19 Nov
2002
19 Nov
'02
10:57 a.m.
I'm using audacity and terminatorx in a couple of
projects that I'm doing. Through the manipulation of
sound, I get a fair amount of clicks and pops. (This
is the nature of manipulated sounds, I realize that.)
but does anyone know of a good declicker for Linux? It
would speed up my process.
Art
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
19 Nov
19 Nov
11:11 a.m.
TerminatorX is really demanding, so even if you install the low latency
kernel patch if you don't also install the preemptive patch, then you'll
probably find you need to run it as root.
http://www.brianredfern.com
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, art moore wrote:
I'm using audacity and terminatorx in a couple of
projects that I'm doing. Through the manipulation of
sound, I get a fair amount of clicks and pops. (This
is the nature of manipulated sounds, I realize that.)
but does anyone know of a good declicker for Linux? It
would speed up my process.
Art
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
2:14 p.m.
It turns out that there weren't any clicks or pops in
the sound, playback in audacity was causing it. Yeah!
but I think I need to apply the low-latency, and
preemptive patches.
but I did find an answer there is a tool for clicks:
http://home.snafu.de/wahlm/dl8hbs/declick.html
It's not a cedar system, but not bad.
Art
--- art moore <g3art(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm using audacity and terminatorx in a couple of
projects that I'm doing. Through the manipulation of
sound, I get a fair amount of clicks and pops. (This
is the nature of manipulated sounds, I realize
that.)
but does anyone know of a good declicker for Linux?
It
would speed up my process.
Art
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
2:42 p.m.
I just realized my 533mghz system is just too long in the tooth, though
low latency patches help, and the preemtive patch helps, I still get xruns
when recording, even when I just use arecord from the command line. I need
to get a new motherboard, hard drive, and power supply, even an upgrade to
just a 933mghz processor would be a big improvement, also upgrading to the
max amount of ram, for audio apps it really helps to run the fastest
system you can afford, but if I'm wrong here, someone please correct me
before I spend tons of $$ upgrading my system :-), also make sure you're
not running lots of services at the same time, like don't run sendmail
while you're trying to record.
Basically this clicks are cause by overruns, when I run arecord it prints
out a message to the command line evertime an over run occurs, and these
messages correspond to the clicks I find in the finished recording. My
laptop is 833mghz and does better at recording than my desktop, but its
limited by the fact that its got a cheap laptp soundcard. I'm wondering if
I would do better with a usb audio device for my laptop and just use the
desktop as a server and do all my recording on my laptop? It seems that
usb audio still has some problems, I'm wondering to what extent people are
getting high end results from their usb audio recordings, or if the same
xrun problems occur with those as well?
http://www.brianredfern.com
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, art moore wrote:
It turns out that there weren't any clicks or pops
in
the sound, playback in audacity was causing it. Yeah!
but I think I need to apply the low-latency, and
preemptive patches.
but I did find an answer there is a tool for clicks:
http://home.snafu.de/wahlm/dl8hbs/declick.html
It's not a cedar system, but not bad.
Art
--- art moore <g3art(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm using audacity and terminatorx in a
couple of
projects that I'm doing. Through the manipulation of
sound, I get a fair amount of clicks and pops. (This
is the nature of manipulated sounds, I realize
that.)
but does anyone know of a good declicker for Linux?
It
would speed up my process.
Art
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
5:58 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:37:47AM -0800, Brian Redfern wrote:
I just realized my 533mghz system is just too long in
the tooth, though
low latency patches help, and the preemtive patch helps, I still get xruns
when recording, even when I just use arecord from the command line.
upgrading processor and memory won't help, then.
you should be able to get reliable low-latency recordings with arecord
on MUCH older hardware.
i suspect some more low-lat. tuning is what you need...
but i'm afraid i don't have much else to suggest.
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
"Welcome to Muppet Labs, where the future is made - today!"
6:29 p.m.
