8 Nov
2009
8 Nov
'09
8 p.m.
I just had a look at cal's website and found there were versions .030 -
.035 so immediately tried the latest one. This seemed to
have the VU problem solved but unfortunately locked up completely when
I tried to load a parameter file. This was true for all versions back
to 0.31.
However, .030 seemed OK, so I had the bright idea of doing a 'diff'
between the likely files. The interesting change came in masterUI.fl
where I noticed the following:
.030
// load the data
int result = zynMaster->loadXML(filename);
zynMaster->actionLock(unlock);
zynMaster->applyParameters();
.031 (and onwards)
// load the data
int result = zynMaster->loadXML(filename);
zynMaster->applyParameters();
zynMaster->actionLock(unlock);
I simply swapped those last two lines back, and all seems to be well
now. It's late now, but tomorrow I'll try to have a good old bash at it
and see what happens!
Incidentally, the files are beautifully clearly laid out now :)
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
9 Nov
9 Nov
3:15 a.m.
Folderol wrote:
I just had a look at cal's website and found there
were versions .030 -
.035 so immediately tried the latest one. This seemed to
have the VU problem solved but unfortunately locked up completely when
I tried to load a parameter file. This was true for all versions back
to 0.31.
However, .030 seemed OK, so I had the bright idea of doing a 'diff'
between the likely files. The interesting change came in masterUI.fl
where I noticed the following:
.030
// load the data
int result = zynMaster->loadXML(filename);
zynMaster->actionLock(unlock);
zynMaster->applyParameters();
.031 (and onwards)
// load the data
int result = zynMaster->loadXML(filename);
zynMaster->applyParameters();
zynMaster->actionLock(unlock);
I simply swapped those last two lines back, and all seems to be well
now. It's late now, but tomorrow I'll try to have a good old bash at it
and see what happens!
Well done! And thanks.
0.036 2009-11-09 Will J Godfrey's load parameter file fix
<http://www.graggrag.com/?q=yoshimi>
Incidentally, the files are beautifully clearly laid
out now :)
just a little more readable?
cheers.
4:20 a.m.
cal wrote:
Folderol wrote:
Didn't look at code, just downloaded and trying to CMake it gives me
this message:
CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:161 (message):
Alsa required but not found
I don't see any alsa-dev package in Debian and already have ALSA
installed and working here just fine. What Alsa is it talking about?
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
I just had a look at cal's website and found
there were versions .030 -
.035 so immediately tried the latest one. This seemed to
have the VU problem solved but unfortunately locked up completely when
I tried to load a parameter file. This was true for all versions back
to 0.31.
However, .030 seemed OK, so I had the bright idea of doing a 'diff'
between the likely files. The interesting change came in masterUI.fl
where I noticed the following:
.030
// load the data
int result = zynMaster->loadXML(filename);
zynMaster->actionLock(unlock);
zynMaster->applyParameters();
.031 (and onwards)
// load the data
int result = zynMaster->loadXML(filename);
zynMaster->applyParameters();
zynMaster->actionLock(unlock);
I simply swapped those last two lines back, and all seems to be well
now. It's late now, but tomorrow I'll try to have a good old bash at it
and see what happens!
Well done! And thanks.
0.036 2009-11-09 Will J Godfrey's load parameter file fix
<http://www.graggrag.com/?q=yoshimi>
Incidentally, the files are beautifully clearly
laid out now :)
just a little more readable? 
4:57 a.m.
david wrote:
Didn't look at code, just downloaded and trying to
CMake it gives me
this message:
CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:161 (message):
Alsa required but not found
I don't see any alsa-dev package in Debian and already have ALSA
installed and working here just fine. What Alsa is it talking about?
libasound-dev is the one you need. (libasound2-dev in debian/testing)
~G.
2:41 p.m.
Garry Ogle wrote:
david wrote:
I do wish scripts would call things by their real names ... ;-)
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
Didn't look at code, just downloaded and
trying to CMake it gives me
this message:
CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:161 (message):
Alsa required but not found
I don't see any alsa-dev package in Debian and already have ALSA
installed and working here just fine. What Alsa is it talking about?
libasound-dev is the one you need. (libasound2-dev in debian/testing)
2:47 p.m.
Garry Ogle wrote:
david wrote:
OK, now it wants a newer version of JACK. Sigh. Don't have time for this
right now ...
