Linux-audio-user March 2006

linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

215 participants
309 discussions

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

by David Baron

On Tuesday 28 February 2006 01:40, linux-audio-user-request(a)music.columbia.edu wrote: > > >So what was one poster doing with jackstart ./startBristol ?? > > > > jackstart is a program that makes oss programs talk to jack instead > > of oss. It works with most oss programs. When using jackstart, bristol > > works very fine with jack. > > I think you mean "jacklaunch" instead of "jackstart", don't you ? > > "jackstart" was used with the 2.4 kernel to spawn jackd and get the > required capabilities to create RT threads. Jacklaunch it is. Will freeze up my system every time and must hit the switch to restart. Thankful for ext3.

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Re: Digital Fidelity

by Maluvia

>I'd argue that Apogee is *hardly* worth it -- I've never *liked* the sound >of their convertors. Their filters are very "shimmery" or "smooth" on the >high-end . . . . . . >For 96k+, you may get different results, but I still don't like Apogees >sound -- it washes out way too much high-end detail and does funny things >to transient response in my professional opinion, because of their >stylized filters. That is a really good thing to know in advance, as filtering effects are precisely what we want to get away from (for the particular sound we are looking for). >I built some D/As out of a Crystal 24-bit evaluation board that blew the >socks off an equivalent Apogee -- with a good clean power supply and >clock. For about $200 US! Wow - that's really encouraging! (BTW, where does one come by something like a Crystal evaluation board?) >For A/D, I found that a 20-bit Burr-Brown chip >*sounded* better than the Apogees at 44.1/48k and 24-bit, though most of >that was still the input filtering. > >If it was a personal purchase, I'd be looking at Troisi convertors (not so >much $$) or db Technologies (if I needed something to *really* spend $$ on Thanks for the heads-up. I had not heard of any of these before. >Keeping the Cult of Saints and Relics **{1} from between your ears and >your music is often harder than it sounds. "Only a poor craftsman blames >his tools," and I'd also say many who credit their tools are dilettants! >I've always tried not to be one of either group! ;) Agreed! >the reason their stuff is so good is not directly related to the >converters themselves, but to the sample clock that drives them. >apogee has basically the best clocks you can buy. > >their gear is not worth the money, but it is better than just about >anything else. however, my compromise is to buy an apogee clock, when >possible. so for example, the mackie digital 8 bus that i own has >mackie's own burr-brown based converter circuitry, but it also has the >optional apogee clock card to provide word clock to the converters. This I can understand, and that sounds like a good alternative solution. Thanks for the feedback. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Please take this discussion in private. I don't think this merits a response. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thanks again for the suggestions, Maluvia

19 years, 1 month

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

by Kjetil S. Matheussen

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. > <snip> Well, if you find windows software better suited for your needs, you should definitely go windows. Music is what we work for, right? But please, IMO, don't pay for any non-open source software. There are lots of excellent p2p tools you can use to get the software you need. Please don't support makers of non-open source software.

