Linux-audio-user February 2006

linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

207 participants
268 discussions

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

by Kjetil S. Matheussen

"Mark Knecht": > > IIRC the older versions didn't have Jack support. IS this new one > updated for that? If so it would be grat. It had some very good sounds > but was semi-hard to tie into my system. > Seems to work fine with jacklaunch at least: jacklaunch ./startBristol -b3 -oss http://gige.xdv.org/libjackasyn/

18 years, 9 months

[linux-audio-user] Re: Companies Refusing to Release/Permit Linux Drivers

by philicorda

> From: "Maluvia" <terakuma(a)imbris.net> > Subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Companies Refusing to Release/Permit > Linux Drivers > To: linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu > Message-ID: <200602260828200450.009F9B4F(a)mail.imbris.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > >We don't need to worry about things like this. There is a Free > >Engineering movement forming and getting stronger. I believe > >closed-source and propriatery stuff gets sterile and dies after a while > >simply because it's not fun to work at, so this should be a > >self-regulating problem. > >Carlo > > I am aware of "Open Hardware' and have been keeping an eye on it. > There is nothing we would like better than to build our own audio interface and processor, but I have not yet seen anything in the way of sound cards that approaches the level of a Hammerfal DSP - yet. I've seen some diy converters with spdif outputs that look ok. I guess the big deal is making a multichannel computer interface to plug them into. > > What I *have* been wondering for a long time is why the AD/DA technology is stuck at 24-bit? > I've already heard all the brush-off arguments: nobody needs anything higher, you can't hear the difference, it takes too much disk, space, blah-blah-blah - which is a lot of bunk. There are not any true 24bit a/d converters yet. There are not even any true 22 bit a/d converters, perhaps in some labs. I think the best converters in the world manage about 20bit. (120db dynamic range.) If a converter had a 24bit dynamic range (144db) and full scale was +7db, then it would have to be able to resolve differences of 10 nano-volts (10 one billionths of a volt). That's perhaps possible with cryogenics. Remember each extra bit *doubles* the dynamic range! Real 24 bit recording should resolve from below the brownian noise floor of air molecules hitting your ear drums to beyond the threshold of pain. That's why we are stuck at 24bit. > Disk space is cheap, I *can* hear the difference, and bit-depth is far more critical to audio fidelity than sample-rate. > I want to build a digital recording system that has the same fidelity as a 24-track reel-to-reel, and I believe this can in fact be achieved at high enough resolutions. Best noise floor you will get out of tape is about -70db. That's why we had all those dolby-A boxes. You can do that with a Soundblaster live. Tape also has enourmous amounts of jitter and distortion. What makes tape sound nice is not the fidelity! You will get useful information up to around 30Khz with a good tape machine though. Recording is about creating illusions, not fidelity. If you record an acoustic guitar in a totally dead room with the flattest most accurate mic and pre, in to best a/ds in the world, it sounds... ok. Put some reverb and top end on it, a little compression, perhaps add a little distortion with an aural exiter, or recording to tape, and people will say 'wow, what an amazing fidelity guitar recording!' :) > > I assume the blockage here is related to patent issues w/re to Cirrus logic's Crystal Semiconductor Corporation which owns the '483, '841, and '899 patents and has been agressively pursuing and winning infringement cases w/re to this technology. > http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-15… > http://www.cirrus.com/en/press/releases/P36.html > > There is also the smell of the RIAA and Hollywood here > http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/ olia/teachcomments/motionpiccomments.pdf > - as ever, psychotically paranoid about piracy (and, I have always believed, concerned about competition from the independent sector.) > I don't understand all the technology, or the legalities, but methinks something's rotten in Denmark. > Why have CPU speeds and RAM and HDD speeds and capacities leapt ahead at such an incredible pace, while we are still stuck with 32-bit PCI buses and 24-bit converters? > > I do hope Free Engineering can change all this - but this patent stuff is intimidating - they seem to enjoy going around smashing fruit-flies with sledge-hammers. > This is patent abuse - wielding patent law not merely to protect legitimate rights to income from an invention, but to quash any and all possibility of competition in the marketplace. > > Obviously, a totally new technology - not based on Crystal's - will be required to get out from under this cloud of restriction. > Surely we can come up with something even better. > To me the whole weakness and vulnerability of Open Software and Hardware arises from simply trying to RE technology then adapt it, rather than designing something completely new, then using Open Licensing schemes to keep the bullies from appropriating it for anticompetitive purposes and restricting consumer access to useful technologies. > > - Maluvia