That's good to know, as i was about to needlessly drop a ton of $$. Part
of the problem is finding both the pre-emptive and low latency scripts for
the particular kernel I'm using (2.4.19), I can find the low latency, and
the 2.5.44 dev kernel comes with prempt built in, but I can't find a
pre-empt kernel patch for 2.4.19, so while I can get decent latency
running things as root, everything is not running as well as it could.
http://www.brianredfern.com
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Paul Winkler wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:37:47AM -0800, Brian
Redfern wrote:
I just realized my 533mghz system is just too
long in the tooth, though
low latency patches help, and the preemtive patch helps, I still get xruns
when recording, even when I just use arecord from the command line.
upgrading processor and memory won't help, then.
you should be able to get reliable low-latency recordings with arecord
on MUCH older hardware.
i suspect some more low-lat. tuning is what you need...
but i'm afraid i don't have much else to suggest.
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
"Welcome to Muppet Labs, where the future is made - today!"
6:50 p.m.
Brian Redfern wrote on Tue, 19-Nov-2002:
That's good to know, as i was about to needlessly
drop a ton of $$. Part
of the problem is finding both the pre-emptive and low latency scripts for
the particular kernel I'm using (2.4.19), I can find the low latency, and
the 2.5.44 dev kernel comes with prempt built in, but I can't find a
pre-empt kernel patch for 2.4.19, so while I can get decent latency
running things as root, everything is not running as well as it could.
The sense I've been getting from the emails over the past 2
months is that 2.4.19 with LL and/or preemptive just isn't performing
as well as, say, 2.4.18 LL/PE. I have no numbers or proof, just seems
like the trend. Might be worth stepping back to 2.4.18 to try
out for yourself, unless you can't for other reasons.
jlc
11:52 p.m.
* Jesse Chappell <jesse(a)essej.net> [Nov 19 02 18:52]:
Brian Redfern wrote on Tue, 19-Nov-2002:
Not that I can disprove your statement, but I think it probably has
much much more to do with the influx of new people and thus more
hardware and more variables in general. 2.4.19+LL runs as good as my 17
or 18 + LL. In other words I can't tell any quantitative difference.
Who knows what other patches people may have applied not too mention
choice of kernel options.
--ant
That's good to know, as i was about to
needlessly drop a ton of $$. Part
of the problem is finding both the pre-emptive and low latency scripts for
the particular kernel I'm using (2.4.19), I can find the low latency, and
the 2.5.44 dev kernel comes with prempt built in, but I can't find a
pre-empt kernel patch for 2.4.19, so while I can get decent latency
running things as root, everything is not running as well as it could.
The sense I've been getting from the emails over the past 2
months is that 2.4.19 with LL and/or preemptive just isn't performing
as well as, say, 2.4.18 LL/PE. I have no numbers or proof, just seems
like the trend. Might be worth stepping back to 2.4.18 to try
out for yourself, unless you can't for other reasons.
jlc
20 Nov
20 Nov
12:58 a.m.
Yeah, more and more I think the real culprit is Redhat 8.0, I was using
7.3 and had both my systems set for low latency with the 2.4.19 kernel, I
think its the ol' blue curve, it could possibly be the cd, but the
frequncy of over runs I'm getting is really bad, like one every two
seconds. I don't think I'm going to bother running any tests, I just need
to first off try a different window manager, and then if my over runs are
still bad under fluxbox, then I'll at least know its not gnome. But then
if I stop having xruns I don't have to do that work to be back in
shape. I'm just glad its not an issue of needing to upgrade my
motherboard.
http://www.brianredfern.com
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Anthony wrote:
* Jesse Chappell <jesse(a)essej.net> [Nov 19 02
18:52]:
Brian Redfern wrote on Tue, 19-Nov-2002:
Not that I can disprove your statement, but I think it probably has
much much more to do with the influx of new people and thus more
hardware and more variables in general. 2.4.19+LL runs as good as my 17
or 18 + LL. In other words I can't tell any quantitative difference.
Who knows what other patches people may have applied not too mention
choice of kernel options.
--ant
That's good to know, as i was about to
needlessly drop a ton of $$. Part
of the problem is finding both the pre-emptive and low latency scripts for
the particular kernel I'm using (2.4.19), I can find the low latency, and
the 2.5.44 dev kernel comes with prempt built in, but I can't find a
pre-empt kernel patch for 2.4.19, so while I can get decent latency
running things as root, everything is not running as well as it could.
The sense I've been getting from the emails over the past 2
months is that 2.4.19 with LL and/or preemptive just isn't performing
as well as, say, 2.4.18 LL/PE. I have no numbers or proof, just seems
like the trend. Might be worth stepping back to 2.4.18 to try
out for yourself, unless you can't for other reasons.
jlc
1:07 a.m.