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Re: Digital Fidelity

by Maluvia

>But, you are here talking on a list dedicated to digital audio, where, >as a founding principle, we all agree on the fact that results drawn >from a computer's work are predictable >So, by definition, your bravely defended opinion is as much off-topic as >it can get Dave, Perhaps I mistook the meaning of 'Linux Audio User' - assuming that it meant the list was just a community of Linux_Audio_Users to discuss pretty much anything and everything of mutual interest. (I have seen discussions on what music people like (not focused on 'digital audio'), extremely prolonged threads on copyright, and other occasional threads even further removed from 'digital audio', and no one seemed to consider them inappropriate or OT. I think my thread went down in flames because I made comments that people just plain found offensive or took extreme exception to, not because it was OT. As you say, some comments I made appear to call into question basic premises most of you take as absolutely fundamental, and were hence unwelcome if not heretical. I have no further interest in debating this issue here - in fact I never did. I wanted to discuss the issue of bit-depth and its importance to audio fidelity, but my thread got hijacked by those who took exception to my comments about digital degradation - (which itself was just an off-hand comment on my part.) >If you're trolling, you do it well, because I've just fed you. ;) I don't do that - never my intention to raise such a ruckus. I think it's all Carlo's fault. He's so wild and crazy and spontaneous, he just made me feel like I could speak with similar impunity about whatever I thought - however radical, and be similarly open and spontaneous about my views. I will henceforth try really hard to stick to an 'acceptable' range of topics, though you've got me genuinely confused now about just what those are. >This discussion is getting tiring, at least for me. It got tiring for me quite a while back - I just have a tendency to go down fighting. ;) >The only reason I've been reading all of it is because I also am one of >the women on this list. As such, I understand that I can be biased in >this. I will try my best to express what I feel about this list. Please note: I never raised gender as being the issue here - I am (now) well aware that my ideas sound radical and provocative. >I also consider this list one of the more friendly and helpfull lists >around. I've been here for a long time and have never taken things >personally I commend you on your tolerance and wisdom - you doubtless have a thicker skin than I. >Sometimes a little patience goes a long ways on everbody's part. If I was >the target of ridicule for my own unpopular opinian I would try to be >polite about it for a while. Actually, I thought I *was* showing enormous restraint and politeness in response to the insults. (The 'bad words' thread is different - we're just having fun there.) > I hope I got some of my own feelings across on this. Thanks for your input - glad to know I'm not alone here. :) If this disastrous thread demonstrates anything, I think it shows why people like me do better on forums. That way if a weird topic gets started, people can just avoid it like the plague and focus on the ones that they find relevant. It's harder on a list - regardless of all your suggestions about filters, search functions and what not. When I scan through a digest, I end up reading a little bit of everything whether I want to or not. I'll have to go back through the archives and find out what happened w/re to that forum proposal. (Dan's idea is sounding better and better - maybe I will start an occultist's-audio-user list.) :D >>I haven't seen this at all on this list. I think it's one of the most >>helpful and tolerant lists out there. But that's just my *perception* >>of it... > >Let me second this whole-heartedly. I came in here about 6 weeks back >looking for help, and got it in a clear, concise manner, Your absolutely right - you're all a bunch of angels. :D I'm the devil in the black dress. }:> Carry on . . . . . - Maluvia

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] jackd and usb 1.1 audio on i386 non-functional

by Lee A. Azzarello

I have a Emagic emi26 usb 1.1 sound card on a 2.6.12.2 kernel I built myself. OSS emulation and ALSA drivers play back sound but jackd using the ALSA drivers will not start. The kernel complains about a broken pipe for the device. I have read the list archives about suggestions to solve this problem. Here the configuration and the steps I took: Debian stable with realtime-lsm built against custom kernel alsa version 1.0.8 jackd version 0.99.0 disabled USB bandwidth control disabled dynamic device assignment reloaded the snd-usb-audio module with an option of nrpacks=1 Any advice would be appriciated. From the list archives, other people are using this device with jackd. -lee