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
Didn't look at code, just downloaded and
trying to CMake it gives me
this message:
CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:161 (message):
Alsa required but not found
I don't see any alsa-dev package in Debian and already have ALSA
installed and working here just fine. What Alsa is it talking about?
libasound-dev is the one you need. (libasound2-dev in debian/testing)
6:26 p.m.
david wrote:
Garry Ogle wrote:
Yoshi asks for jack>=0.115.6. If that check fails then you're running a
_really_ old jack and an upgrade would have to be a good idea, when you get
the time of course :-).
david wrote:
OK, now it wants a newer version of JACK. Sigh. Don't have time for this
right now ... Didn't look at code, just downloaded and
trying to CMake it gives me
this message:
CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:161 (message):
Alsa required but not found
I don't see any alsa-dev package in Debian and already have ALSA
installed and working here just fine. What Alsa is it talking about?
libasound-dev is the one you need. (libasound2-dev in debian/testing)
10 Nov
10 Nov
4:03 a.m.
cal wrote:
david wrote:
I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
Garry Ogle wrote:
Yoshi asks for jack>=0.115.6. If that check fails then you're running a
_really_ old jack and an upgrade would have to be a good idea, when you get
the time of course :-). david wrote:
OK,
now it wants a newer version of JACK. Sigh. Don't have time for this
right now ... Didn't look at code, just downloaded and
trying to CMake it gives me
this message:
CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:161 (message):
Alsa required but not found
I don't see any alsa-dev package in Debian and already have ALSA
installed and working here just fine. What Alsa is it talking about?
libasound-dev is the one you need. (libasound2-dev in debian/testing)
4:20 a.m.
david wrote:
[ ... ]
I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that. Last time
this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had a fairly elegant solution.
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
That thread also featured a strong comment:
jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this point in
time".
This is the modern age after all.
cheers.
5:02 a.m.
cal wrote:
david wrote:
OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ...
[ ... ]
I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that. Last time
this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had a fairly elegant solution.
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
That thread also featured a strong comment:
jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this point in
time".
This is the modern age after all.
This makes me ask the question, "What are the JACK developers NOT doing
that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109 with .116 in
repositories, then?" Other programs got it done somehow ...
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
5:17 a.m.
david wrote:
That's so far
off the mark I really have to leave it alone.
cal wrote:
ah, but it is
in fact very much like 0.116 etc, see <http://www.jackaudio.org/node/24>
david wrote:
OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ... [ ... ]
I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
Indeed. You're
not the first and won't be the last to ask that. Last time
this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had a fairly elegant solution.
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
That thread
also featured a strong comment:
jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this point in
time".
This is the modern age after all.
This makes me ask the question, "What are the JACK developers NOT doing
that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109 with .116 in
repositories, then?" Other programs got it done somehow ...
5:25 a.m.
david wrote:
cal wrote:
I installed that, and it's jackdmp 1.9.2. Yoshimi doesn't accept that,
either.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
david wrote:
OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ... [ ... ]
I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
Indeed. You're
not the first and won't be the last to ask that. Last time
this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had a fairly elegant solution.
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
6:12 a.m.
david wrote:
david wrote:
I just fired up the Ubuntu Studio-based Artist X 0.70 I have on the
synthesizer/effects box, and it also has jackd 0.109.
The Musix 2.0 beta has jackd 0.116.1. Perhaps I can get yoshimi to
compile on it. That would be very nice, because Zyn 2.4 on Music 2.0
beta likes to freeze up. The drawback to it is that Musix 2.0 has great
difficulty seeing my USB soundcard ... Let's see!
Nope, that doesn't work, either. Even after installing CMake to it,
trying to generate yoshimi just tells me that CMake can't find the C
compiler.
Stupid computers.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
cal wrote:
I installed that, and it's jackdmp 1.9.2. Yoshimi doesn't accept that,
either. david wrote:
OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ... [ ... ]
I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
Indeed. You're
not the first and won't be the last to ask that. Last time
this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had a fairly elegant solution.
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
5:53 a.m.
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:01:59 -1000
david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
cal wrote:
It isn't, it's jack2, formerly known as jackdmp.
david wrote:
OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ... [ ... ]
I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that.
Last time this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had
a fairly elegant solution.
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
> That thread also featured a strong comment:
> jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this
> point in time".
>
> This is the modern age after all.
This was almost a year ago. (and it feels like three years)
This makes me ask the question, "What are the
JACK developers NOT
doing that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109
with .116 in repositories, then?" Other programs got it done
somehow ...