* Brian Redfern <bredfern(a)calarts.edu> [Nov 19 02 22:57]:
Yeah, more and more I think the real culprit is Redhat
8.0, I was using
7.3 and had both my systems set for low latency with the 2.4.19 kernel, I
think its the ol' blue curve, it could possibly be the cd, but the
frequncy of over runs I'm getting is really bad, like one every two
seconds. I don't think I'm going to bother running any tests, I just need
to first off try a different window manager, and then if my over runs are
still bad under fluxbox, then I'll at least know its not gnome. But then
if I stop having xruns I don't have to do that work to be back in
shape. I'm just glad its not an issue of needing to upgrade my
motherboard.
OTOH I don't agree here I either. I have run enlightement/gnome on
this platform with decent success (BTW its a 600 MHz Celeron). The
only reason I run fluxbox is because I like it. CD polling *is* a real
killer, but if the xruns are frequent I would look at hardware
settings. Did you do the whole IRQ thing Mark Knecht commented on? It
made a huge difference when I got my card down to IRQ 5. Are you sure
LL is enabled? Are your disk tuned. Maybe you've heard all that
before. Anyway, good luck.
Are there any low-latency checklists out there?
--ant
3:24 a.m.
Yeah, more and more I think the real culprit is Redhat
8.0, I was using
7.3 and had both my systems set for low latency with the 2.4.19 kernel, I
think its the ol' blue curve, it could possibly be the cd, but the
frequncy of over runs I'm getting is really bad, like one every two
seconds.
YMMV. As an example I switched from 7.3 to 8.0 in my laptop and 8.0 is
MUCH better.
[pause for effect :-]
Ha! But that is not the whole story, there is a small difference, 8.0 is
on a new disk (IBM), 7.3 is on the original disk (Toshiba). The disk
seems to have made a BIG difference. The latency problems I was having
before are just gone (that does not mean I have _no_ latency glitches, I
still see them occasionally).
On both I have all the cdrom automount stuff turned off, same kernel,
same tuning. Just different disks (and versions of the os). On 8.0 I am
running gnome and metacity with the default theme. On 7.3 it was gnome
and sawfish.
I'm perplexed by the big difference in low latency performance between
different desktops and window managers that users see (I'm _not_ saying
that they do not exist!). I can see that one would use a lot more memory
than another, or have fancier screen rendering and thus eat more cpu.
None of those differences should produce latency hits for processes
running with SCHED_FIFO priority (as critical audio apps should). More
memory usage would increase disk activity through paging but that is no
different than any other disk activity (hmmm, maybe not at the kernel
level?) and if that is a problem (disk activity) then we are dead
anyway. More cpu usage would mean more contention for the processor, but
again that should not affect a SCHED_FIFO process (because it has
priority over all normal processes) and cause more dropouts. Overall,
non-SCHED_FIFO processes should slow down a lot for resource hungry
window managers (ie: the machine should "feel" slower) BUT that should
not produce more dropouts at all, provided that there is actually enough
cpu horsepower to fuel the realtime task.
After all, the window manager is just another user level program running
in the SCHED_OTHER priority ring (or so I would hope).
But apparently there _is_ a difference. So the question is: is there
anything different that the window manager is doing? (compared to other
programs). If there is (one example is trying to find out if there is a
cdrom in the drive), then that would highlight an area where the low
latency patches are currently lacking. If there is no difference, then
somehow the scheduler is not running the SCHED_FIFO task when it should.
I do remember running a SCHED_FIFO process in an old 2.2 low latency
patched kernel and doing sound synthesis while whatching the mouse and
the screen slow down, panes being slowly repainted (as I incremented the
system load) while the audio task kept going and going without a glitch.
It does not look to me like this is a window manager problem, it is a
kernel or driver problem being triggered by high resource usage. Not the
same thing. Changing window managers or whatever just eases up resource
usage enough so that things appear to work. Of course only right till
concert time when Murphy strikes again :-)
Click!!
-- Fernando
4:16 a.m.
On 19 Nov 2002 23:20:17 -0800
Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano <nando(a)ccrma.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
On both I have all the cdrom automount stuff turned
off, same kernel,
same tuning.
