1 Dec
2003
1 Dec
'03
4:28 a.m.
Robert Jonsson wrote in answer to Eduardo Guerrero:
The SB-Live soundcard has built in synth capabilities but no internal
sounds. You have to load a soundfont with the utility sfxload (available
in the aweutils package). This also implies that you need to setup
OSS-compatibility support in ALSA since the awe utils use that.
I anyone aware of ANY non-OSS tool to load soundfonts into
an SBlive card ?
If not, would anyone be interested in looking in to how to
rewrite sfxload so it, at least, uses the native ALSA API ?
Even with ALSA in the 2.6 kernel (yay, no more modules) and
most apps now converted to ALSA/jack I am still stuck with
this small but useful utility. I get around it by simply not
using the the soundfont capability of my SBlive. Pity.
--markc
2 Dec
2 Dec
8:23 p.m.
I anyone aware of ANY non-OSS tool to load soundfonts
into
an SBlive card ?
If not, would anyone be interested in looking in to how to
rewrite sfxload so it, at least, uses the native ALSA API ?
Even with ALSA in the 2.6 kernel (yay, no more modules) and
most apps now converted to ALSA/jack I am still stuck with
this small but useful utility. I get around it by simply not
using the the soundfont capability of my SBlive. Pity.
--markc
This is another example why I try to avoid hardware synthesis and go
with software synthesis. There's actually two (main) reasons for this...
For one, some of the sound cards have a limit on the size of sound fonts
You can load... and for another reason, what happens if I want to set up
the same "studio" (that I've worked tirelessly for years to set up) on
someone else's computer and they don't have hardware synthesis
capabilities? I would have to learn more "stuff" when (instead) I could
just set up the software synthesis that I know (and have tested)?
I don't know... maybe I'm always thinking in terms of being able to set
up "audio studios" for other People. The irony is that I haven't set up
one computer for a friend yet (I've offered though).
Rocco
3 Dec
3 Dec
1:09 a.m.
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:24 am, LinuxMedia wrote:
> I anyone aware of ANY non-OSS tool to load
soundfonts into
> an SBlive card ?
This is another example why I try to avoid hardware
synthesis and go
with software synthesis. There's actually two (main) reasons for this...
For one, some of the sound cards have a limit on the size of sound fonts
You can load... and for another reason, what happens if I want to set up
the same "studio" (that I've worked tirelessly for years to set up) on
someone else's computer and they don't have hardware synthesis
capabilities? I would have to learn more "stuff" when (instead) I could
just set up the software synthesis that I know (and have tested)?
I agree with you in principle but in the case of sfxload, it is
a small program and the excercise would be useful for learning
more about ALSA... and other SBlive folks, I think, could also
find it useful if they want to move away from OSS completely.
I'm just not willing to tackle it on my own but I would like to
dive in if 1 or 2 other people could treat it like a team effort
mainly for the learning experience. ALSA seems to somewhat lack
the "spirit" that surrounds Gentoo users and usage.
I don't know... maybe I'm always thinking in
terms of being able to set
up "audio studios" for other People. The irony is that I haven't set up
one computer for a friend yet (I've offered though).
I feel very much the same and would love to see some sort of
"reference" system evolve where out of all the fine apps that
are becoming highly usable, by mere mortals, that some guide
as to which ones are most suitable would really help new users.
My thoughts are to try and create a reasonable piece of music
that *I* find listenable and not too embarrasing, mainly so there
are no copyright issues, and create some oggs then write up
(heh, sure pal) a HOWTO and how I created the end result (that
will never be "ended" because it could always be reused and
re-released as another version).
So if another, perhaps novice, x-alsa user out there can relate
to this particular piece of music then they can simple follow
a step-by-step guide as to how it was created... with access to
all the parts that went into creating this particular piece.
Just simply follow the outlined procedure and get to see and
hear how a reasonably sophisticated (from a novices point of
view) ALSA system is glued together... actually gets hands on
without having to pre-understand it all... THEN when they start
to RTFM these fine folks might have a chance of making sense of
the sparse FMs that do exist.
And yes, in and around this could evolve the idea of some
"reference" set of of apps and utilities... especially some
reference SoundFont so I/we/them/they can hear the same set of
sounds.
Actually, above and beyond any interest in sfxload I'd REALLY
like to see some co-op effort on some reference soundfont. I
was about to start on reorganising Timidity guspats but I now
lean towards putting the effort into an sf2 soundfont instead.
--markc
9:35 p.m.
> I don't know... maybe I'm always thinking
in terms of being able to set
> up "audio studios" for other People. The irony is that I haven't set
up
> one computer for a friend yet (I've offered though).
