Re: [LAD] Music, Undecidability, and the tiling problem (was Re: update: OT-ish: realtime 2d placement algorithms :-/)
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 13:54 -0500, Charles Henry wrote: I would like a computer to be able to say, This would sound good, if I were a human. Better yet, I'd like the computer to describe it to me in numbers that I myself could not calculate. The question then becomes: Do androids really dream of electric sheep, and if so, why would we care? - Computer, explain: Like tears in rain ?! Ravi Shankar in one his masterclasses (televised here recently) talked about hitting an inner melancholic string. If you can find that and get it to resonate so you can feel it, then others will feel it too. This is to a certain degree bound to be dependent on the cultural background of the involved parties, what kind of musical vocabulary they possess - not all elements of music can easily be explained by heartbeats or simple Pythagorean relationships, and just like with any other language you may hit an initial language barrier where it doesn't matter how beautiful a poem or well written a scientific article you present; if the audience do not recognize the words it will be in vain. As an aside, this is not in any way to say that you need to understand the /lyrics/ of a song to get the underlying musical structure - certainly not if the structure is very direct and efficiently exposed. I believe that just about anybody on this planet would be able to understand that these tongue wrestling Karelian chicks easily could eat up Pythagoras in a heartbeat: Värttinä - Käppee [*] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4YRT-MZR_U Keith Emerson, while working on the Trilogy album, also talked about searching for a kind of resonance with inner emotions - doing it by actually living them out on the piano - and then how he would use formal composition only at a later stage, as a touch-up to make ends meet. So here again we have an expert in the field in favor of using your own mind and mental abilities as the primary tool. It makes perfect sense to me - because, hopefully, the intended audience will be a lot more like people like yourself rather than, say, people from Mars. Emerson - Composing The Endless Enigma http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abVhSCzByw8 Judging by the number of ambitious ELP covers on YouTube - not all of them equally interesting - he did manage to hit a note within quite a few, and still do. As an example, here a really cool French acoustic jazz rendering with strings. No Hammond organs was stabbed to death during this performance: Jad Den - Trilogy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNxoIDPoURY So there you have it, at the end of the day, when the last note has been written down and gone to print, as a composer - human or inhuman - you would still end up being at the complete mercy of the musicians who are eventually going to play your music. It is their sound judgment while being in the process of making what was yours into their own, that decides whether the music will finally reach out to a real human audience. If they then in that process are not listening for that inner resonance Shankar talked about, then that just won't happen. You will instead end up with something only a refrigerator could enjoy. And even if computers one day, somehow, might be programmed to elegantly dream of electric sheep, it will still be a poor substitute for us. Because we are not. /j * For an alternative rendering of Käppee, try: Бони НЕМ :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to12RY_p2Rs ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Music, Undecidability, and the tiling problem (was Re: update: OT-ish: realtime 2d placement algorithms :-/)
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Paul Davis p...@linuxaudiosystems.com wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Charles Henry czhe...@gmail.com wrote: The degree to which computers can compose music depends on the success of modeling musical experience in humans. I'm willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt with regards this claim, because I suspect you mean it in a different way than you wrote it. I don't think that having a model of human musical experience is at all a necessary component of computer composition, just as it isn't for human composition. I feel that this can be said with some confidence given the fact that *different* humans have wildly different musical experiences when presented with the same material. There is no comprehensive model of human musical experience, because there is no comprehensive human musical experience. True, there's a lot going on and a lot of factors to consider. I should have said, at some level of musical experience, because we all have a lot in common. Barring amusia or any other major hearing difficulty, people's sensory experience is much the same. Up to the primary auditory cortex, the auditory system is highly specialized. It's a neural architecture driven by evolution in pursuit of specific auditory functions, that precedes learning and exposure to music. For example, pitch perception is no longer considered a learned, template-matched response (as it has been debated since the 60s/70s), but is intrinsic to neurons themselves (see works by Julyan (JHE) Carwright and Dante Chialvo, for reference). At some level of conscious experience, we all hear the same things. However a powerful model should also be able to explain why people hear things differently. As musicians and composers, we approach the tiling problem with a set of techniques, instruments, and vocabulary. We are able to get direct, immediate feedback on the effectiveness of a giving tiling, which computers, at present, cannot. Not sure about this either. Its only been in the very recent past that human composers could compose anything for an ensemble and get direct immediate feedback on the effectiveness. In fact, a lot of the skill of the composers of western classical music from the baroque era on seem to hinge on their ability to *imagine* what the composition would sound like rather than have any direct, immediate feedback on their ideas. I perhaps should have used the term capable rather than able, b/c what I was really getting at was the complete lack of a computer's ability to say, this sounds good :) I would like a computer to be able to say, This would sound good, if I were a human. Better yet, I'd like the computer to describe it to me in numbers that I myself could not calculate. There's certainly no point in having a computer tell me what I already know, because I was there, I heard it, and I know what I like. But I also can't listen to all the possibilities of music, though a sufficiently powerful computer could do so. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Music, Undecidability, and the tiling problem (was Re: update: OT-ish: realtime 2d placement algorithms :-/)