18 years, 9 months

[linux-audio-user] MIDI-controlled PC-based Sampler

by Andrew Lewis

Is anyone using such a thing?- Want to share what they used to get it going? I'm looking at getting hold of a Korg Electribe MX (rather than the SX, which has a sampler but lacks the MX's synthesis stuff), and what sucks hard about the MX is that it doesn't allow you to add extra sounds (although I read a review that said it could in fact import extra sounds from SmartMedia which were recorded on the SX, which makes me think it's just a matter of reverse engineering to achieve this, argh). So were I to go for the MX, I will need a MIDI-controlled sampler, and not wanting fork out even more cash on a hardware sampler, I thought I should use my computer... ;> Ideas? -- Andrew Lewis

18 years, 9 months

[linux-audio-user] Free Software vs. Open Source: Where do *you* stand?

by Pete Bessman

Well, I'm about to crack open a can of worms, but let me just say that I'm 100% not interested in starting any debates/fights/riots/states-of- emergency. All I'm interested in is hearing where people stand and why --- I don't want to persuade people one way or the other, and I'd like to ask that everyone restrain themselves when feeling the urge to tell someone that they're wrong. I'm doing this because, after having been a part of this community for a while, and a developer for some time, I'm having an "is it all worth it?" moment. I personally like the Linux environment more than Windows and Mac --- I find it to be better suited to a technically inclined person like myself. And with each iteration of the distros and desktop suites, it comes closer to meeting and surpassing the competition in core computer functions. It's already got the server side of things dominated, and when it comes to surfing the web, checking your email, burning cds, listening to music et al, it's definitely a contender. Better in some areas, worse in others, and mostly only suffering because of proprietary technologies that have become standard. But, and this what it's all about, when it comes to my personal reason for living --- music --- I'm forced to admit that on technical merits alone, I have a hard time arguing for Linux. I'm personally a "just for fun" kind of guy. I'm basically from the utilitarian-libertarian school, and while I did try the "free as in freedom" thing for a while, it was a poor fit. I happen to have some very significant qualms with the way "intellectual property" (if RMS was right about anything, it's that this is a poor term for non-rivalrous creative goods) is currently being handled --- there is a huge and easily observable disparity between what the laws say and what people do, and common sense tells you that that probably means the laws are messed up. So, for me, open source and creative commons are a way to sort of skirt the issue, or at least push things in a better direction. Also, there's something just sexy about open source. But for me, that's where the non-technical merits of it stop. What I'm saying is, I think we can all agree that, when an open source solution is technically superior to, or on par with, a proprietary solution, then the open source solution is the way to go. But what about when the proprietary solution is better? If the open source solution is good enough, then it makes sense to use it since it's bound to be cheaper. But if you really need the best tool for the job, then I don't see the justification for using the open source solution. Things obviously change when you're a developer, since you can bring the open source solution up to, or beyond, the level of the proprietary solution. The question, then, is will you get more pleasure out of doing so than pain? That's where I am right now. I really, really want to get an album out --- and I also want it to be really, really good. I want to use the best tools for the job, and in my evaluation, those are proprietary tools. OTOH, with a little work, I think the LMMS + Ardour can actually be the best, or at least good enough. I also happen to enjoy doing open source development, so this wouldn't be a bad path to pursue. But ultimately, I want to get back to making the best music that I can make --- it's for that reason that I think I'm going to finally go back to a dual boot machine for the first time in 6 years, and take a vacation in Windows land. None of this is to say that I'm through with Linux and open source as music making solutions --- far from it. And I'm certainly *not* trying to encourage any body to follow my lead. In fact, I hope people get pissed reading this and double their development efforts :-) It's just that, right now, rolling proprietary sounds more appealing than rolling open. This email is way, way longer than I intended it to be, and for that I apologize. Remember that I'm not looking to stir up any hostilities, I just want to hear where people stand on The Issues and get a sense of the community. I predict that there are people here on a moral mission, and there are people here because they get a chubby out of openness and collaborative development and such. But I don't think I'm going to see anybody who's primary interest is making music --- although I'd love to be proved wrong, and I certainly think that things will be different in the future as the tools get better. So let's hear it! WHAT is your NAME? WHAT is your QUEST? WHAT is your FAVORITE ALBUM? -- Pete Bessman http://gazuga.net "So this baby seal walks into a club."