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Digital Fidelity

by Maluvia

>perhaps we should fork this discussion off at some point...... Done. >> I guess, then, that *real* 24-bit resolution, or something very close to >> it, would yield what I am looking for - if it can be achieved. > >Are you sure that's what you are looking for? Well, I guess I would have to hear it to be able to answer that. :) >Fidelity is a measure of how closely the signal you get out of your >recorder matches what you put into it. Agreed. That is all I am after. >It's more likely that you are hearing differences in quality from one >component to the next. I can hear the difference between an Apogee 24 >bit converter and a cheap no-name 24 bit converter. I have no doubt that this is indeed a significant factor . . . >Ah, but there are so many other differences between those effects than >their bit depths. Let me guess, they sound better in the chronological >order they were released in? The amount of DSP available and the quality >of the code has changed too... . . . in fact, I don't have any way of knowing *what* is really in a piece of hardware, regardless of what the specs say, the company that manufactured it, or even how much I paid for it. I only know that some components sound much better than others - I can't say for sure why. If they claim to have a higher resolution, it is of course natural to assume that has something to do with *why* they might sound better. >Can you prove you can hear the difference between 24 or more if >no real 24 bit converter does exist ? It is _extremely_ difficult >and expensive even to do a valid test at 20 bits. Some people >have done it, and they all arrive at the same conclusion. Not without being in a lab under controlled conditions - no, of course I can't prove it. >> Again, what do you base this on? > >Working knowledge of how good analog recording is, understanding of the >theory of sampling and quantisation, undisputed results from >psycho-acoustic >research, and elementary physics and mathematics. I have some basic background in those subjects as well, yet I do not agree. Psycho-acoustics is by its very nature *subjective* - you cannot have 'undisputed' results from this - it is as fallible as any statistical sampling, and as easily skewed. >Yes. A correctly dithered signal converted back to analog is mathematically >equivalent to the original unquantised version plus some noise. There is no >way, not even in theory, to detect it was ever quantised. Since it can't >be detected, you can't hear it. But you could fool yourself into thinking >you can, as many have done before you. After (correct) dithering the only >'defect' that remains is noise. And with 24 bits and standard signal levels >this is well below the thermal noise of any analog amplifier that exists, >and also well below human hearing thresholds. If there is one correct way to do this, then there should be no reason for different 'noise-shaping' algorithms. In fact, why are there different noise-shaping algorithms if the noise can't be heard.? >> I can hear the distortion of the audio signal created by Dolby - and I >> don't like it. > >What has that to do with this discussion ? I merely mentioned that as another example of psychoacoustic masking that supposedly one cannot hear - yet I can. I can also hear the difference between a digital copy and the original sound file, and between the same generation of digital copies on different hard drives. I can hear radical differences in audio quality between CDs burned at different speeds. Theoretically - or mathematically as you wish to present it - I shouldn't be able to hear any of this: they are all mathematically the same, and should sound identical - but they do not. Perception by the human ear and human mind cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation, however much you may wish to do so. There are organic fragrances that never have, and never will, be able to be synthesized, or even distilled - even with the most refined and careful processes - for the same reason. Perception is not mathematical - and that applies as much to that which is perceived as to the perceiver. >Buy some *good* converters, add Ardour and the result is *far* better >than any 24 track analog machine that ever existed. That is if your >idea of quality relates to fidelity and not to some specific typical >analog distortion that you may like or mistake for 'correct'. By 'good' >converters I mean at least the quality of RME, or better Apogee. That, I would be most happy to do. I thought RME was the pinnacle of quality, but if you say Apogee is even