It seems distributions are simply too slow, especially debian based
ones. At least that's my impression.
Don't quite get it in the case of 64studio where jack is an essential
part. Guess they focused on the next version before bothering with that.
6:52 a.m.
hollunder(a)gmx.at wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:01:59 -1000
david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Weird, but other programs (general use ones) seem to be much closer to
"current" versions than JACK is. I wonder if there isn't some
hoop-jumping jackaudio hasn't done properly for Debian. Or maybe the
Debian folk in charge of approving JACK versions for inclusion in Debian
worship at the altar of Pulseaudio and just want to make JACK go away.
(I know, nobody involved in open source would be deliberately sabotaging
a competitor.)
cal wrote:
It isn't, it's jack2, formerly known as jackdmp.
david wrote:
OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ... [ ... ]
I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
Indeed. You're
not the first and won't be the last to ask that.
Last time this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had
a fairly elegant solution.
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
> That thread also featured a strong comment:
> jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this
> point in time".
>
> This is the modern age after all.
This was almost a year ago. (and it feels like three years)
This makes me ask the question, "What are
the JACK developers NOT
doing that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109
with .116 in repositories, then?" Other programs got it done
somehow ...
It seems distributions are simply too slow, especially debian based
ones. At least that's my impression. Don't quite get it in the case of 64studio where
jack is an essential
part. Guess they focused on the next version before bothering with that.
Possible. I can't install the DVD releases of 64Studio on my music box -
its optical drive doesn't seem reliably read all of a DVD - and while it
will boot from a flash drive, I haven't found any Linux audio distros
that will install from a flash drive. They all insist on looking for an
install CD. And nobody seems to make netboot installs anymore except
Debian's stock distro.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
7:01 a.m.
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:52:46 -1000
david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
This is a pity, especially since flash drives get bigger than DVDs.
Haven't really looked into it, but it would seem logical for a number
of reasons to move from DVD to flash, not the other way around.
Regards,
Philipp
hollunder(a)gmx.at wrote:
There also seems to be a long-standing issue with jack in debian, they
messed p some naming years ago and didn't manage to fix to date and
this causes some issues as well. I don't know the details tough.
I don't know what the source of all this trouble is, but pretty much
all distros get it right.
There's was an interesting post: http://ardour.org/node/2543
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:01:59 -1000
david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Weird, but other programs (general use ones) seem to be much closer
to "current" versions than JACK is. I wonder if there isn't some
hoop-jumping jackaudio hasn't done properly for Debian. Or maybe the
Debian folk in charge of approving JACK versions for inclusion in
Debian worship at the altar of Pulseaudio and just want to make JACK
go away. (I know, nobody involved in open source would be
deliberately sabotaging a competitor.) cal wrote:
It isn't, it's jack2, formerly known as jackdmp.
david wrote:
> [ ... ]
> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
>
> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that.
Last time this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence
had a fairly elegant solution.
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ... > That thread also featured a strong comment:
> jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this
> point in time".
>
> This is the modern age after all.
This was almost a year ago. (and it feels like three years)
This makes me ask the question, "What are
the JACK developers NOT
doing that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109
with .116 in repositories, then?" Other programs got it done
somehow ...
It seems distributions are simply too slow, especially debian based
ones. At least that's my impression. Don't
quite get it in the case of 64studio where jack is an
essential part. Guess they focused on the next version before
bothering with that.
Possible. I can't install the DVD releases of 64Studio on my music
box - its optical drive doesn't seem reliably read all of a DVD - and
while it will boot from a flash drive, I haven't found any Linux
audio distros that will install from a flash drive. They all insist
on looking for an install CD. And nobody seems to make netboot
installs anymore except Debian's stock distro.
7:24 a.m.
hollunder(a)gmx.at wrote:
This is a pity, especially since flash drives get bigger than DVDs.
Haven't really looked into it, but it would seem logical for a number
of reasons to move from DVD to flash, not the other way around.
It sure is. There are some great utilities (like NetBootIN) and manual
ways to turn a Live CD/DVD ISO into a bootable flash drive - but they
ALL proceed to look only at the CDROM drive when you try to install
them. I'm sure someone that knows what they're doing could figure out
how to generalize the process - after all, when a Live CD/DVD boots and
you select install, it already knows what drive it started from, so why
can't it just look there?????