I feel very much the same and would love to see some
sort of
"reference" system evolve where out of all the fine apps that
are becoming highly usable, by mere mortals, that some guide
as to which ones are most suitable would really help new users.
I've been working with Linux/Audio for about 4 years and I am still
working out the "complete" studio. And it's always in My mind that it
will be the "template" for other studios. I've gone a long way by
avoiding a lot of "middle men" by using MuSE which allows both Audio and
Midi to be synced. This also eliminates the need to deal with the snags
(and extra work) that Jack introduces (even though i really respect what
Jack does).
I hit another delay because the new version of MuSE requires so many
upgrades to my system that I just ordered SuSE 9.0 instead of trying to
find all these files. Anyways, If I find that the new version of MuSE
will *record* audio then I've eliminated *yet* another "middle man".
Obvious, I believe in keeping it simple. I've managed to get it down to
just a couple of easy to use (and effective) programs. Now there's less
"stuff" to install, maintain, upgrade, learn, master. I included the
term "master" because look how complex *every* program is, and how much
time one *could* put in *any* one of these programs. Keep in mind that
as soon as You learn one, there's (usually) an upgrade and then new
features to install/set-up/learn. And if I'm really going to be able to
contribute to the Linux/Audio community (by setting up computers for
People), then it would be too much to be doing this with a lot of
programs. And I've spent a lot of time testing programs until I came to
choose what I've choosen.
Well, so far, I have it down to ecasound, MuSE, Timidity and Smurf
(sound font edior). I probly missed a few. But these are the main ones.
And as much as I *love* ecasound, if MuSE can record a "live" track,
then I will be down to 3 main programs that are (to Me) a "complete
studio" (I still say ecasound and Jack are great programs though).
My thoughts are to try and create a reasonable piece
of music
that *I* find listenable and not too embarrasing, mainly so there
are no copyright issues, and create some oggs then write up
(heh, sure pal) a HOWTO and how I created the end result (that
will never be "ended" because it could always be reused and
re-released as another version).
If You're referring to explaining the software and tecniques You used,
I've kind of resigned Myself to adding what I can (when I can) on this
list (and other places). But I guess I wont ever really be able to
contribute *completly* until I'm actually setting up (and possibly
maintaining) systems for People. Unfortunatly, I'm more "creative
minded" than I am "technical minded" so I will choose hardware that
works and that will be the "template". This way, I could use "dd" to
create an exact copy of My drive, put it in the same hardware as I have
then the rest of the time can be spent on teaching People how to use the
software. I was working with a (hardware) guy a few towns over but He
moved away.
Actually, there's much more to it than the above stuff. Of course,
there's the ongoing building of soundfonts and the extra stuff like
that. In fact, there's a lot of things like that I'm doing in along with
the above to keep inproving the situation. But aren't we all (-:
Rocco
4 Dec
4 Dec
2:48 a.m.
Hi,
LinuxMedia wrote:
It does? I didn't know the requirements had changed so much?
Or are you talking about the other MuSE ?
If you are talking about (and I believe you are) lmuse.sf.net then it
should be spelled MusE. Tragically there is another project in the linux
audio arena (related to streaming I think) that is named MuSE.
> I
don't know... maybe I'm always thinking in terms of being able to set
> up "audio studios" for other People. The irony is that I haven't set
up
> one computer for a friend yet (I've offered though).
I feel very much the same and would love to see
some sort of
"reference" system evolve where out of all the fine apps that
are becoming highly usable, by mere mortals, that some guide as to
which ones are most suitable would really help new users.
I've been working with Linux/Audio for about 4 years and I am still
working out the "complete" studio. And it's always in My mind that it
will be the "template" for other studios. I've gone a long way by
avoiding a lot of "middle men" by using MuSE which allows both Audio and
Midi to be synced. This also eliminates the need to deal with the snags
(and extra work) that Jack introduces (even though i really respect what
Jack does).
I hit another delay because the new version of MuSE requires so many
upgrades to my system that I just ordered SuSE 9.0 instead of trying to
find all these files.
This is probably a good upgrade anyway. I find that refreshing your
system once in a while helps keep track of things, not to mention new
features of distribution.
Anyways, If I find that the new version of MuSE
will *record* audio then I've eliminated *yet*
another "middle man".
I welcome you to the lmuse user-mailinglist for further discussions (if
you are not there already). Recording in MusE has been working for
months if not years. I use it all the time.
