On Tuesday 10 November 2009 17:24:54 Rob wrote: Or I don't know how to use it properly. I am sure I am in the third category and may be in the first. I am pretty sure I am not in the second. Does anyone have any pointers to docs to solve the issue I mention? drew

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:48:50AM +0100, Atte André Jensen wrote: In autotalent.c, changing line 560: psAutotalent->ffttime[ti] = psAutotalent->ffttime[ti] / psAutotalent->ffttime[0]; to psAutotalent->ffttime[ti] = psAutotalent->ffttime[ti] / (psAutotalent->ffttime[0] + 1e-10f); should help. I see one problem with this plugin: its period estimation is always an integer number of samples, and this is introduces pitch errors by itself ! It should be relatively easy to correct. Ciao, -- FA Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 02:55:27PM +0100, Atte André Jensen wrote: Division by very small numbers, possibly resulting in NaN and friends. Here the change I posted made all the difference, but I'll look again later tonight. Ciao, -- FA Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.

There is only one C file in the tar.gz. It is autotalent.c. Download the tar.gz from http://web.mit.edu/tbaran/www/autotalent.html then tar -xvzf autotalent-0.1.tar.gz cd autotalent-0.1 emacs or vi autotalent.c change line 650 to what is listed below (in emacs you can go to line 650 by pressing Esc (don't hold), typing 650, then hitting return). Save the file, exit the editor then make make install That's it. This assumes that your LADSPA plugins are in /usr/lib/ladspa. If they aren't there then they're probably in /usr/local/lib/ladspa. If so you need to change the Makefile to point there - it should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer (math prof speak) which line needs to be changed. Jan PS - sorry for the top post. On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 16:51 +0000, Viktor Mastoridis wrote:

On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 11:05 -0600, Jan Depner wrote: People need to get over this whole "top-posting" thing. I mean, seriously. :-) Ricardus...

On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 19:14 +0200, Nedko Arnaudov wrote: I apologize, I should have chosen my words more carefully. People need to get over their aversion to this top-posting thing. If I have been following the thread, I know what the flow of conversation has been, and appreciate the most recent reply at the TOP of the message, so I do not have to scroll through miles of text to find it. I particularly appreciate this now that I do all of my computing on a netbook and have a smaller screen. Ricardus...

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Thorsten Wilms <t_w_(a)freenet.de> wrote: I second the motion, this is the corrected phrase: People need to get over their top-posting thing. Leo

Top post is a question of accesibility to the blind. They shouldn't have to listen to 30 posts every time they want to contribute. So if you don't what no linux Stevie wonder to post in this list is your decision. But I don't agree with it. Cheers. Atentamente, Jorge Salgueiro (Incitec S.L.) ______________________________________ Use GNU/Linux: free culture for a free society 2009/11/11 Gwenhwyfaer <gwenhwyfaer(a)gmail.com> Top post is a question of accesibility to the blind. They shouldn't have to listen to 30 posts every time they want to contribute. So if you don't what no linux Stevie wonder to post in this list is your decision. But I don't agree with it. Cheers.

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Jorge Salgueiro wrote: That's a matter of trimming more than top-posting, although I think it would drive me crazy if I had to use a reader, where I have to listen to the answer before I hear the line which gives it context Maybe I'm stereotyping here, but it appears to me that top-posters are less likely to trim the email to the one line that provides context for their reply. I see one-line messages, followed by 100k+ of the entire message thread, which is wasteful of bandwidth, as well as the treasury of those who pay by the dialup minute or MB transferred. I've worked in a company whose culture was to *always* top post *without* trimming. The rationale was to maintain the entire cumulative conversation in every email. Annoying, but if the boss wants to pay for the local bandwidth and server space fine. But totally inconsiderate of the time and pocketbook of the recipient when conversing on a more public forum like this one. I don't use one, but I've been told that there are popular email clients running on an OS that I don't run, that don't allow the user to trim. They simply have a switch "Include message in reply", which if enabled, silently and invisibly appends the message (sometimes with full headers!) to whatever they type in the composer. My opinion of the programmers and publishers of such software is not fit for a polite forum such as this. -- Rick Green "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." -President Barack Obama 20 Jan 2009

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Jorge Salgueiro wrote: Part of bottom-posting is trimming the quoted content so there are not thirty previous posts to skip over. Sometimes I don't even quote at all if the subject line contains enough context that a reader ought to be able to get it. (Somebody already previously said all this though...) -- + Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys + UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will + University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of + Physical Sciences Div. + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, + James Franck Institute + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 good point 101% ACK

Lorenzo wrote: Naah, not really. We can say things in a nice tone, also "I think you should consider your posting style". It's simply to make it easier for everyone. -- Atte http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk http://virb.com/atte

ROFL ;-)

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 02:55:27PM +0100, Atte André Jensen wrote: I didn't find any more obvious errors, and here things work perfectly. Could it be you are feeding it undesirable floats ? You can check this with bitmeter. If you don't know this tool (I didn't until a few minutes ago) it's on http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/njl98r/code/audio/ Ciao, -- FA Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.

fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote: I might investigate further over the weekend, I have the flu atm so... I'm in renoise btw, so I cannot just plug bitmeter in, I could route audio from the track in question to bitmeter, I guess. -- Atte http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk http://virb.com/atte

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 02:43:26PM +0100, Hartmut Noack wrote: Just be careful with that autotune. If you over-use it, you can end up with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc -ken