Is there a place where I can easily turn this off? I thought I had it
defeated, but every so often my laptop tries hitting the cdrom every few
minutes. It happens on no schedule that I can figure, and can last for a
few hours, stop for a few hours, then start again, without my having
done anything that I can see as having affected it.
--
| jzitt(a)josephzitt.com http://www.josephzitt.com/ |
| GPG: A4224EFA http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt/ |
| == New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems == |
| Comma / Gray Code / VoiceWAVE Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |
2:04 p.m.
You should be able to use noauto in /etc/fstab for the cdrom and at least
stop the CD from being mounted at boot time. I presume that if it isn't
mounted at all, then these programs that are looking for CDs won't run...
Just a guess...
read 'man mount' to see the options available...
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-audio-user-admin(a)music.columbia.edu
[mailto:linux-audio-user-admin@music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Joseph
Zitt
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:11 AM
To: linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] clicks and pops
On 19 Nov 2002 23:20:17 -0800
Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano <nando(a)ccrma.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
On both I have all the cdrom automount stuff turned
off, same kernel,
same tuning.
Is there a place where I can easily turn this off? I thought I had it
defeated, but every so often my laptop tries hitting the cdrom every few
minutes. It happens on no schedule that I can figure, and can last for a
few hours, stop for a few hours, then start again, without my having
done anything that I can see as having affected it.
--
| jzitt(a)josephzitt.com http://www.josephzitt.com/ |
| GPG: A4224EFA http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt/ |
| == New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems == |
| Comma / Gray Code / VoiceWAVE Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |
2:46 p.m.
"Mark Knecht" <mknecht(a)controlnet.com> writes:
You should be able to use noauto in /etc/fstab for the
cdrom and at least
stop the CD from being mounted at boot time. I presume that if it isn't
mounted at all, then these programs that are looking for CDs won't run...
I don't think this is right.
The desktop is looking for a CD precisely because there *isn't* one
mounted. In fact, putting an actual CD in the drive may work around
this performance bug. I'm not certain, but it's easy to try.
--
Jack O'Quin
Austin, Texas, USA
3:28 p.m.
I think in my case my audio card is on irq 11, maybe that's just too high
up and I won't see things working without xruns until I can jimmy it to
get it at irq 5 instead.
http://www.brianredfern.com
On 20 Nov 2002, Jack O'Quin wrote:
"Mark Knecht" <mknecht(a)controlnet.com>
writes:
You should be able to use noauto in /etc/fstab
for the cdrom and at least
stop the CD from being mounted at boot time. I presume that if it isn't
mounted at all, then these programs that are looking for CDs won't run...
I don't think this is right.
The desktop is looking for a CD precisely because there *isn't* one
mounted. In fact, putting an actual CD in the drive may work around
this performance bug. I'm not certain, but it's easy to try.
--
Jack O'Quin
Austin, Texas, USA
3:54 p.m.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:24:13AM -0800, Brian Redfern wrote:
I think in my case my audio card is on irq 11, maybe
that's just too high
up and I won't see things working without xruns until I can jimmy it to
get it at irq 5 instead.
11 is actually good.
IRQ priority is one of those ugly things that evolved
into something completely non-sensible.
http://www.djcj.org/LAU/guide/Low_latency-Mini-HOWTO.php3#irq
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
"Welcome to Muppet Labs, where the future is made - today!"
4:15 p.m.
I wonder if having a somewhat cruddy old 20 gig HD is a problem, HD's are
cheap these days. I just downloaded Dmudi via apt-get last night, so I'm
trying for an install on my desktop and I'll tell everyone how that
goes. Apparently its still not the 0.9 version of Demudi, that won't come
out until the end of this month, but by then I can just use apt-get update
to grab the 0.9 version, it'll be interesting to compare the performance
of DeMudi versus Redhat 8.0 with the low latency activated.
http://www.brianredfern.com
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Paul Winkler wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:24:13AM -0800, Brian
Redfern wrote:
I think in my case my audio card is on irq 11,
maybe that's just too high
up and I won't see things working without xruns until I can jimmy it to
get it at irq 5 instead.
11 is actually good.
IRQ priority is one of those ugly things that evolved
into something completely non-sensible.
http://www.djcj.org/LAU/guide/Low_latency-Mini-HOWTO.php3#irq
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
"Welcome to Muppet Labs, where the future is made - today!"