Obvious, I believe in keeping it simple. I've managed to get it down to
just a couple of easy to use (and effective) programs. Now there's less
"stuff" to install, maintain, upgrade, learn, master. I included the
term "master" because look how complex *every* program is, and how much
time one *could* put in *any* one of these programs. Keep in mind that
as soon as You learn one, there's (usually) an upgrade and then new
features to install/set-up/learn. And if I'm really going to be able to
contribute to the Linux/Audio community (by setting up computers for
People), then it would be too much to be doing this with a lot of
programs. And I've spent a lot of time testing programs until I came to
choose what I've choosen.
Well, so far, I have it down to ecasound, MuSE, Timidity and Smurf
(sound font edior). I probly missed a few. But these are the main ones.
And as much as I *love* ecasound, if MuSE can record a "live" track,
then I will be down to 3 main programs that are (to Me) a "complete
studio" (I still say ecasound and Jack are great programs though).
Just for the record, muse is due for a release soon, the last in the 0.6
series, after that 0.7 will follow (when it's ready), 0.7 will require
Jack so you will have to get used to installing Jack I guess ;).
My thoughts are to try and create a reasonable
piece of music
that *I* find listenable and not too embarrasing, mainly so there
are no copyright issues, and create some oggs then write up
(heh, sure pal) a HOWTO and how I created the end result (that
will never be "ended" because it could always be reused and
re-released as another version).
If You're referring to explaining the software and tecniques You used,
I've kind of resigned Myself to adding what I can (when I can) on this
list (and other places). But I guess I wont ever really be able to
contribute *completly* until I'm actually setting up (and possibly
maintaining) systems for People. Unfortunatly, I'm more "creative
minded" than I am "technical minded" so I will choose hardware that
works and that will be the "template". This way, I could use "dd" to
create an exact copy of My drive, put it in the same hardware as I have
then the rest of the time can be spent on teaching People how to use the
software. I was working with a (hardware) guy a few towns over but He
moved away.
Actually, there's much more to it than the above stuff. Of course,
there's the ongoing building of soundfonts and the extra stuff like
that. In fact, there's a lot of things like that I'm doing in along with
the above to keep inproving the situation. But aren't we all (-:
Rocco
10:45 a.m.
>>> I don't know... maybe I'm always
thinking in terms of being able to set
>>> up "audio studios" for other People.
> I hit another delay because the new version of
MuSE requires so many
> upgrades to my system
It does? I didn't know the requirements had
changed so much?
Or are you talking about the other MuSE ?
If you are talking about (and I believe you are) lmuse.sf.net then it
should be spelled MusE. Tragically there is another project in the linux
audio arena (related to streaming I think) that is named MuSE.
Yes... I'm talking about MusE (midi and audio recording).
Keep in mind that I'm upgrading from MusE 0.5.3 to the newest. And when
I looked at the upgrades at the MusE site, I didn't even see MusE 0.5.3
down the page. The exact packages that I need to upgrade MusE (that led
to upgrading from SuSE 8.1 to SuSE 9.0) are:
qt 3.1.0
libsndfile
glibc
I know that doesn't seem so bad, but I just have the feeling that if I
try to upgrade qt3, somehow it will interfere with some config file that
SuSE uses and will change with the next install. This isn't the case
with most programs, but qt3 seems to be different. It's intertwined with
SuSE config files somehow. And of course there's links pointing to other
qt dirs. I do upgrades a lot. It just seems that qt3 seems to be more
intertwined with SuSE config files and I don't want to reinvent the
wheel to install MusE.
> I just ordered SuSE 9.0 instead of trying to find
all these files.
This is probably a good upgrade anyway. I find that
refreshing your
system once in a while helps keep track of things, not to mention new
features of distribution.
I agree. Besides...
<OT>
I want to try out the MainActor 5 (video editing) that is offered in
SuSE 9.0.
</OT>
> Anyways, If I find that the new version of MuSE
> will *record* audio then I've eliminated *yet* another "middle man".
I welcome you to the lmuse user-mailinglist for
further discussions (if
you are not there already).
Thanks... I'm already on the list though.
Recording in MusE has been working for
months if not years. I use it all the time.
Sheesh... maybe MusE 0.5.3 is older than I thought. Version 0.5.3
definatly doesn't record. I did read whatever was offered with the
install. I'm pretty sure it even said something about recording not
being implemted yet. But maybe I missed something.
> Obvious, I believe in keeping it simple. I've
managed to get it down
> to just a couple of easy to use (and effective) programs...
> Well, so far, I have it down to ecasound, MuSE,
Timidity and Smurf
> (sound font edior)...
Just for the record, muse is due for a release soon,
the last in the 0.6
series, after that 0.7 will follow (when it's ready), 0.7 will require
Jack so you will have to get used to installing Jack I guess ;).