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:52:46 -1000
david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Hmm, then I guess the distros I've tried (many) must "have it right" to
use jack 0.109.2 - cuz that seems to be what they're using. The only one
I've tried here that is using 0.116.x is the Musix 2 beta.
hollunder(a)gmx.at wrote:
There also seems to be a long-standing issue with jack in debian, they
messed p some naming years ago and didn't manage to fix to date and
this causes some issues as well. I don't know the details tough.
I don't know what the source of all this trouble is, but pretty much
all distros get it right. On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:01:59 -1000
david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Weird, but other programs (general use
ones) seem to be much closer
to "current" versions than JACK is. I wonder if there isn't some
hoop-jumping jackaudio hasn't done properly for Debian. Or maybe the
Debian folk in charge of approving JACK versions for inclusion in
Debian worship at the altar of Pulseaudio and just want to make JACK
go away. (I know, nobody involved in open source would be
deliberately sabotaging a competitor.) cal wrote:
> david wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
>>
>> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
> Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that.
> Last time this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence
> had a fairly elegant solution.
>
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ...
It isn't,
it's jack2, formerly known as jackdmp.
> That thread also featured a strong comment:
> jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this
> point in time".
>
> This is the modern age after all.
This was almost a year ago. (and it feels
like three years)
This makes me ask the question, "What are
the JACK developers NOT
doing that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109
with .116 in repositories, then?" Other programs got it done
somehow ...
It seems distributions are simply too slow, especially debian based
ones. At least that's my impression. There's was an interesting post:
http://ardour.org/node/2543
Yup. Sigh. When something doesn't work, it's always someone else's
fault. If you're the app developer, it's the distro packagers' fault. If
you're a distro packager, it's the app's fault. And everything is too
complicated for anyone to really figure out what's causing the problem,
anyway ...
Don't quite get it in the case of 64studio where
jack is an
essential part. Guess they focused on the next version before
bothering with that.
Possible. I can't install the DVD releases of 64Studio on
my music
box - its optical drive doesn't seem reliably read all of a DVD - and
while it will boot from a flash drive, I haven't found any Linux
audio distros that will install from a flash drive. They all insist
on looking for an install CD. And nobody seems to make netboot
installs anymore except Debian's stock distro. 
7:21 a.m.
On Tuesday 10 November 2009 11:52:46 david wrote:
install CD. And nobody seems to make netboot installs
anymore except
Debian's stock distro.
Last time I checked (half a year ago) ubuntu also had netboot-files for
install. Or you use the minimal CD version which is just around 100MB or so.
Arnold
7:51 a.m.
Arnold Krille wrote:
On Tuesday 10 November 2009 11:52:46 david wrote:
That might work if I can find them on their site.
install CD. And nobody seems to make netboot
installs anymore except
Debian's stock distro.
Last time I checked (half a year ago) ubuntu also had netboot-files for
install. Or you use the minimal CD version which is just around
100MB or so.
Hmm, they only appear to be offering a CD image, that might work. But
it's Ubuntu 9.10. I did try Ubuntu 9.04 on the music box: wouldn't run.
Maybe 9.10 fixed that.
My understanding is that Ubuntu doesn't have a working RT kernel. And it
appears to me that they're not even trying to have a working RT kernel,
they think they don't need it.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
8 a.m.
2009/11/10 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>
My understanding is that Ubuntu doesn't have a working RT kernel. And it
appears to me that they're not even trying to have a working RT kernel,
they think they don't need it.
--
David
I think the RT kernel fell behind in 9.04, but it is back again in
9.10. From the release announcement :
"For Ubuntu Studio 9.10 we have continued to grow our feature set,
update packages, and fix critical bugs to better the Ubuntu Studio
user experience.
We are happy to announce that the real time kernel will be an official
upstream release patch. It will be installed by default if the audio
task is selected. We have tested it heavily and are very happy with it's
performance in audio environments.
Features/Improvements:
* Official upstream RT kernel release (i.e. it's very stable)"
Fritz
8:34 a.m.
Fritz Meissner wrote:
2009/11/10 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>
Well, the only downloadable images I see there are "alternate install"
images, I guess they don't have regular install ones yet. Guess I'll
download one and see if musicbox will run it. Thanks for the news.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
My understanding is that Ubuntu doesn't have a working RT kernel. And it
appears to me that they're not even trying to have a working RT kernel,
they think they don't need it.