18 years, 9 months

[linux-audio-user] Re: Quiet PC Components?

by Maluvia

>For those who have tried to silence their PC, any information on the >component brands and model numbers that you have had success with would >be much appreciated. Hi alan, We've achieved very low noise on a 64-bit machine with the following: Panaflo 92mm Hydrowave-bearing High-CFM fan on the CPU (FBA09A12H-1BX from CaseCooler.com) 4 CoolerMaster rifle-sleeve bearing LED fans on the back (TLF-R82 from Xoxide.com) 1 120-mm Coolermaster TLF-S12 for the blowhole. (from jab-tech.com) Acoustifan silicone fan gaskets, and heavy-duty �Quiet Feet� from QuietPC. (http://www.quietpcusa.com). Also used a Vantec Power Supply Vibration Dampner Kit (CaseCooler.com) All airflow is passive on the front, active on the rear. Not silent, but very-very quiet, and very cool as well. hth, Maluvia

18 years, 9 months

[linux-audio-user] Making alsa multi-client

by David Baron

For example, if jackd is running, the device is "busy" (jackd itself is, of course, multiclient). Is it possible to (OR) multiple outputs to an alsa device? (MIDI can be done using virmidi.)

18 years, 9 months

[linux-audio-user] Re: Free Software vs. Open Source: Where do *you* stand?

by Phil Mendelsohn

>> On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 21:40 +0100, Wolfgang Woehl wrote: >> >> > May I ask what use a private military contractor has for >> > audiotools? >> > SONAR. And more. I've been reading just a bit as this goes past, so am not 100% sure if you mean 'audiotools' as a package or 'audio tools' as a topic. If it's the former, then maybe not so much. If you allow a few "indirect" benefits (really they're not), "audio tools" and military research are hugely connected. When you're talking about audio as a subset of DSP, which it is, there's a lot of DSP which is directly related to the military. RADAR and Lincoln Labs at MIT gave us a lot, and the Office of Naval Research did as well. A lot of our chips and convertors are tied up with developments in Synthetic Aperture Radar. Signals and the processing of them have been intertwined with the military since the mid to late 1800's. Drawing lines is a question of defining distinctions. (I've pretty much given up!) Just Sunday morning rambling... 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, 9 months

[linux-audio-user] jackd and realtime priority

by Hector Centeno-Garcia

Hi, I've been playing around a little with the priority thing. I would like to understand better the way it works. Looking at the priority of jackd (running realtime, as user, and with a RT kernel, full-preemption) I can't figure out why if I start jackd with -P 60 (or any other number > 0) the output of chrt is always: $ chrt -p (jackd's pid) pid 8115's current scheduling policy: SCHED_OTHER pid 8115's current scheduling priority: 0 I checked this in two different distros (FC4+CCRMA and Ubuntu with custom RT kernel) and the result is the same. Is it not supposed to read: $ chrt -p 8115 pid 8115's current scheduling policy: SCHED_FIFO (maybe?) pid 8115's current scheduling priority: 60 I know that I can set this manually, but I'm just wondering what is the real effect of the -P flag. Any help will be appreciated, Cheers! Hector

18 years, 9 months

[linux-audio-user] recording guitar - level problems

by Ken Schutte

Hi, I've setup a new FC4 system with alsa, jack, etc, and a SB Live card. I'm trying to play some guitar thru the line in (eventually into sooperlooper, maybe audor, etc). No matter what I've tried, if I try to get any significant volume, it's distorted terribly (not to mention some terrible humming - something else I have to look into yet...) Are there any simple guidelines for getting a nice clean guitar sound? Could any one point me in the right direction? or any good references out there? There's seems to be a lot of places to set the levels: guitar, amp, alsamixer (capture, line in), but I feel like I've tried it all. I'd like to go thru my amp first, which has a line out and headphone out. I'm also willing to invest in some new hardware if that's what it takes. thanks.

18 years, 9 months

[linux-audio-user] ubuntu studio -rt

by Greg

ok so I managed to compile kernel rt but of course the ubuntuness got broken, noticably no wireless. I poked around google some, found out about ubuntu-2.6.git so, in my amateur view, it looks like I could patch the vanila kernel with molnar, then add this git to it and have something sort of sweet. What do the experts say? Would I be better off just patching vanilla with molnar and adding IPW drivers?I'll probably do this anyway just looking for some insight.

18 years, 9 months

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
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