Hi! It would work with ecasound in the same way, very perfectly! BUT: I am blind! So I can't use jamin, if jamin doesn't have the ncurses interface the Jamin people where thinking about. Does it have that? Kindest regards Julien -------- Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles) ======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ======== http://ltsb.sourceforge.net - the Linux TextBased Studio guide

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 11:09:25AM -0800, R Parker wrote: The compressors and limiters in jamin are all LADSPA plugins (JAMin loads them as plugins). the compressors are SC2's (id 1882) and the limiter is a "fast lookahead limiter" (id 1913). - Steve

Jack O'Quin writes: So, all may not be lost in terms of an "eyes-free" interface. Julien: Have you tried with Gnopernicus? Or with Orca? I would try this myself, but I'm about to leave for a conference. I'll see if I can get one of the handful of folks who've gotten comfortable with Gnopernicus to take a look. It would be cool if Jammin turns out to be accessible, without anyone knowing it. That is possible because of the use of GTK2. If the widgets used are standard GTK2 it either already is, or could easily be made so by providing object properties data. Actually, by using--if you have stuck with--stock GTK2 widgets, you may have already achieved this. Wouldn't that be something? Certainly, the accessibility requirements pretty much require this kind of decoupling. Output and input requirements both should be supported by virtue of the abstracted support provided via gtk2. Of mainstream musician interest would be alternative controls mapped via Gok, the Gnome Onscreen Keyboard. It would be worthwhile to check this out--and I'll do what I can, but it will take a few days. -- Janina Sajka Phone: +1.202.494.7040 Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC http://www.CapitalAccessibility.Com Chair, Accessibility Workgroup Free Standards Group (FSG) janina(a)freestandards.org http://a11y.org If Linux can't solve your computing problem, you need a different problem.

Janina Sajka <janina(a)rednote.net> writes: Janina, I certainly understand your point, but I also think there is a danger here. We shouldn't tell people that if they *only* use GTK2, all is well. After all, I still prefer the text based user interfaces very much above using Gnopernicus and GNOME. I wouldn't like if GNOME accessibility ment that flexible program design goes down the drain. Jack, I really like the idea of expanding on the OSC interface and making parameters OSC controllable, that allows for easy scripting and remote control from whatever app you might end up needing it. That said, yes, it is wonderful that GTK2 now offers some sort of accessibility support, but I am not convinced that this is the best we can get. The UNIX idea, keep it simple and flexible, is what fascinates me about Linux/Unix apps, not "a desktop". In fact, judging from my personal taste, I am not sure if I am going to use GNOME for much else than running Mozilla (if that ever starts to be useful). I still feel that using a classical GUI if you are blind is an error per design. True, it might be a good workaround, but it is in no way the ideal interface. And it wastes CPU cycles, maybe even increases latency, to use all the overhead... -- CYa, Mario

Hi all, Going in a slightly different direction here... I was busy yesterday and didn't follow this thread in its entirety but I think it would be a very interesting project to have a few sighted folks potentially work with a few people unfortunate not to have their vision and try to create some basic audio elements that were more advanced in their capabilities but served certain needs that an app like Jamin might not address due to its graphical complexity. If there are others out there that might be interested in this area then let's talk on list of off. Part of my interest is that having, until recently, been a beta tester for Waves plugins I found over time that I got better sound in my work using the most simple plugins. I came to think that either I'm too dense for the most complicated ones (certainly a possibility!) or that keeping things simple has audio advantages. I'm also certain that folks that live without sight probably have hearing that more finely attuned to small changes than I do having spent some years in rock bands. Putting those two ideas together leads me to ask if creating some simple plugins that address the vision issues that Julian originally brought up might not be a good contribution? My first idea was to use the info provided earlier that Jamin is really using ladspa plugins and consider Jack Rack and a simple set of ladspa plugins to do something akin to a Waves C4. From there maybe I'd need to do some latency adjustments, etc., to get something that had reasonable frequency characteristics but thought that could come later. However I started putting filters into Jack Rack and found I don't get how it works. Nothing (or inconsistently little) shows up in QJackCtl's connections window. Also, I know nothing about text-to-speech software, assuming folks without sight are using that. I'd be interested in learning a bit more about that along the way. So, at this point I'm sort of hanging out and seeing what people think of the idea and who might like to participate. Certainly it's open to anyone, but I would prefer a fairly low-key group due to other time commitments right now. Anyone interested can certainly write me back or sign up to be the leader. I'm cool with any level of participation on my end. Cheers, Mark On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:23:35 -0600, Jack O'Quin <joq(a)io.com> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:22:45 +0000, Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: I didn't mean to imply that Jamin was only plugins, but rather that I think you said that the compressors were so thee should be no differences using them in Jack-Rack or Jamin. By crossover do you mean the section that divides the input signal into the number of bands you want? Why should that not be a specialized plugin or even a collection of stand alone linear phase bandpass filters? What's lost in the audio by doing it that way? Thanks, Mark

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:31:02 +0000, Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: OK, point taken. An optimized design will always win in that way. However Moore's Law says that CPU performance will continue to up so much that I'm guessing this won't matter to me. I can already run about 10 C1's on my 3GHz XP machine so I'm guessing I have enough processing power to do it either way. Maybe we can look into that sometime in the future. Again, I'm presuming here that there is some value in being able to hook together processing units in a user-desired way as opposed to accepting any specific prebuilt collection and the limitation that come with it. Thanks, Mark

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 12:22:03PM -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote: Jack, Julien is blind. -- Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Engineer I Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia 2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900 CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact network(a)rfa.org.