--
David
I think the RT kernel fell behind in 9.04, but it is back again in
9.10. From the release announcement :
"For Ubuntu Studio 9.10 we have continued to grow our feature set,
update packages, and fix critical bugs to better the Ubuntu Studio
user experience.
We are happy to announce that the real time kernel will be an official
upstream release patch. It will be installed by default if the audio
task is selected. We have tested it heavily and are very happy with it's
performance in audio environments.
Features/Improvements:
* Official upstream RT kernel release (i.e. it's very stable)"
9:21 a.m.
New subject: old jack distro rant
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:34:11 -1000
david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Fritz Meissner wrote:
If this doesn't work for you, I'd try netboot or whatever of normal
ubuntu of the same version and work from there. It should be easy to
get the rt-kernel and you'd have a reasonably minimal system to start
with.
I thought about going this route a year ago but then decided to switch
distro, away from debian-based.
2009/11/10 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>
Well, the only downloadable images I see there are "alternate
install" images, I guess they don't have regular install ones yet.
Guess I'll download one and see if musicbox will run it. Thanks for
the news.
My understanding is that Ubuntu doesn't have a working RT kernel.
And it appears to me that they're not even trying to have a
working RT kernel, they think they don't need it.
--
David
I think the RT kernel fell behind in 9.04, but it is back again in
9.10. From the release announcement :
"For Ubuntu Studio 9.10 we have continued to grow our feature set,
update packages, and fix critical bugs to better the Ubuntu Studio
user experience.
We are happy to announce that the real time kernel will be an
official upstream release patch. It will be installed by default
if the audio task is selected. We have tested it heavily and are
very happy with it's performance in audio environments.
Features/Improvements:
* Official upstream RT kernel release (i.e. it's very stable)" 
9:37 a.m.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Fritz Meissner wrote:
We are happy to announce that the real time kernel
will be an official
upstream release patch. It will be installed by default if the audio
task is selected. We have tested it heavily and are very happy with it's
performance in audio environments.
Recent stock kernels seem to be RT anyway. The one that came
with the ArchLinux install on my notebook a few weeks ago is
2.6.31-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Oct 13 13:36:23.
I've been running an USB interface on that machine with -n 3
-p 64 for the last 6 hours. Round-trip latency with this setup
is 9.41 ms, and I've seen zero xruns so far. Never been able to
do that before.
Ciao,
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.
9:48 a.m.
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:33:54 +0100
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Fritz
Meissner wrote:
The default Arch Linux kernel is compiled with the highest
level of preemption the stock kernel can provide but it does not
include the preempt-rt patches.
Some other stuff isn't optimal as well from the Audio/Midi point of
view, but you're right, it already performs very well, well enough for
many uses.
Another interesting option some fellow Archers experiment with is using
the stock kernel with a different scheduler (BFS), which also seems to
work very well.
So yeah, the stock kernel can already perform very well, but it depends
on how it is compiled.
Regards,
Philipp
We are happy to announce that the real time
kernel will be an
official upstream release patch. It will be installed by default
if the audio task is selected. We have tested it heavily and are
very happy with it's performance in audio environments.
Recent stock kernels seem to be RT anyway. The one that came
with the ArchLinux install on my notebook a few weeks ago is
2.6.31-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Oct 13 13:36:23.
I've been running an USB interface on that machine with -n 3
-p 64 for the last 6 hours. Round-trip latency with this setup
is 9.41 ms, and I've seen zero xruns so far. Never been able to
do that before.
Ciao,
5:10 a.m.
cal wrote:
david wrote:
I just added lenny-backports to my repositories, reloaded, and it still
says 0.109 is the latest version.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
[ ... ]
I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that. Last time
this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had a fairly elegant solution.
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
That thread also featured a strong comment:
jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this point in
time".
This is the modern age after all. 
6:54 a.m.
Jonathan E. Brickman wrote:
Doesn't sound promising: "AV Linux 2.0 is a LiveDVD ISO image". The
optical drive on my music box can't reliably read DVDs.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
I just added
lenny-backports to my repositories, reloaded, and it still
says 0.109 is the latest version.
In a small nutshell, this and many other very similar frustrations, is
why I do not use 64studio anymore. I would try AVLinux.
5540
days inactive
5542
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
26 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Arnold Krille -
cal -
david -
Folderol -
fons＠kokkinizita.net -
Fritz Meissner -
Garry Ogle -
hollunder＠gmx.at -
Jonathan E. Brickman