On 30 Sep 2005 at 1:07, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 29.09.2005 23:41 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote: > > >So they listen for the soundcard input? How did you feed the MP3 > > >into that? > > > > I had to initiate playback in an MP3 player, and tell it what device > > to listen to. > > Yes, but you still haven't answered my question: how did the output > get to the input? Inside or outside the computer? Ie, did you connect > the output to the input?
The soundcard is INSIDE the computer. It's a device that is part of the audio interface of the computer. The spectrographic analysis application was listening to the output from this device, just as Audacity listens to the audio output from it. Since I have only one audio device in my PC, there was only one choice for the output. As to input into the soundcard, the MP3 or WAV player sends it to the audio card. The analysis programs listens to the output of that and analyzes it. That process of passing through my soundcard obviously shapes the wave according to the amount of innacuracy and distortion inherent in my sound card. > > >> It was not clear to me that these applications could not open > > >> files. But it is still not clear to me how you actually manage > > >> to play any files through them. > > > > I said this in my first posts explaining that none of the > > software I'd tried worked for me. You just missed it, obviously. > > Well, from your post, which I just re-read just to be sure, I > understood that the analysis software came as a plugin, and you > used that inside other software which played back your MP3 > file. . . The first one I downloaded was an AU plugin, but I said in my post about it that I don't have any software that can be the host application for AU plugins, so that it was useless to me. > . . . That's > actually the most common way for such analysis software to work > these days, so it is not all that ridiculous for me to assume this > was the case. . .. Well, except for the fact that I explicitly said that I wasn't using an AU plugin because I was incapable of doing so, then your assumptions would be correct. > . . . In such a scenario your soundcard would indeed not have > played any role in the process. And I'd already said that I wasn't able to use an AU plugin. > Whatever the case, I really, really think that my posts were > perhaps annoying to you, but in no way offensive or abusive. I was > merely trying to help you. But you ignored most of the crucial facts that were stated in my posts. > Your post, on the other hand, was, imho, completely unacceptable on > a forum like this, and I really ask you to come to your senses and > learn some manners. . . . Well, perhaps I was misreading the tone of your posts, but each time you repeated the lecture about how my soundcard was not involved (despite having had the opportunity to read the facts that I'd already posted that should have given you enough information to know that my soundcard was, indeed, involved), I interpreted it with a tone that was decidedly unflattering to you. Think about how it feels to have 3 or 4 posts in a row telling you that you're wrong about what you're saying, and you'll know exactly how I felt in response to your posts. Oh, you've had those 3 or 4 posts from me telling you that you're wrong? Well, guess what -- you're experiencing pretty much exactly what it was like to receive the posts from you lecturing me on the "fact" that my soundcard was not involved. The only difference was that I used ALL CAPS and you didn't. > . . . It really p§$%$sses me off how you treat > others, including me, who only tried to help you. You do this at > almost regular intervals. Any normal discussion you enter will > almost certainly end with you offending others. It is completely > unneccessary and not asked for. You're welcome to filter all my posts to your email client's trashcan. I see nothing wrong with my tone. I've seen far, far worse in any number of forums. And perhaps, as in the present instance, you are bringing assumptions to the discourse that are unwarranted or, as in the present instance, factually incorrect. Perhaps you misread my posts because, as in the current instance, you're not paying sufficient attention to the facts involved. Either way, your reaction to *my* posts is entirely within your control. It's not my job to tip-toe around my imaginary idea of how sensitive people reading my posts might be. And I only respond strongly when there's something to justify a response. And I post plenty in which there isn't even anything overly strong involved, just plain old answering questions. My guess is that you don't notice those because they don't stand out in your mind. But, again, it's all in your hands -- it's your reaction, and if you don't want to experience it, don't read my posts. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