4:37 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Whats wrong with M$ ?
I found this yesterday while reading the Herald-Tribune - A pretty
reputable paper in this part of the world.
WINDOWS' WIDE OPEN MARGINS: Microsoft Corp., the worlds biggest software
maker, had an operating profit of 86 percent on sales of it's Windows
operating system in the past quarter, according to a filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commision.
The company's client division, which markets Windows XP, Windows 2000,
Windows NT Workstation, Windows Me and Windows 98, posted an operating
profit of $2.48 billion on sales of $2.89 billion in the quarter that
ended Sept. 30. The figures were detailed in a document Microsoft
submitted to the SEC last week. Windows accounted for 37 percent of
sales in the period and 61 percent of operating profit.
Herald-Tribune, 18 Nov, 2002
Sorry, but when did 86% profit margins become derigeur?
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
For the discerning hardware connoisseur
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
Being on stage with the band in front of crowds shouting, "Get off! No!
We want normal music!", I think that was more like acting than anything
I've ever done.
Goldie, 8 Nov, 2002
The Scotsman
9:11 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Whats wrong with M$ ?
Patrick,
I didn't read the report, but I understand that 3 of the 5 divisions in
M$ lose money...
A monopoly has certain characteristics, doesn't it?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-audio-user-admin(a)music.columbia.edu
[mailto:linux-audio-user-admin@music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Patrick
Shirkey
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:21 PM
To: linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu
Subject: [linux-audio-user] Whats wrong with M$ ?
I found this yesterday while reading the Herald-Tribune - A pretty
reputable paper in this part of the world.
WINDOWS' WIDE OPEN MARGINS: Microsoft Corp., the worlds biggest software
maker, had an operating profit of 86 percent on sales of it's Windows
operating system in the past quarter, according to a filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commision.
The company's client division, which markets Windows XP, Windows 2000,
Windows NT Workstation, Windows Me and Windows 98, posted an operating
profit of $2.48 billion on sales of $2.89 billion in the quarter that
ended Sept. 30. The figures were detailed in a document Microsoft
submitted to the SEC last week. Windows accounted for 37 percent of
sales in the period and 61 percent of operating profit.
Herald-Tribune, 18 Nov, 2002
Sorry, but when did 86% profit margins become derigeur?
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
For the discerning hardware connoisseur
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
Being on stage with the band in front of crowds shouting, "Get off! No!
We want normal music!", I think that was more like acting than anything
I've ever done.
Goldie, 8 Nov, 2002
The Scotsman
21 Nov
21 Nov
3:24 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Whats wrong with M$ ?
Mark Knecht wrote:
Patrick,
I didn't read the report, but I understand that 3 of the 5 divisions in
M$ lose money...
It goes on to say
"Of Microsoft's seven business units, four posted an operating loss in
the quarter. Microsofts' home and entertainment division, which sells
the Xbox game console, posted a loss of $177 million from sales of $505
million, according to the filing."
Selling $505 million of anything isn't doing too badly by my count, esp
when you have $2.98 billion in reserve to cover the deficit.
Vomitus.
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
For the discerning hardware connoisseur
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
Being on stage with the band in front of crowds shouting, "Get off! No!
We want normal music!", I think that was more like acting than anything
I've ever done.
Goldie, 8 Nov, 2002
The Scotsman
20 Nov
20 Nov
11:49 p.m.
Brian,
This is some of what I suggested earlier. Let's go through this logically
and see what we find out...
If you don't have this already, try out gkrellm. You can use this to
monitor what your machine is doing. (BTW - I'm not that deep in Linux tools,
so if someone knows of better tools I'm certainly interested.)
If you start jack by itself, do you see any xruns? I think the answer is
no, but let us know. Start qjackconnect. Do you see anything yet? I'm
running on a 500MHz P3 with 768MB, with a Hammerfall Light and a good EIDE
controller and audio drive. Start ardour and create a new session, but don't
start recording. I'm at 2% of CPU at this point, with no disk activity.
Start alsaplayer using 'alsaplayer -R -o jack &'. How much CPU are you
using? Any xruns yet? I'm using about 6% of my CPU with no CD playing. No
xruns.
Start playing a CD. Any xruns? I'm at about 12% CPU, bouncing around.
