is certainly >true that making a copy of an audio CD may not result in a >"perfect" (ie. bit-level) copy. I don't know if we are even talking about the same thing here. I am talking about taking a .wav file on a hard-drive, and proceeding to burn that exact same file onto audio CDs at different burn speeds. The equalization sounds different at different speeds. But as you say, this is something altogether different than copies of the same .wav files on a hard-disk or different hard-disks. >copying from one .wav to another .wav on a hard drive will never, ever >produce any difference of any kind, and if you claim otherwise, you are >either completely ignorant of how digital audio works or being >deliberately ridiculous. Your opinion - not fact. I am describing exactly what I hear, and you are free to interpret that in any fashion you choose. >find me one person who can do this in a double blind situation, and we can >take it seriously. I submit that I can, but I don't think there will be an opportunity to test that out. I couldn't care less whether you 'take it seriously' or not - I am not trying to convince you of anything whatsoever. Believe what you wish. (I don't believe for one minute that you would take it seriously in any case.) >your complaints are not specific to open source digital audio, but are >about about digital audio in general. I'm sorry if you interpreted my remarks as *complaining*. My intention was to *discuss* the issue of digital fidelity and how it might be improved. >although we have a few wizards of the DSP here, you'd better off in a more >general forum Doubtless you would prefer that I leave - perhaps I will, perhaps not. >(which i am sure will roast claims like >"i can hear the difference between two digital copies" as vigorously as >anyone here) Roasting a claim does not constitute disproving it. >Without wanting to question your sincerity, please note >that any claims of 'I can hear xxxxx' are completely >irrelevant in a scientific context until they have been >confirmed by double-blind experiments in controlled and >repeatable circumstances. And if you claim things that >go logically against results that have been retested >and verified time and time again, then the burden of >proof is on you. That's how things work in science. I am well aware of how things work in science. (I have a degree in physics and biology, and did graduate work in mathematical and theoretical physics.) I am also aware of the severe limitations of how things work in science and the many flaws both in scientific theories and scientific experimentation. These flaws becoming increasingly obvious when you enter into realms involving consciousness (such as perception). Observer participancy is just one example. "We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." - John A. Wheeler >I Maluvia! > >I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend you. It's just that *I* happen to be >heavily into *certain types* of hocus pocus, and I was hoping to >exchange a little bit of subtle humor with you, since you made the >impression you'd be at least halfway open to that type of thinking, >which is rare! Carlo :), I am *more* than open - that seems to be my problem on this list. And I do have a sense of humor - your comments just sounded more like mockery than humor. Sorry that I misinterpreted them. I find your exuberance and irreverant humor extremely refreshing, and much needed on what otherwise feels like a generally stodgy list. I assumed that most people on this list would be musicians rather than programmers or engineers, and I find musicians a lot easier to communicate with and relate to - not to mention much more open-minded. (I guess that's why I married one.) >As for the subjectivity, the pages you quoted about the digital myth are >based on three things, which are all scientific: 1. CD jitter errors, 2. >different types of A/D converters, and 3. recalculation loss. > >None of these would explain properly why you can hear differences >between different copies of files on HARD DRIVES. > >Now here's where it get's interesting (To me, at least :) > >You claimed you can hear a difference between two files that are stored >on different hard drives. Now that's a completely different story. Hard >drives usually store software. There is no automatic error correction >with a subtle loss of quality for software. You change a single bit in >an executable program, and the thing crashes. It could break your >computer, physically, and ruin all your data which represents years of >work. In many cases, a faulty program can KILL PEOPLE. Software depends >on 1:1 numerical reproduction of data, at least for the lifetime of a >computer, and when that's not given, there is no longer a computer, >there is only a piece of scrap junk. > >And yet you claim you can hear the difference between different copies >of data on different hard drives. To someone who has been working on >computers for more than half of his lifetime, that statement in itself >sounds esoteric. So don't be surprised if the man who believes you uses >esoteric theories to explain it :) > >Of course, the phenomenon of subjectivity and energy relations is >currently explained within contemporary science as simply a convenient >way of discribing trances and other subjective psychological states, >which are diverted and deluded and somehow diverted from a generally >accepted way of experiencing things. > >To me, this is a very dogmatic, and also quite arrogant way of looking >at things. I don't deny that thinking scientifically is USEFUL, because >it enables us to create very sophisticated models of how the world >works, which in turn lets us create neat things such as digital audio >devices and airplanes and cars. I wouldn't want to make do without all >that. But in all its usefulness, that doesn't make the theory TRUE. > >Newton's theory is useful. It helps explain things WITHIN CERTAIN >BOUNDARIES. But then Einstein came along and created a different theory, >which had the same results within Newton's range, but continued to be >effective when Newton's theory failed. Then Einstein's theory failed, >and quantum mechanics was introduced to better explain other and >different phenomena. Great efforts are on the way right now simply to >bring all those observations to common ground, and when they succeed, we >can be certain that YET MORE unexplainable phenomena will occur, and >that the theory will have to be placed in proper context yet again. The >theory is never true, it is only useful within certain contexts. It's >'true' because it's useful. But it can just as well be untrue where it >stops being useful. That's simply the way science works. It is how *any* thought system works. >However, there