Linux-audio-user

linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

8 participants
20713 discussions

[linux-audio-user] Problem with qarecord and qjackctl

by Eduardo Guerrero

I'm trying to capture what I play with ZynAddSubFX and Hydrogen in a wav file. What I have done so far is start qjackctl for having jack running, then ZynAddSubFX and Hydrogen with the proper connection so everything sounds fine. Then I start qarecord but if I check the capture checkbox nothing appears on the level meters, but if I don't start jack I can see the meters moving and capture the sound coming from xmms in a wav file that plays fine. Is it that qarecord only works without jack? I think it should but I can't make it to appear in the connections window in qjackctl as I have seen in some tutorials, it shows in the MIDI section though as a writable client / input port. I'm pretty sure that's not what I need. I'm using qjackctl v. 0.2.0 and qarecord v. 0.0.8. All of them installed from THAC's RPM site for Mandrake 9.2. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Eduardo.

22 years, 2 months

[linux-audio-user] Re: Low Latency patches and kernel 2.6.x

by Florian Schmidt

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:58:54 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm(a)osdl.org> wrote: Ok, it seems that the list only takes mails from subscribers. sorry for that.. This mail will let the others see your answer. Thanks for taking the time. I will do some testing with 2.6. I will report back to you how it goes [after the holidays]. Have a nice xmas :) > Florian Schmidt <mista.tapas(a)gmx.net> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > i'm a user of a 2.4.22 kernel patched with the preemption patches > > plus your Low Latency patches. It works very nicely for audio > > applications[like jackd, ardour, etc...]. > > Cool. > > > Looking into the config menu of the 2.6.0 kernel i only find a > > "preemptible kernel" config option. Your low latency patches seem > > not to be included. Do you have plans of including your patches in > > the 2.6.x kernel? I heard rumors about merging the preemptible and > > your LL patches since they seem to go very nicely together.. Any > > truth to that? > > The objective in 2.6 is that the preemptible kernel achieve similar > worst-case latencies to the low-latency-patched kernel. So 2.6 should > meet your requirements out of the box. > > > That being said, last time I instrumented the 2.6 kernel it was not > achieving the targets. The specific failure was occurring when the > machine had a very large number of inodes in cache and the VM system > was reclaiming those inodes. > > It is unlikely that you will strike this problem in real-world usage, > so 2.6 should work fine for you. As ever, testing results would be > appreciated. > > (The inode reclaim problem is fairly complex, but I just happen to see > a patch from Dipankar Sarma in my inbox this morning which is designed > to fix it up). > -- music: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/9/florianschmidt.htm

22 years, 2 months

[linux-audio-user] Fw: Re: Low Latency patches and kernel 2.6.x

by Florian Schmidt

Oops i messed up the quoting a little bit. Here's Morton's answer: Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:58:54 -0800 From: Andrew Morton <akpm(a)osdl.org> To: Florian Schmidt <mista.tapas(a)gmx.net> Cc: linux-audio-dev(a)music.columbia.edu, linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu Subject: Re: Low Latency patches and kernel 2.6.x Florian Schmidt <mista.tapas(a)gmx.net> wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > i'm a user of a 2.4.22 kernel patched with the preemption patches plus > your Low Latency patches. It works very nicely for audio applications > [like jackd, ardour, etc...]. Cool. > Looking into the config menu of the 2.6.0 kernel i only find a > "preemptible kernel" config option. Your low latency patches seem not > to be included. Do you have plans of including your patches in the > 2.6.x kernel? I heard rumors about merging the preemptible and your LL > patches since they seem to go very nicely together.. Any truth to > that? The objective in 2.6 is that the preemptible kernel achieve similar worst-case latencies to the low-latency-patched kernel. So 2.6 should meet your requirements out of the box. That being said, last time I instrumented the 2.6 kernel it was not achieving the targets. The specific failure was occurring when the machine had a very large number of inodes in cache and the VM system was reclaiming those inodes. It is unlikely that you will strike this problem in real-world usage, so 2.6 should work fine for you. As ever, testing results would be appreciated. (The inode reclaim problem is fairly complex, but I just happen to see a patch from Dipankar Sarma in my inbox this morning which is designed to fix it up). End forwarded message -- music: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/9/florianschmidt.htm