better - we will certainly try it (finances permitting, that is. :) >You still probably won't believe me, but the fidelity of a �100 card >like an audiophile 24/96 will be greater than that of 24 track 2". > >The audiophile will have a lower noise floor, better linearity, no >scrape flutter or wow, much lower cross talk between channels, much less >IMD, wider frequency response (and a more solid bass end).... but it >might not sound as 'good'. > >I don't know if you have ever worked with tape, but you really did have >to be so much more careful than digital about getting a good level to >cut down noise, putting non critical tracks on 1 and 24 as they always >got a bit knackered on reels and transport, recording at lower levels if >the source has lots of hf content, line up and bias.... all this stuff >was a total pain in the arse. Most everyone used some kind of noise >reduction, unless they were pushing the tape really hard, in which case >the distortion figures are laughable compared to digital. Yes, I realize that there are all kinds of problems - especially noise - with tape, and it is not the 'perfect' way to record, and I am equally well aware of the great advantages digital has over analog. My point has not at all been to criticize digital recording technology. I want very much for digital recording to match or exceed analog in quality - I am just not yet convinced this has been achieved. >I submit that the perceived 'superior' perfomance of good analog tape >recorders, of any track width, is more a long term ear training result >than anything else, after all, we have been listening to such >machinery, faithfully encoded even on our cd's, and before that on our >lp records of yesteryear, for 3 or 4 generations now. Do that for 55 >years, and the ear thinks thats what its supposed to sound like, >effectively becoming its 'Gold Standard'. You certainly have a good point there - I think there's a lot of truth to that. But what I'm after isn't a perceived 'Gold Standard' of analog recording. I'm just after the most faithful possible reproduction of what I hear live. That is what I mean by fidelity. >That diff of tape or no tape isn't always that obvious, and I had that >hammered into me one evening in about 1961 when I had a chance to >listen to one of Emory Cooks 78 rpm lp's that had been recorded in >trinidad, live to disk, of some of their then infamous steel drum >bands. No tape in the path, straight from Altec M21 mics thru the >preamps & to the cutter head making the master. > >The hair stood up on the back of my neck, it was that real. There was >stuff from the background crickets at 17khz or more that was as live >and real as if I had been standing in the middle of those crickets >myself. Even the whispers of the drummers as they kept each other in >step, probably 55db below the drums, could be heard well enough to >understand it if they were using english, which some didn't. Look - I do understand what you guys are trying to say, and respect the fact that you have some science and experience to back it up. I will just say this: We have an old Tascam portable 8-track, which is now ready for the junk heap, but we got close to perfect fidelity (after a lot of hard work) of what we recorded on it with respect to the live sound. If I wasn't looking, I couldn't tell if my husband was playing live, or playing back his recordings. Our early attempts to record that live sound through our Gina card directly to the hard-disk sounded just plain bad: harsh, strident, thin - cold, but more to the point - not at all like the live sound. The analog recordings have a warmth to them - a midrange 'fullness' that I don't hear digitally. Digital can sound very sterile. (When we attempted this through our earlier Pinnacle Multisound, it sounded like a midi guitar.) When we record now through our hdsp9632, the fidelity is very good - very clean (almost *too* clean), but still not quite the live sound - though very close. When I am unable to tell whether my husband is playing live, or playing back a digital recording of his music - then I will believe that the digital technology has matched analog. If all it is going to take is a better quality AD converter - then I will be thrilled! >I know by now I've bored all the knowitalls here to tears, so I'll go >back to my corner now. > >-- >Cheers, Gene Not at all, Gene, I enjoyed your comments. >Dogma warning: You're not taking all the potential phenomena into >account that have not been scientifically explained yet. > >I'm not saying Maluvia can hear a difference, I'm just saying you don't >know that she can't. Thank you, Carlo. ;) - Maluvia

