14 Sep
2004
14 Sep
'04
5:16 a.m.
On Monday 13 September 2004 12:20 pm, R Parker wrote:
Hi Eric,
--- Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <rzewnickie(a)rfa.org> wrote:
It's late and it's been a hard day at the salt mine. :)
Basically, the midi control I use from my old Digitech pedal to turn various
fx on and off and the greater flexibilty of Ardour's routing capabilities.
Stereo masters and what not. Also if I wish to record live material, I'm
right in the application I need to do that as well.
I was using Alsa Modular synth for awhile. It had much more flexible midi
control options...just got to a point where Ardour had become my staple
application. I have stated many times before that this is a _gross_ under use
of Ardour...but it sure looks purdy and impresses the crap out of the many
curious musicians that ask "whut dus dat do??".
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 09:18:21AM -0700,
Russell
Hanaghan wrote:
me...primarily because I don't wish
Exactly! He's made a significant contribution and that
makes it very easy to understand his wish to control
the documentation for Ardour.
Perhaps one way to do
On Sunday 12 September 2004 05:24 am, R Parker
wrote:
Hi
Russell,
The item about Ardour you mention concerns to violate any of these type of rules / laws/
policies; Is that really
applicable here? My intent is to describe how I
personally used this
application to create an Effects box...NOt
"how
one should use Ardour in the
intended, technically correct manner intended by
the Author(s)." But again, I
do not wish to piss anyone off here...that would
be kinda counter
productive! :) Perhaps Paul can offer his
thoughts??
As I understand it, Paul has been working on Ardour
more than full time
for at least the past 4+ years ...
*on_his_own_funding*! Along the way
he has made huge contributions to the linux audio
code base in the form
of extensive work on jackd, alsa drivers and various
libraries. Not to
mention the fact that his participation in the
community as a very
experienced and knowledgable programmer increases
everyone's knowledge
base. this would be to
write up docs on my use case, not publish it myself,
Not publishing them ourselves is important. You
obviously appreciate his position.
but instead give it
to him to include in his docs as an example to put
in the appendix or
something. Maybe you could do the same with your
section on your use of
ardour. I'm not sure if Paul would accept it, but it
can't hurt to offer
it to him.
It might save you some work to ask him before you
write anything.
Before jackd was written, I had outlined and written
many chapters for a book titled Professional Audio in
Linux (PAIL). The book was designed around Ardour and
I put a great deal of time and effort into the
project. Before I could publish, Paul asked that
nobody document Ardour. For various reasons it didn't
bother me at all to have my efforts nullified; 1.
Ardour is not my project, 2. I didn't have to finish
this big assed book and could refocus my attention on
using Ardour.
I don't mean to speak for Paul Davis or anyone else.
Especially when what I'm saying could discourage
someone from making an appreciable contribution. I'm
just trying to relay the message.
Anyway, the point is that your attitude of trying
to
offer something
back to the community is a good one. We users who
are willing to do this
just have to find the ways of helping that fit the
needs of the
developers and other users.
You've inspired me to get my butt back in gear and
do more to help than
I have been.
> The "effects box" idea is a greater attractant
Russell, I'm curious why you choose to use Ardour
rather than Jack Rack for routing audio to effects. It
seems to me that Jack Rack might be a better choice
because it's designed to do what you need.
I imagine there's more than one way to control levels
into or from Jack Rack and there would be a way to
create sends. Maybe I don't know exactly what you're
doing.
ron IMHO because there are a great
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail many musco's that have had some time messing
on a
PC in some form or
other...but unless they had the big bux...the
performance was not that great.
They probably did not persist too much...
Someone around here had made the statement that
"Turn that old 486 into a
reverb 'cause it aint good for nothin
else!"...this is a valid concept in
Linux...AND doable on a 486! It is beyond
capabilty and sense of reason in
Winblows! Can't even run XP or 2000 on 486
much
less DAW software that uses
RT DSP. If they learn how to do the fx thing, the
recording / messing /
experimenting thing will come naturally and they
will have the hard work
done.
On this note, I have 25Mhz 486 w/12MB of RAM that
has served as my
firewall/router for 4.5 years. It's soon to be
replaced by a shinier,
newer, faster classic pentium 200MHz w/64MB of RAM.
Last night I was
thinking of how to keep it useful. I came up with
the idea of writing
some script that generates some kind of audio in
realtime continuously
to be streamed over the net. I'm thinking of trying
to get it to boot
over the network from an image on my file server and
run in ram ... or
maybe an NFS or other share.
This should probably go in another thread, but does
anyone know what to
shoot for? How much realtime dsp can a box like this
reasonably handle?
Could it run hermes from a python ECI script with
ecasound controllers
controlling the parameters?
Anyway, this is an interesting thread. Thanks
everyone.
-Eric Rz.