So, currently I'm running:
gkrellm
jack
qjackconnect
ardour
alsaplayer playing a CD
Stop alsaplayer, go into your ardour session and create a two diskstreams
with mixer strips and do some recording. Just let it record for a few
minutes. Put the ardour session on a different desktop, then go back and
watch the xterm that reports xruns and watch gkrellm at the same time. What
is it telling you about disk usage when you see an xrun? How much CPU? I'm
at about 22%, bouncing around. Disk usage is just little blips.
Stop the recording. Create more diskstreams. I created 10 total. Before
starting recording I'm at about 28% CPU, no xruns. Start recording on ALL
the tracks at the same time. I'm at about 50% CPU and disk stuff is still
blips.
What does you system do?
I suspect that you are going to determine that you are not CPU limited,
at least with sessions this size, and that your xruns have some correlation
with what you see going on in gkrellm.
In my case, I've discovered under Windows and Linux that you should not
record to the system drive. I have a Promise ATA-100 controller with
nothing but an IBM audio drive attached. My session directory is on that
drive. I use reiserfs for the audio drive and I get great performance.
I also have seen fewer xruns with the Hammerfall than with my AP2496, but
even that card isn't too bad.
If you want to solve these problems, and I believe they are solvable,
you'll have to dig in an get your hands dirty. Post back what you find out.
I'm interested and willing to help, but at a distance we need good info.
Good luck,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-audio-user-admin(a)music.columbia.edu
[mailto:linux-audio-user-admin@music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Brian
Redfern
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:11 PM
To: linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] clicks and pops
I wonder if having a somewhat cruddy old 20 gig HD is a problem, HD's are
cheap these days. I just downloaded Dmudi via apt-get last night, so I'm
trying for an install on my desktop and I'll tell everyone how that
goes. Apparently its still not the 0.9 version of Demudi, that won't come
out until the end of this month, but by then I can just use apt-get update
to grab the 0.9 version, it'll be interesting to compare the performance
of DeMudi versus Redhat 8.0 with the low latency activated.
http://www.brianredfern.com
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Paul Winkler wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:24:13AM -0800, Brian
Redfern wrote:
> I think in my case my audio card is on irq 11, maybe that's just too
high
up and I
won't see things working without xruns until I can jimmy it to
get it at irq 5 instead.
11 is actually good.
IRQ priority is one of those ugly things that evolved
into something completely non-sensible.
http://www.djcj.org/LAU/guide/Low_latency-Mini-HOWTO.php3#irq
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
"Welcome to Muppet Labs, where the future is made - today!"
3:58 p.m.
Brian Redfern wrote:
I think in my case my audio card is on irq 11, maybe
that's just too high
up and I won't see things working without xruns until I can jimmy it to
get it at irq 5 instead.
You need to read the lowlat howto. This is fully explained there.
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
For the discerning hardware connoisseur
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
Being on stage with the band in front of crowds shouting, "Get off! No!
We want normal music!", I think that was more like acting than anything
I've ever done.
Goldie, 8 Nov, 2002
The Scotsman
3:03 p.m.
On both I have
all the cdrom automount stuff turned off, same kernel,
same tuning.
Is there a place where I can easily turn this off? I thought I had it
defeated, but every so often my laptop tries hitting the cdrom every few
minutes. It happens on no schedule that I can figure, and can last for a
few hours, stop for a few hours, then start again, without my having
done anything that I can see as having affected it.
11:38 a.m.
Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
It does not look to me like this is a window manager problem, it is a
kernel or driver problem being triggered by high resource usage. Not the
same thing. Changing window managers or whatever just eases up resource
usage enough so that things appear to work. Of course only right till
concert time when Murphy strikes again :-)
The only way to get around that is to make sure you know the limits of
your system.
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
For the discerning hardware connoisseur
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
Being on stage with the band in front of crowds shouting, "Get off! No!
We want normal music!", I think that was more like acting than anything
I've ever done.
Goldie, 8 Nov, 2002
The Scotsman
30 Nov
30 Nov
2:34 a.m.