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Jesusonic effects processor?

by Paul Coccoli

Anyone played with this: http://www.jesusonic.com/soft.php It runs on my RH9 box (no jack support though). Interesting demo video on the sight. Free as in beer, curses-style interface, and a ridiculous hardware version...

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Re: bad words

by Maluvia

>As compelled as I am to reply "no thanks, I'm full", what I really >mean is that I'm sorry I got involved, and wish you the best of luck. Thanks, Dan. :) >I read the other week that David Gilmour's engineers test every audio >cord by running sound both directions, to determine which direction >sounds better. I don't know how that works, but Dave's pretty cool. One of our heros - and actually, we do that too. We started doing that when we switched to Zaolla cables since they are designed to have a preferred direction for the signal flow, (but they no longer put the arrows on the cables). Cheers, Maluvia

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Re: Digital Fidelity (Maluvia)

by Phil Mendelsohn

> Before we blow a once-a-year tax refund on an Apogee converter, could > someone - a compassionate scientist perhaps - explain to me why an Apogee > converter is so vastly superior to the converter in, say, an RME hdsp9632 > - > as to justify it's second-mortgage price tag? > (I know the best way to find out would be to just listen, but we can't > afford to order one just to test it out.) > > At least Zaolla has 6 pages of detailed engineering specs, data, tests, > charts, etc. to back up their claims, whereas with Apogee - they just seem > to expect you to take their word for it. If you ask me, they're both a little out to lunch. (I mean using all the specs, vs. relying on their cachet.) I'd argue that Apogee is *hardly* worth it -- I've never *liked* the sound of their convertors. Their filters are very "shimmery" or "smooth" on the high-end, but it's not what I enjoy, nor what I ever got my clients to go for when I was doing high-resolution digital mastering daily. (I traded daily use of Sonic Solutions for occasional mastering using roll-your-own on Linux about 7 years ago, when I became Mr. Mom for a while and then fell into mathematics and DSP to keep the mind alive. Pretty fun -- haven't left! I only miss the hardware DSP on the odd occasion...) I built some D/As out of a Crystal 24-bit evaluation board that blew the socks off an equivalent Apogee -- with a good clean power supply and clock. For about $200 US! For A/D, I found that a 20-bit Burr-Brown chip *sounded* better than the Apogees at 44.1/48k and 24-bit, though most of that was still the input filtering. For 96k+, you may get different results, but I still don't like Apogees sound -- it washes out way too much high-end detail and does funny things to transient response in my professional opinion, because of their stylized filters. Now if a client says they really *do* like Apogees and have to have them, I'd never argue with them and go rent a pair for making their record. I might slip in a little blind testing along the way, but if they didn't say "Hey - what happened!", I'd let it slide and respect their wishes. Apogee makes a good product, so I'm not trying to say that they are crap -- but they also have a marketing vibe, and you don't want to confuse engineering and marketing! If it was a personal purchase, I'd be looking at Troisi convertors (not so much $$) or db Technologies (if I needed something to *really* spend $$ on). [Who are the British guys with the nice convertors for about $12k that are really a radar DSP house?? They sound pretty good -- Mike something.....] Anyway -- this is where the subjectivity *belongs*! Get convertors because they sound good to you, and that's unassailable. You can't argue with (or prove) "I like it and it makes me happy." Don't buy them because you feel you "should" somehow. Also -- many places will arrange an evaluation for a week or so of some high-end products. I don't know where you are geographically, but I've made arrangements for some pretty big products to be flown in for a few days. If the convertors are that expensive, you can't be expected to buy them sight unseen. (I know AID in LA might be amenable, or American Pro Audio in Minnetonka, MN, or several other dealers out East in the States. In Europe or South America I could probably dredge up a couple of old contacts) Keeping the Cult of Saints and Relics **{1} from between your ears and your music is often harder than it sounds. "Only a poor craftsman blames his tools," and I'd also say many who credit their tools are dilettants! I've always tried not to be one of either group! ;) Cheers, Phil Mendelsohn Owner/Chief Engineer, Hotdish Mastering Past President Upper Midwest section (Mpls) AES (And a lot of other things that don't justify my opinion any more than honesty and a whack of common sense will justify anybody's!) -- 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 **{1} The Cult of Saints and Relics is any group of afficionados (not limited to audio) who believe that because Saint so-and-so <Insert Famous Name -- George Martin, Roger Nichols, Massenburg, Swedien,...> used the relic <Neve, Telefunken, [your most coveted gear here]>, then it must be the key to success.

19 years, 1 month

[linux-audio-user] Re: Digital Fidelity

by Maluvia

>I am called to comment, with what I would hope are >understanding and compassion. . . . . . . . . . . . . >So whenever we encounter what we believe to be ignorance in >an area we are knowledgeable, perhaps it stings inwardly >because of all the huge universes of our own darkness that >surround the particular oasis of illumination at which >we water (to mix metaphors.) I really like that! - mixed metaphors, or no. >On the subject of the direction of signals in cables, I >think I can offer to put the issue to rest by reminding >all parties that audio signals from a microphone or to a >loudspeaker are carried by the AC (alternating current) >component of electron movement. Thus the direction of the >electric current reverses many thousands of times each >second, more or less depending on the pitch. But - but - but - it said on the Zaolla site - "Cables for Discerning Audio and Video Connoisseurs" - that they were unidirectional! OK - I just went back and checked - *now* they changed it to *omnidirectional* - it's just the silver conductor that is 'unidirectionally solidified'. (If you read through all those pages of specs, though, you gotta admit it's pretty impressive design.) I'll now have to disappoint you by saying we still think they sound slightly different depending upon which way they're hooked up, and I'm not even going to appeal to any physics - just magic. (How can you make music without a little magic?) So don't hit me on the head, just allow me my perceptions - they harm no one. >To those of us to whom this is deeply understood to the >point of being intuitive, we are surprised to encounter >another opinion--as tho someone were arguing that the >earth is flat, or that intercourse is not a factor in >the making of babies. > >It is one thing to attempt to convince a person that they >are mistaken, another to admit one is wrong on a subject one >has been convinced for many years: the latter requires >humility, the former can tolerate any amount of arrogance. > >We all grow inasmuch as we can recognize and learn from our >own experience, and from the wisdom of others. > >All of which takes place more readily in an atmosphere of >mutual respect. Wow Joel - that *was* truly compassionate. I've gotta give you a big hug for that. [hug] - Maluvia :) Disclaimer: [No scientists, programmers, musicians or metaphysicians were harmed in the course of this discussion.]

19 years, 1 month

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 March 2006