22 years, 2 months

[linux-audio-user] ALSA article in c't

by Frank Barknecht

Hallo, just a short advertisment: the german magazine c't - Europe's most subscribed computer mag after all - has published an article on getting started with Linux sound using ALSA written by me. Unfourtunatly it's not available online, but then, it's in German anyways. c't 26/2003 will be in stores on Monday. Many here probably already have it in their mailbox. Skip forward to page 200. ;) ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__

22 years, 2 months

[linux-audio-user] rme9632 status?

by WR

Spent the last few hours reading threads about hdsp firmware and issues, and I'm wondering where things are currently at (development seems to happen pretty rapidly around here!)...just installed a 9632 rev3, with alsa-driver 1.0.0-rc2, and have some way to go, I reckon... lspci shows: 00:09.0 Multimedia audio controller: Xilinx Corporation RME Digi9652 (Hammerfall) (rev 03) dmesg: RME Hammerfall-DSP: no cards found # uname -a Linux 2.4.22-ck2 #1 SMP Sun Dec 21 00:23:34 PST 2003 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) MP Processor 1900+ AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux What are the currently recommended kernel/alsa/firmware/eprom versions? alsa-project.org appears to recommend using the hdsp driver instead of rme9652 on the 9632 -- is there any reason to use one or the other? Or am I reading it wrong... Thanks for any advice!! WR

22 years, 2 months

[linux-audio-user] some notes regarding sync (JACK, MTC) under Linux

by Dave Phillips

Greetings: I followed the recent thread here regarding this issue but I was too busy to contribute. Here are a few observations resulting from my own tests : Hydrogen works very nicely under JACK. However, when Song mode is set to Loop the JACK transport works only on the first play through, i.e., Hydrogen doesn't loop. Pattern mode looping is fine, but not Song mode looping. Also, I'm losing the first beat when the transport starts. Anyone else noticing that ? Ecasound also works nicely with JACK but I haven't tested all the transport functions yet. I just realized that ecasound should be able to rewind to start under JACK. Kai, am I right about that ? Where can I find a summary of ecasound's current JACK capability ? MusE and Rosegarden don't yet work with the JACK transport, but that's not news. However, I did sync MusE to external MTC and it worked very nicely. I thought I had been able to do the same thing internally with the ALSA virmidi module, but upon sober reflection it appears I was smoking bad crack. Am I correct in assuming it's not possible to send MTC over the virtual MIDI connection ? Again not news: Ardour works nicely as a JACK master but it doesn't seem to like being a slave (but who does ?). Also, am I correct to note that Ardour doesn't respond to incoming MTC or MMC ? I'll have to check that again... The latest Hydrogen release notes state that MMC/MTC are experimentally supported, but I don't see any switches for those controls. Has anyone else tried utilizing MMC or MTC with the new Hydrogen ? Qjackctl is very sweet (Thanks Rui!), but a rewind transport control might be nice to see on it. Finally, a non-sync issue (?) that I think has been reported before. Sometimes the sound gets distorted while running an app under JACK (not necessarily under the transport control). It cleans itself up after a little time, but it's a Very Bad Thing to be happening. Instruments with lower frequencies seem to trigger the distortion (bass drum, low toms, etc. in Hydrogen). Has anyone else noticed and fixed this problem ? In a similar vein, I tried recording Hydrogen to two channels in Ardour, running Hydrogen as slave, Ardour as master. The first play-through of the Song in Hydrogen records fine in Ardour, but then I get a terrible distortion. I can supply a soundfile and screenshot that clearly sounds/shows what's happening. Perhaps it's related to the first problem above ? System here is as follows: 800 MHz Duron w. 512 MB RAM current PlanetCCRMA RH9 w. low-latency kernel ALSA 1.0.0rc2 SBLive Value Kudos to all the developers working on fastening their apps to the JACK transport model. As joq stated this is one of the most impressive aspects of the whole JACK schema, at least for the normal user. Best regards, == dp