I'll probly be one of those guys that has MusE 0.6 installed for ten
years and be saying "I remember when we slapped computers together with
sticks and mud. We didn't have fancy sound servers like Jack and Arts.
We were a simple people..." (hehe)
Jack is a great thing and I'm greatful for the times when I'm forced to
do something that will benifit other things. It looks like Jack is the
future.
Now let Me go find My Amiga computer so I can record an 8 bit 19000Hz
file (like the good old days).
Rocco
2:20 p.m.
Well, I decided to change over from Suse to Demudi, and on the desktop it
went super well, and now I've got muse working with jack and iiwusynth and
also with my hardware sblive as well. On the laptop getting the orinoco
wirless card will take some work, Suse is easier to install, but the
ability to get the latest version of jack and muse and even csound with
just apt-get commands is super cool.
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, LinuxMedia wrote:
>>> I
don't know... maybe I'm always thinking in terms of being able to set
>>> up "audio studios" for other People.
> I hit another delay because the new version
of MuSE requires so many
> upgrades to my system
It does? I didn't know the requirements had
changed so much?
Or are you talking about the other MuSE ?
If you are talking about (and I believe you are) lmuse.sf.net then it
should be spelled MusE. Tragically there is another project in the linux
audio arena (related to streaming I think) that is named MuSE.
Yes... I'm talking about MusE (midi and audio recording).
Keep in mind that I'm upgrading from MusE 0.5.3 to the newest. And when
I looked at the upgrades at the MusE site, I didn't even see MusE 0.5.3
down the page. The exact packages that I need to upgrade MusE (that led
to upgrading from SuSE 8.1 to SuSE 9.0) are:
qt 3.1.0
libsndfile
glibc
I know that doesn't seem so bad, but I just have the feeling that if I
try to upgrade qt3, somehow it will interfere with some config file that
SuSE uses and will change with the next install. This isn't the case
with most programs, but qt3 seems to be different. It's intertwined with
SuSE config files somehow. And of course there's links pointing to other
qt dirs. I do upgrades a lot. It just seems that qt3 seems to be more
intertwined with SuSE config files and I don't want to reinvent the
wheel to install MusE.
> I just ordered SuSE 9.0 instead of trying to
find all these files.
This is probably a good upgrade anyway. I find
that refreshing your
system once in a while helps keep track of things, not to mention new
features of distribution.
I agree. Besides...
<OT>
I want to try out the MainActor 5 (video editing) that is offered in
SuSE 9.0.
</OT>
> Anyways, If I find that the new version of
MuSE
> will *record* audio then I've eliminated *yet* another "middle man".
I welcome you to the lmuse user-mailinglist for
further discussions (if
you are not there already).
Thanks... I'm already on the list though.
Recording in MusE has been working for
months if not years. I use it all the time.
Sheesh... maybe MusE 0.5.3 is older than I thought. Version 0.5.3
definatly doesn't record. I did read whatever was offered with the
install. I'm pretty sure it even said something about recording not
being implemted yet. But maybe I missed something.
> Obvious, I believe in keeping it simple.
I've managed to get it down
> to just a couple of easy to use (and effective) programs...
> Well, so far, I have it down to ecasound,
MuSE, Timidity and Smurf
> (sound font edior)...
Just for the record, muse is due for a release
soon, the last in the 0.6
series, after that 0.7 will follow (when it's ready), 0.7 will require
Jack so you will have to get used to installing Jack I guess ;).
I'll probly be one of those guys that has MusE 0.6 installed for ten
years and be saying "I remember when we slapped computers together with
sticks and mud. We didn't have fancy sound servers like Jack and Arts.
We were a simple people..." (hehe)
Jack is a great thing and I'm greatful for the times when I'm forced to
do something that will benifit other things. It looks like Jack is the
future.
Now let Me go find My Amiga computer so I can record an 8 bit 19000Hz
file (like the good old days).
Rocco
5 Dec
5 Dec
6:42 p.m.
bredfern(a)calarts.edu wrote:
Well, I decided to change over from Suse to Demudi,
and on the desktop it
went super well, and now I've got muse working with jack and iiwusynth and
also with my hardware sblive as well. On the laptop getting the orinoco
wirless card will take some work, Suse is easier to install, but the
ability to get the latest version of jack and muse and even csound with
just apt-get commands is super cool.
Yea... beleive Me, I would *love* to do the "apt-get" thing. Things like
"Planet" where someone maintains (and keeps upgraded) all the important
progams (and makes it easy to get them and upgrade them) is outstanding.