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 04:53 pm, Paul Winkler wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:37:47AM -0800, Brian
Redfern wrote:
--
Michael McIntyre USDA zone 6b in SW VA, USA
Silvan Pagan [silvan(a)windows-sucks.com] Linux Druid
---------[ registered Linux user #243621 ]---------
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/index.html
I just realized my 533mghz system is just too
long in the tooth, though
low latency patches help, and the preemtive patch helps, I still get
xruns when recording, even when I just use arecord from the command line.
upgrading processor and memory won't help, then.
you should be able to get reliable low-latency recordings with arecord
on MUCH older hardware.
i suspect some more low-lat. tuning is what you need...
but i'm afraid i don't have much else to suggest.
19 Nov
19 Nov
6:43 p.m.
Brian,
I am getting good results from a 500MHz P3. More important than the
processor speed (IMO) is the quality of the audio interface card itself and
how the machine is configured:
1) I am using an RME Hammerfall with external A/D & D/A, along with an
AP2496. Both work fine.
2) Configuration-wise, I've gotten much better results dumping Gnome in
favor of fluxbox, using a dedicated EIDE audio drive with it's own ATA-100
controller, and paying close attention to interrupt settings.
As others will probably report along the way, there are people with @GHz
processors that are getting clicks and pops. Unfortunately, this is a
developing area where we don't know how to tell every person out there how
to get the best results, so as always YMMV.
Good luck,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-audio-user-admin(a)music.columbia.edu
[mailto:linux-audio-user-admin@music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Brian
Redfern
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 10:38 AM
To: linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] clicks and pops
I just realized my 533mghz system is just too long in the tooth, though
low latency patches help, and the preemtive patch helps, I still get xruns
when recording, even when I just use arecord from the command line. I need
to get a new motherboard, hard drive, and power supply, even an upgrade to
just a 933mghz processor would be a big improvement, also upgrading to the
max amount of ram, for audio apps it really helps to run the fastest
system you can afford, but if I'm wrong here, someone please correct me
before I spend tons of $$ upgrading my system :-), also make sure you're
not running lots of services at the same time, like don't run sendmail
while you're trying to record.
Basically this clicks are cause by overruns, when I run arecord it prints
out a message to the command line evertime an over run occurs, and these
messages correspond to the clicks I find in the finished recording. My
laptop is 833mghz and does better at recording than my desktop, but its
limited by the fact that its got a cheap laptp soundcard. I'm wondering if
I would do better with a usb audio device for my laptop and just use the
desktop as a server and do all my recording on my laptop? It seems that
usb audio still has some problems, I'm wondering to what extent people are
getting high end results from their usb audio recordings, or if the same
xrun problems occur with those as well?
http://www.brianredfern.com
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, art moore wrote:
It turns out that there weren't any clicks or pops
in
the sound, playback in audacity was causing it. Yeah!
but I think I need to apply the low-latency, and
preemptive patches.
but I did find an answer there is a tool for clicks:
http://home.snafu.de/wahlm/dl8hbs/declick.html
It's not a cedar system, but not bad.
Art
--- art moore <g3art(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm using audacity and terminatorx in a
couple of
projects that I'm doing. Through the manipulation of
sound, I get a fair amount of clicks and pops. (This
is the nature of manipulated sounds, I realize
that.)
but does anyone know of a good declicker for Linux?
It
would speed up my process.
Art
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
6:55 p.m.
Sound intertesting, I'm using an Audiophile 24/96 card, not sure if its an
issue with the ice driver, but it sounds like the real culprit is Redhat
8.0's gnome, while its nice to have easy cut and paste I think I may have
a better time getting things to work with windowmaker rather than using
gnome or kde. Redhat tries to force you into using one or the other, I'm
going to have to download Dmudi more than likely, and I'll let people know
how that goes. Its good to know that its not a hardware issue, though.
http://www.brianredfern.com
7:35 p.m.
Brian,
fluxbox takes all of 10 minutes to download, compile and install. If you
don't like it, you can go back to Gnome. It loads in about 2 seconds vs. the
2 minutes it seems to take Gnome to completely come up.
I couldn't make Gnome work reliably on either of my two machines, which
fluxbox seems to work perfectly on one, and almost perfectly on the other.
(not perfect is a SB Audigy mp3+ - on xrun every 45 minutes or so.)
Just focus on learning what makes a PC work well and I think you'll be
well served.