22 years, 2 months

[linux-audio-user] AGNULA launches the "Libre Music" project

by The AGNULA Team

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | ______ ______ _ _ _ | | /\ / _____) ___ \| | | | | /\ | | / \ | / ___| | | | | | | | / \ | | / /\ \| | (___) | | | | | | | / /\ \ | | | |__| | \____/| | | | |___| | |_____| |__| | | | |______|\_____/|_| |_|\______|_______)______| | | | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ [Sorry for cross-posting. Feel free to forward around] Florence, 22 Dec 2003 +++ AGNULA launches the "Libre Music" project The AGNULA IST-Project [0] is proud to announce its new "Libre Music" (aka the "muzik" project) project, whose goal is to create a publicly accessible database of Libre Music, i.e. music licensed under either the Creative Commons [1] licenses or the EFF [2] Open Audio License. +++ One of the objectives of the AGNULA-IST project is help spreading sensibility on the topics of Libre Software, with specific attention paid to audio/video applications and content distribution. In order to reach this goal, the AGNULA-IST project has decided to allocate a part of its resources to develop and host a publicly accessible database of Libre Music, i.e. musical works licensed under either: - the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license [3] - the Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 license [4] - the EFF Open Audio License 1.0.1 [5] We are not going to compete with other, similar, efforts. On the contrary, we would like to be complementary to other projects/databases who are already working or are planning to work in the same field. Our development strategy is driven by this basic willness to cooperate and not to compete. If you want to contribute to our development effort, feel free to subscribe [6] to our development portal [7] and ask either one of the `muzik' project [8] administrators (Davide Fugazza [9] and Andrea Glorioso [10]) to be added to the project - you will be able to use our CVS, bug tracking and task manager tools. If you, your company and/or your organization is interested in sharing its archives of Libre Music by publishing it on AGNULA Libre Music database once this will be complete, and/or if you want further information, feel free to send your questions, suggestions and/or criticisms to: <users(a)lists.agnula.org> [11] for general discussion, and/or to: <info(a)agnula.org> for general, info-line style questions on the AGNULA project. +++ About AGNULA: Agnula (acronym for A GNU/Linux Audio distribution, pronounced with a strong g) is the name of a project funded by the European Commission (number of contract: IST-2001-34879; key action IV.3.3, Free Software: towards the critical mass). The project aims to spread Free Software in the professional audio/video arena. -- The AGNULA Team info(a)agnula.org Our mailing lists: http://lists.agnula.org/ Our web site: http://www.agnula.org/ "There's no free expression without control on the tools you use" [0] http://www.agnula.org/ [1] http://www.creativecommons.org/ [2] http://www.eff.org/ [3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode [4] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode [5] http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.php [6] http://devel.agnula.org/account/register.php [7] http://devel.agnula.org/ [8] http://devel.agnula.org/projects/muzik/ [9] davide [dot] fugazza [at] agnula [dot] org [10] andrea [dot] glorioso [at] agnula [dot] org [11] http://lists.agnula.org/mailman/listinfo/users

22 years, 2 months

[linux-audio-user] lowlatency (ck1) patched kernel 2.4.23 for debian

by Maarten de Boer

Hello, You can find my instructions about creating a debian kernel 2.4.23 package with the ck system responsiveness patches (from http://www.plumlocosoft.com/kernel/) at the following website: http://www.iua.upf.es/~mdeboer/kernel-2.4.23-ck1-debian/ I hope the instructions are correct and complete - YMMV - and in any case the make-kpkg documentation in recommended reading. Please let me know if you want to see something changed, or if you successfully build and run a kernel with these instructions. (I have not had the time to build the 2.4.23 kernel myself yet, but I've been through these steps several times in the past, so I am rather confident it will work) Maarten

22 years, 2 months

[linux-audio-user] Low Latency patches and kernel 2.6.x

by Florian Schmidt

Hi Andrew, i'm a user of a 2.4.22 kernel patched with the preemption patches plus your Low Latency patches. It works very nicely for audio applications [like jackd, ardour, etc...]. Looking into the config menu of the 2.6.0 kernel i only find a "preemptible kernel" config option. Your low latency patches seem not to be included. Do you have plans of including your patches in the 2.6.x kernel? I heard rumors about merging the preemptible and your LL patches since they seem to go very nicely together.. Any truth to that? Thanks i.a. for any thoughts and insights. Flo P.S.: this mail is cc'ed to the linux audio user/developers list because i think the people there are very interested in these issues, too.. -- music: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/9/florianschmidt.htm

22 years, 2 months

[linux-audio-user] low latency 2.4.x -> 2.6.x

by Florian Schmidt

Hi, i wonder about how ready linux 2.6.0 is for audio stuff? Is vanilla 2.6.0 with preemtion enabled comparable to 2.4.22 with preemption + andrew's LowLatency patches [which i use right now]? I somewhere read something about merging andrews LL and the preemptible patches. Is there any truth to that? What about the 2.4.x capabilities "patch"? Will this work on 2.6.x? Flo -- music: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/9/florianschmidt.htm

22 years, 2 months

Jump to page:

2026

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