I guess I'm going by the (assumption) that if a Person is going to want
Me to set up a "Linux Audio Studio", then I might as well set up whole
computer systems (Browers, Email, Text Editors...). This sounds like I'm
getting "Off Topic" but I don't think I am, because it still comes down
to introducing new People to Linux Audio. But to do that, I feel I
(need) to set up the whole computer system.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm assuming no one would want to reboot from
Windows to go into their Linux Audio Studio, and then say "oh yea, I
need to email my Uncle Harry"... And then they Reboot back into
Windows... then they send the email... then they reboot back into the
Linux Audio Studio... After a while they will get tired of rebooting and
go back to their Windows Audio Apps.
OK, the other option is to have a "dedicated" machine. But who's going
to take a chance on Linux if they have to buy a whole new computer? I'm
trying to intoduce Linux Audio to new people. And everyone I know runs
Windows. I need to set up a duel boot situation, but keep the person
from saying "damn, I'm tired of booting into Windows just to get any
work done... I might as well just forget about the Linux Studio and use
My Windows Apps". With a "complete system" If they need to email someone
or use a text editor, they just do there business and get back to
recording. I don't have any experience with other ditrobs. I know that
SuSE has never let Me down in any area of computing. And that's
important in turing People on to Linux Audio.
Rocco
6:53 p.m.
I used to be a Planet user, but had problems with some of th packages,
while demudi has worked perfectly well, I've got kernel.org on my sources
list, so I have all the music stuff and also stuff like mysql, postgres,
apache and php as well.
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, LinuxMedia wrote:
bredfern(a)calarts.edu wrote:
Well, I decided to change over from Suse to
Demudi, and on the desktop it
went super well, and now I've got muse working with jack and iiwusynth and
also with my hardware sblive as well. On the laptop getting the orinoco
wirless card will take some work, Suse is easier to install, but the
ability to get the latest version of jack and muse and even csound with
just apt-get commands is super cool.
Yea... beleive Me, I would *love* to do the "apt-get" thing. Things like
"Planet" where someone maintains (and keeps upgraded) all the important
progams (and makes it easy to get them and upgrade them) is outstanding.
I guess I'm going by the (assumption) that if a Person is going to want
Me to set up a "Linux Audio Studio", then I might as well set up whole
computer systems (Browers, Email, Text Editors...). This sounds like I'm
getting "Off Topic" but I don't think I am, because it still comes down
to introducing new People to Linux Audio. But to do that, I feel I
(need) to set up the whole computer system.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm assuming no one would want to reboot from
Windows to go into their Linux Audio Studio, and then say "oh yea, I
need to email my Uncle Harry"... And then they Reboot back into
Windows... then they send the email... then they reboot back into the
Linux Audio Studio... After a while they will get tired of rebooting and
go back to their Windows Audio Apps.
OK, the other option is to have a "dedicated" machine. But who's going
to take a chance on Linux if they have to buy a whole new computer? I'm
trying to intoduce Linux Audio to new people. And everyone I know runs
Windows. I need to set up a duel boot situation, but keep the person
from saying "damn, I'm tired of booting into Windows just to get any
work done... I might as well just forget about the Linux Studio and use
My Windows Apps". With a "complete system" If they need to email someone
or use a text editor, they just do there business and get back to
recording. I don't have any experience with other ditrobs. I know that
SuSE has never let Me down in any area of computing. And that's
important in turing People on to Linux Audio.
Rocco
8:45 p.m.
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:39 am, LinuxMedia wrote:
...
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm assuming no one would want to reboot from
Windows to go into their Linux Audio Studio, and then say "oh yea, I
need to email my Uncle Harry"... And then they Reboot back into
Windows... then they send the email... then they reboot back into the
Linux Audio Studio... After a while they will get tired of rebooting and
go back to their Windows Audio Apps.
Maybe, they might also just apt-get or emerge whatever they
need for any reason. Kmail or Evolution are only a network
connection away.
To me, a larger issue is staying current with the latest
advancements right across the linux audio scene and to mostly
solve that problem I'm moving back to Gentoo.
--markc
4 Dec
4 Dec
6:35 p.m.
On Thursday 04 December 2003 15:44, LinuxMedia wrote:
I know that doesn't seem so bad, but I just have
the feeling that if I
try to upgrade qt3, somehow it will interfere with some config file that
SuSE uses and will change with the next install. This isn't the case
with most programs, but qt3 seems to be different. It's intertwined with
SuSE config files somehow. And of course there's links pointing to other
qt dirs. I do upgrades a lot. It just seems that qt3 seems to be more
intertwined with SuSE config files and I don't want to reinvent the
wheel to install MusE.