Good luck,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-audio-user-admin(a)music.columbia.edu
[mailto:linux-audio-user-admin@music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Brian
Redfern
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 2:51 PM
To: linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu
Subject: RE: [linux-audio-user] clicks and pops
Sound intertesting, I'm using an Audiophile 24/96 card, not sure if its an
issue with the ice driver, but it sounds like the real culprit is Redhat
8.0's gnome, while its nice to have easy cut and paste I think I may have
a better time getting things to work with windowmaker rather than using
gnome or kde. Redhat tries to force you into using one or the other, I'm
going to have to download Dmudi more than likely, and I'll let people know
how that goes. Its good to know that its not a hardware issue, though.
http://www.brianredfern.com
11:13 p.m.
Brian Redfern <bredfern(a)calarts.edu> writes:
Sound intertesting, I'm using an Audiophile 24/96
card, not sure if its an
issue with the ice driver, but it sounds like the real culprit is Redhat
8.0's gnome, while its nice to have easy cut and paste I think I may have
a better time getting things to work with windowmaker rather than using
gnome or kde. Redhat tries to force you into using one or the other, I'm
going to have to download Dmudi more than likely, and I'll let people know
how that goes. Its good to know that its not a hardware issue, though.
Mark's suggestion, dumping GNOME, is probably the easiest approach.
But, if you really want to follow the Red Hat Way, it may be possible
to tame the noisier parts of GNOME. The main culprit appears to be
the GNOME desktop, which periodically scans the CD-ROM to see if a CD
has been inserted. Turning this off may help quite a bit.
Unfortunately, I don't have any specific directions handy.
If you haven't already seen it, take a careful look at the Linux Audio
Users Low-Latency HOWTO:
http://www.djcj.org/LAU/guide/Low_latency-Mini-HOWTO.php3
Tuning Linux PC hardware and software for low-latency audio is a bit
of a black art. But, there's a good deal of experience on this list
and some helpful people, so don't give up. Keep us posted on what you
learn so others can benefit from it, too.
--
Jack O'Quin
Austin, Texas, USA
20 Nov
20 Nov
12:54 a.m.
Under "cd properties" its possible to change the settings, but I think I
should be trying another window manager. Redhat 8.0 is a nice gui, but for
audio it just kills teh low latency, from reading other people's posts it
looks like Gunter Giger is using debian with the 2.5.44 test kernel with
alsa compiled into the kernel and has had good results there. I have to
run stuff as root with the low latency patch on my fast laptop to get low
latency with Redhat 8.0. I had switched from Suse to Redhat, but now I'm
really thinking about moving to Debian, at least on the desktop, from what
I read on the Demudi that gives you a low latency system with the default
install, and its rapidly getting mature enough to be usable.
http://www.brianredfern.com
On 19 Nov 2002, Jack O'Quin wrote:
Brian Redfern <bredfern(a)calarts.edu> writes:
Sound intertesting, I'm using an Audiophile
24/96 card, not sure if its an
issue with the ice driver, but it sounds like the real culprit is Redhat
8.0's gnome, while its nice to have easy cut and paste I think I may have
a better time getting things to work with windowmaker rather than using
gnome or kde. Redhat tries to force you into using one or the other, I'm
going to have to download Dmudi more than likely, and I'll let people know
how that goes. Its good to know that its not a hardware issue, though.
Mark's suggestion, dumping GNOME, is probably the easiest approach.
But, if you really want to follow the Red Hat Way, it may be possible
to tame the noisier parts of GNOME. The main culprit appears to be
the GNOME desktop, which periodically scans the CD-ROM to see if a CD
has been inserted. Turning this off may help quite a bit.
Unfortunately, I don't have any specific directions handy.
If you haven't already seen it, take a careful look at the Linux Audio
Users Low-Latency HOWTO:
http://www.djcj.org/LAU/guide/Low_latency-Mini-HOWTO.php3
Tuning Linux PC hardware and software for low-latency audio is a bit
of a black art. But, there's a good deal of experience on this list
and some helpful people, so don't give up. Keep us posted on what you
learn so others can benefit from it, too.
--
Jack O'Quin
Austin, Texas, USA
8058
days inactive
8069
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
29 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Anthony -
art moore -
Brian Redfern -
Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano -
Jack O'Quin -
Jesse Chappell -
Joseph Zitt -
Mark Knecht -
Mark Knecht -
Patrick Shirkey -
Paul Winkler -
Silvan