is a tendency among the scientific community to cling to >what already has been explained, simply because it makes things so >comfortably predictable. However, that comes at the price of gaining new >knowledge, at the price of the very way the current explanations have >been found. That's why it is so very important to keep an open mind >about things. A thought system is merely a navigational mechanism - a vehicle if you will. It is meant to *move* you somewhere - to give you mobility, to be a mechanism for growth and evolution of consciousness. We all need a frame of reference - which is what a thought system is. It consists of our current beliefs about the world and our relationship to it, and provides us with a mechanism to interpret what we perceive and experience. And as those beliefs largely determine what we perceive, the experience part is crucial to bringing in new information so that those beliefs can be modified and the scope of awareness and understanding expanded. In a healthy evolving being, when experience is found to be inconsistent with a belief system, it is discarded for a new, more expansive or inclusive set of beliefs, until it, in its own turn is also outgrown. When a belief-system/reference-frame no longer serves - i.e., experience contradicts those beliefs, forcing them to be modified or discarded - then at a certain ineffable point, a phase transition occurs (often entailing a major life-crisis) - the belief system is disintegrated and a new one is created in its place - one which incorporates all the experiential learning from the former - the beliefs which have held up to experience, along with new ideas, beliefs and theories by which one then attempts to continue to navigate through this mysterious thing we call 'reality' and 'life'. This process is cosmic mobility through consciousness, and I believe, will one day be the basis of physical mobility through the cosmos as well. "Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul, As the swift seasons roll! Leave thy low-vaulted past! Let each new temple, nobler than the last, Shut thee from heaven with a dome more vast, Till thou at length art free, Leaving thine outgrown shell by life's unresting sea! " ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes >I was ready to trash my theory that bits are always bits >that has worked so well for me for over twelve years AT THE BLINK OF AN >EYE, simply because of your unconfirmed subjective observation that you >can hear a difference between the same files on different hard drives, >even if it might mean making the way I work in the studio infinetly more >complex, at least until I found a better theory. It does make things more complicated - or simpler, depending on how you look at it. We no longer make intermediate copies of a piece of music in progress. All the data about the ongoing state of editing/modification is kept as a project file, while the original raw recorded data is left untouched. In previous projects it was only at the very last stage that the changes were incorporated into a mixed-down rendered stereo file, then used for CD-Mastering. (We don't even defrag the partitions with audio data, although this introduces a different set of problems.) In future projects we won't even export the project, we will simply output it to another system and re-record at the desired final SR/bit-depth, so dithering will be unnecessary. Actually, I find this approach to be a simpler way of doing things - (but then it has already been established that I am incredibly ignorant or quite possibly insane). :) >I have heard of people who could PHYSICALLY REPAIR CARS simply by >thinking about them. If you think that's hocus pocus, remember that the >'round earth theory' was considered hocus pocus by most only five >hundred years ago. Five hundred years! On an earth scale, that's not >even one acoustic sample. That's way below any D/A converter's noise >margin. We need to stay open about things. Yes indeed - the world would be a vastly improved place if more people could do this. >So in my book, no, I do not believe that you are deluding yourself. Bob >Moog is said to have had EMOTIONAL CONNECTIONS with his synthesizers, >and as far as I am concerned, they sure sound genuine. Maybe that's just >the geek me, but I've seen people have really healthy relationships with >technology and other 'inanimates'. And maybe that's just the nerd me, >but I've seen some really unhealthy ways of people interacting with each >other. So I like to joke a lot about technology and people being >interchangable relationship-wise. It's a way of getting over a lot of pain. > >The remark about your respected partner in the end, on the other hand, >was deliberately formulated to be a little edgy, if not theoretically >unsound. Please forgive me, I can write impressive essays very well, but >I have a very cruel sense of humour that is constantly tempting me. It's OK Carlo. Whenever I mention my partner, it seems to evoke negative responses. I prefer not to do so, but since it is his music that we are working to produce, I cannot help mentioning him on occasion. He prefers to speak through his guitar and his music, so the verbal jousting is left to me. >I do not believe you are deluding yourself. I believe you are using your >yet unexplained physical properties to influence your environment that >could be observed by other people in the same situation also, but maybe >not by someone using the same brand but different device as you, or a >different person. But that's just a theory. It could be wrong. I know what I hear, and that is enough for me. I act in accordance with that perception and it has served me well. It was never my intention to convert anyone to my perspective, or accept my perceptions as theirs. > . . . . . . >Now that doesn't mean I'm getting all hoozy shmoozy on you. If people >come to me and tell me all I have to do is think about the pink flame in >me and all is well, I tend to mentally put them right where they belong >in my opinion, next to cult followers, opiate addicts and battered >housewives. What do these three have in common? Unhealthy addictions. >But, if new knowledge comes along that has the potential to genuinely >improve my life (and that of others), and that knowledge happens to >sound different, well. Let us investigate. Indeed. �Of all the strange features of the universe, none are stranger than these: time is transcended, laws are mutable, and observer participancy matters.� ~ John Wheeler, Professor of Physics, Princeton University Namaste, Maluvia

18 years, 1 month

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
27
Older →

Jump to page:

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 February 2006