MusE 0.6.1 depends on libjack0 (>=0.71.2) and libqt3c102-mt (>=3:3.1.1) The
latter seems intertwined with the whole kde structure. I have it installed
alongside kde3, but sadly not working yet.
MusE 0.6.0 runs under woody & therefore kde2 (sort of) but has b0rked some of
my kde components, probably for similar reasons. Actually, I should qualify
that, MusE works fine, records and everything AFAIX, but I've somewhat broken
kde in the process. It depends (sic) on how much functionality you require
out of kde apps.
Of course SuSE may work differently from Debian. I really am no expert.
I used to have a working version of Timidity, but I seem to have probs with
recent versions. I like it a lot. The working version (I don't remember which
version, sorry) just worked. Incidentally I think all these alsamixer
functions you speak of are a function of your soundcard rather than the mixer
utility. Again, see disclaimer above.
Anyone who wishes to point out the error of my ways would be heartily
welcomed.
cheers
tim hall
9:09 p.m.
tim hall <tech(a)glastonburymusic.org.uk> writes:
MusE 0.6.1 depends on libjack0 (>=0.71.2) and
libqt3c102-mt (>=3:3.1.1) The
latter seems intertwined with the whole kde structure. I have it installed
alongside kde3, but sadly not working yet.
MusE 0.6.0 runs under woody & therefore kde2 (sort
of) but has b0rked some of
my kde components, probably for similar reasons. Actually, I should qualify
that, MusE works fine, records and everything AFAIX, but I've somewhat broken
kde in the process. It depends (sic) on how much functionality you require
out of kde apps.
I had a lot of trouble getting QT3 working on woody, too.
The problem is that the C++ Application Binary Interface changed (yet
again) between woody (gcc-2.95.4) and sarge (gcc-3.2). That `c102'
suffix in the library name is the method Debian invented for dealing
with this problem. You really can't run those sarge packages on
woody, because they are binary incompatible with the applications that
were compiled for woody using gcc-2.95.
I finally located some QT3 packages on the net that had been
backported to run on woody with the old ABI. They seem to work fine.
I'm not certain, but I think my packages came from here...
http://download.kde.org/stable/3.1.2/Debian/pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/
HTH,
--
joq
5 Dec
5 Dec
7:02 a.m.
Ah ha! Thanks Jack,
that's very timely. I shall forward this to the Agnula-users list. I hope
that's ok. I think this info might prove useful.
On Friday 05 December 2003 02:07, Jack O'Quin wrote:
I had a lot of trouble getting QT3 working on woody,
too.
The problem is that the C++ Application Binary Interface changed (yet
again) between woody (gcc-2.95.4) and sarge (gcc-3.2). That `c102'
suffix in the library name is the method Debian invented for dealing
with this problem. You really can't run those sarge packages on
woody, because they are binary incompatible with the applications that
were compiled for woody using gcc-2.95.
I finally located some QT3 packages on the net that had been
backported to run on woody with the old ABI. They seem to work fine.
I'm not certain, but I think my packages came from here...
http://download.kde.org/stable/3.1.2/Debian/pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/
cheers
tim hall
6 Dec
6 Dec
1:26 a.m.
LinuxMedia wrote / a écrit:
hi Rocco
me too, me too. No one knows how much I miss my old atari 1040 STE with cubase midi
recording ;-)
Push the power button, the floppy inside, et voila, in less boot time that any today
gigahertz computer...
But I like soundfonts, so I use Timidity and Muse...
cheers
GuyCLO~
I'll
probly be one of those guys that has MusE 0.6 installed for ten
years and be saying "I remember when we slapped computers together
with sticks and mud. We didn't have fancy sound servers like Jack and
Arts. We were a simple people..." (hehe)
Jack is a great thing and I'm greatful for the times when I'm forced
to do something that will benifit other things. It looks like Jack is
the future.
Now let Me go find My Amiga computer so I can record an 8 bit 19000Hz
file (like the good old days).
Rocco 
9:34 a.m.
Greetings:
Guy, you can use your Atari Cubase under Xsteem. If you set up the
ALSA virmidi module you can direct output from Xsteem to virmidi and
send it to TiMidity, FluidSynth, whatever. That is, if you really must
have Cubase again... ;-)
And if someone absolutely needs the Amiga experience they can always
use the UAE with OctaMED or ProTracker...
For those who may not know: UAE is an Amiga emulator, Xsteem emulates
the Atari, both work under Linux, both support sound.
Best regards,
Dave Phillips
Guy Daniel CLOTILDE wrote:
LinuxMedia wrote / a écrit:
hi Rocco
me too, me too. No one knows how much I miss my old atari 1040 STE with cubase midi
recording ;-)
Push the power button, the floppy inside, et voila, in less boot time that any today
gigahertz computer...
But I like soundfonts, so I use Timidity and Muse...
cheers
GuyCLO~
I'll
probly be one of those guys that has MusE 0.6 installed for ten
years and be saying "I remember when we slapped computers together
with sticks and mud. We didn't have fancy sound servers like Jack and
Arts. We were a simple people..." (hehe)
Jack is a great thing and I'm greatful for the times when I'm forced
to do something that will benifit other things. It looks like Jack is
the future.
Now let Me go find My Amiga computer so I can record an 8 bit 19000Hz
file (like the good old days).
Rocco
4 Dec
4 Dec
7:46 a.m.
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:34 pm, LinuxMedia wrote:
What I lament the lack of is some system whereby there is a
coordinated effort amongst a number of folks to come up with
some kind of quasi-standard in a few areas, particularly with
a "standard reference" soundfont so that when we play back any
MIDI files, for instance, and they sound the same. I'm not
suggesting some system that demands people do something in a
certain way but allows "us" to build on top of each others
efforts and explorations as ALSA and the apps that use it mature.
For instance, it's taken me a week of effort to come up with a
method of using bash shell scripts to be able to easily play
any MIDI file with Timidity using the two guspat sets and 4
or 5 soundfonts so I can get a better grip on the relative
quality of each...
. I'm sure someone has made this same effort in the past yet
I had to go through a week of hair pulling just to move a
half an inch forward... so I can _start_ to create some music
. I'm equally sure _some_ other people in the future will want
to go down this same path and so they will also have to spend
hours working it out before they can start making music
I'd like to see some structure/system whereby mine and other
peoples efforts can build up "something" to eleviate us all
(newcomers to linux audio) having to reinvent basic understanding
before we all can really get on with what ALSA is mostly about,
enabling people to not only just play, but create, music.
Like I say, one little thing I hope to do is finally create
some piece of music I am mostly happy with and then not only
provide all the parts and components as examples but try to
write up the whole procedure that went into creating this piece.
To say the very least... if someone else had already done
something like this, so I could simply follow the instructions,
then I would be VERY happy not to waste my time reinventing
wheels most likely already spinning elsewhere.
--markc
My thoughts
are to try and create a reasonable piece of music
that *I* find listenable and not too embarrasing, mainly so there
are no copyright issues, and create some oggs then write up
(heh, sure pal) a HOWTO and how I created the end result (that
will never be "ended" because it could always be reused and
re-released as another version).
...
Actually, there's much more to it than the above stuff. Of course,
there's the ongoing building of soundfonts and the extra stuff like
that. In fact, there's a lot of things like that I'm doing in along with
the above to keep inproving the situation. But aren't we all (-:
8:31 a.m.
Hi,
hursday 04 December 2003 13.45 skrev Mark Constable:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:34 pm, LinuxMedia wrote:
What I lament the lack of is some system whereby there is a
coordinated effort amongst a number of folks to come up with
some kind of quasi-standard in a few areas, particularly with
a "standard reference" soundfont so that when we play back any
MIDI files, for instance, and they sound the same. I'm not
suggesting some system that demands people do something in a
certain way but allows "us" to build on top of each others
efforts and explorations as ALSA and the apps that use it mature.
I don't know, it sounds hard to standardize sound. Isn't it a very private
thing which sounds you wish to pick?
There IS the GM standard... to me it's almost always just "in the way". I
pick
sounds much more randomly during a composition.
My
thoughts are to try and create a reasonable piece of music
that *I* find listenable and not too embarrasing, mainly so there
are no copyright issues, and create some oggs then write up
(heh, sure pal) a HOWTO and how I created the end result (that
will never be "ended" because it could always be reused and
re-released as another version).
...
Actually, there's much more to it than the above stuff. Of course,
there's the ongoing building of soundfonts and the extra stuff like
that. In fact, there's a lot of things like that I'm doing in along with
the above to keep inproving the situation. But aren't we all (-:
For instance, it's taken me a week of effort to come up with a
method of using bash shell scripts to be able to easily play
any MIDI file with Timidity using the two guspat sets and 4
or 5 soundfonts so I can get a better grip on the relative
quality of each...
See below for some comment ;).
. I'm sure someone has made this same effort in the past yet
I had to go through a week of hair pulling just to move a
half an inch forward... so I can _start_ to create some music
. I'm equally sure _some_ other people in the future will want
to go down this same path and so they will also have to spend
hours working it out before they can start making music
I'd like to see some structure/system whereby mine and other
peoples efforts can build up "something" to eleviate us all
(newcomers to linux audio) having to reinvent basic understanding
before we all can really get on with what ALSA is mostly about,
enabling people to not only just play, but create, music.
Like I say, one little thing I hope to do is finally create
some piece of music I am mostly happy with and then not only
provide all the parts and components as examples but try to
write up the whole procedure that went into creating this piece.
To say the very least... if someone else had already done
something like this, so I could simply follow the instructions,
then I would be VERY happy not to waste my time reinventing
wheels most likely already spinning elsewhere.
When it comes to music I'm also mainly interested in something that just
works. As it happens I've gotten myself involved in various other ways
including programming (it IS another interest of mine), but if I could choose
I would use something that already worked as it should.
My solution is to use the internal FluidSynth of MusE, and it continues to be
the solution since it is a working solution.
<timidity rant>I really don't understand the fuzz about timidity, I tried it
(again) a while ago, it may be true that it has good sound quality... though
noone knows for sure since it's impossible to set up ;) (a bit sarcastic, but
there is some truth to it).
Needles to say, I failed to set it up to do anything... anything at all. </>
With Fluidsynth there are several nice guis to choose from that improves
usability no-end.
Since I use the Fluidsynth that is available internally in MusE I also benefit
from the added integration that this gives, patch selection being saved with
the song file and so on... which basically brings me standing at the
just-works goal.
My 2 cents
/Robert
12:39 p.m.
<timidity rant>I really don't understand the
fuzz about timidity, I tried it
(again) a while ago, it may be true that it has good sound quality... though
noone knows for sure since it's impossible to set up ;) (a bit sarcastic, but
there is some truth to it).
Needles to say, I failed to set it up to do anything... anything at all. </>
With Fluidsynth there are several nice guis to choose from that improves
usability no-end...
My 2 cents
/Robert
Sounds like You have something that works for You. But just in case You
want to try Timidity, this is how I have it set up...
timidity -iA -B2,8 -Os -EFreverb=0 -p 256 -s 48000
I'm sure there were many benifits that convinced Me to use Timidity, but
I've forgot what they were. But one that comes to mind is the ability to
convert a .mid to a .wav.
Rocco
3 Dec
3 Dec
6:02 a.m.
At Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:27:34 +1000,
Mark Constable wrote:
no. it's a long-long-standing item in my TODO list.
Robert Jonsson wrote in answer to Eduardo
Guerrero:
The SB-Live soundcard has built in synth capabilities but no internal
sounds. You have to load a soundfont with the utility sfxload (available
in the aweutils package). This also implies that you need to setup
OSS-compatibility support in ALSA since the awe utils use that.
I anyone aware of ANY non-OSS tool to load soundfonts into
an SBlive card ? If not, would anyone be interested in looking in to
how to
rewrite sfxload so it, at least, uses the native ALSA API ?
i'll start writing it once after ALSA 1.0.0 is released and i'm back
from vacation.
but one thing i should mention. even if sfxload is rewritten to an
ALSA native app, the function wouldn't be changed much. the only
change is that the new one will use ALSA native hwdep device instead
of OSS's device. that's all. a major merit would be that you don't
need to build OSS sequencer emulation (and its setup), though.
Takashi
7:11 a.m.
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:01 pm, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Right, I think I asked the same question about a year ago and
even perhaps a year before that too :)
Excellent... it's probably an "easier" job for you than anyone
else I can think of.
Is anyone
aware of ANY non-OSS tool to load soundfonts into
an SBlive card ?
no. it's a long-long-standing item in my TODO list. If not, would
anyone be interested in looking in to how to
rewrite sfxload so it, at least, uses the native ALSA API ?
i'll start writing it once after ALSA 1.0.0 is released and i'm back
from vacation. but one thing i should mention. even if sfxload is
rewritten to an
ALSA native app, the function wouldn't be changed much. the only
change is that the new one will use ALSA native hwdep device instead
of OSS's device. that's all. a major merit would be that you don't
need to build OSS sequencer emulation (and its setup), though.
That's fine and that's the point. Anyone who wants to use their
SBlive as a synth MUST use OSS and in my case it's the only reason
to load the OSS modules. I'd like to help but I don't know where
to start.
--markc
7451
days inactive
7457
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
20 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Brian Redfern -
Dave Phillips -
Guy Daniel CLOTILDE -
Jack O'Quin -
LinuxMedia -
Mark Constable -
Robert Jonsson -
Rocco
-
Takashi Iwai -
tim hall