Paul Davisp...@linuxaudiosystems.com: this might be how users of ableton live think about making music, and more generally, users of computer software aimed at pattern-based music composition/creation. but i would submit that if you offered this description of making music to musicians who play instruments or sing, they would find it unrecognizable. Well... I guess one important element in the tiling/sequencing issue (forgive me for my lack of the exact mathematical knowledge) is time-domain. Much of Music and it's drama, versus for instance painting, is time: suspense, arousal/relaxation etc. have to do with time. So if you take a piece which are the 'tiles'? Measures? themes of the 'sonata' form? Simply recurring elements? So if on the one hand many academics disregard 'quality' composition as a mere juxtaposition of cool sounding melodies or progressions, on the other hand it's true that the time-domain calls for some sort of tiling in the sense that something comes after something Mathematics is fundamental to music -- everything from the relationship of notes to frequency, to what people consider musical, or rhythmic... has to do with math, group theory, etc. This is putting the cart before the horse. People were making music long before there was any remotest concept of mathematics. Many of us still work on the basis of just noodling about and 'ooo, that sounds nice' without the slightest thought of relationships etc. Ok but the fact that people used mathematical relationships without being fully aware of them (e.g. I IV V I progression) doesn't mean the relationships don't exist or aren't important. The whole 'western' tonal system is heavily dependent on this 'maths' we like it or not :) The only time I ever think about chords, progressions, is when I've more-or-less finished a composition and/or want to collaborate with someone else. When I was a child, I put together a construction of timber and waxed string. To this day I don't have the faintest idea what the string tunings were. I just know it produced some lovely sound combinations. Group/orchestral instrument synth makers are no doubt deeply involved in the mathematics of their designs, but the players don't necessarily have any concept of this. A friend of mine is a member of a local choral group. He can't read music, just uses the dots as a vague reminder of when bits go up, down speed up or slow down. He seems quite happy like that. There may be incredible mathematical 'truths' in music, but I think it will be a very sad day when people concentrate on these rather than just having fun. Being (as I said) a musician and not a mathematician I have to say that I don't like much this kind of maths=boring=kills the fun etc. When I started studying electronic music and also some of the physics and maths behind it I was clearly fascinated to learn some of the things behind music, and I still have great fun making it.. but of course that's me :) Lorenzo ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Music, Undecidability, and the tiling problem (was Re: update: OT-ish: realtime 2d placement algorithms :-/)
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Chris Cannam can...@all-day-breakfast.com wrote: I think the point Neils has is just that the outcome of your noodling is somewhat independent of your explicit intention. Notes that sound satisfying together are probably going to sound satisfying largely because of some intrinsic mathematical relationship, or at least something that is probably open to analysis to some extent but that you don't yourself understand or plan. Quite an interesting philosophical avenue here, and one that's fairly well trodden in other fields (ask an English theory student about Wimsatt and Beardsley). I've been reluctant to weigh in, because I just know I'm going to blah blah about math, waste time, and no one will care :) I'm good at it. When we consider the analysis of what sounds good, we are probing a psychological question. The mind, being completely un-observable and distinct in study from the brain itself, is impossible to measure directly. We can model the mind, and analyze whether or not our model fits with observed behavior. The actual intrinsic math that goes on in the brain and its counterpart, the mind, cannot be exactly known. So, what we do is model the various interacting processes that make up our direct experience of music and sound. This approach is, in fact, objective despite the fact that we may not be able to explain all of the significant interpersonal and moment-to-moment sources of variation that affect our experience. It's really an exciting time for the study of music psychology (and I've been saying so for 10 years). The degree to which computers can compose music depends on the success of modeling musical experience in humans. As musicians and composers, we approach the tiling problem with a set of techniques, instruments, and vocabulary. We are able to get direct, immediate feedback on the effectiveness of a giving tiling, which computers, at present, cannot. Currently, computers have expanded our techniques and instruments while people have expanded their vocabulary to compose new and novel music with them. The point I'm getting at: the structure isn't in the music itself, it's in the mind of the listener. I've been toying around with the idea of modeling high-dimensional psychoacoustic spaces as non-linear manifolds (I'll skip the subject for now, b/c I'm not sure I can describe it). Because I intend to work on it, I do think that successive approximations through modeling are possible that will push the outer boundary of musical vocabulary and instruments further than musicians and composers alone could. Chuck ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Music, Undecidability, and the tiling problem (was Re: update: OT-ish: realtime 2d placement algorithms :-/)
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Charles Henry czhe...@gmail.com wrote: The degree to which computers can compose music depends on the success of modeling musical experience in humans. I'm willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt with regards this claim, because I suspect you mean it in a different way than you wrote it. I don't think that having a model of human musical experience is at all a necessary component of computer composition, just as it isn't for human composition. I feel that this can be said with some confidence given the fact that *different* humans have wildly different musical experiences when presented with the same material. There is no comprehensive model of human musical experience, because there is no comprehensive human musical experience. As musicians and composers, we approach the tiling problem with a set of techniques, instruments, and vocabulary. We are able to get direct, immediate feedback on the effectiveness of a giving tiling, which computers, at present, cannot. Not sure about this either. Its only been in the very recent past that human composers could compose anything for an ensemble and get direct immediate feedback on the effectiveness. In fact, a lot of the skill of the composers of western classical music from the baroque era on seem to hinge on their ability to *imagine* what the composition would sound like rather than have any direct, immediate feedback on their ideas. The point I'm getting at: the structure isn't in the music itself, it's in the mind of the listener. I'm with you 100% here. For years I've been trying to figure out what the music I like all has in common. There must be something, some common experience i told myself. I *must* be able to find it. Its only been in the last couple of years that I've realized I had this ass backwards. All the music I like has one and only one thing in common: me. I, the humble listener, am the thing that unites the bach cello suites with steve roach with touamani diabate with shawn lane with steve reich with the cinematic orchestra with interpol (to name just a few). not the music, not the structure. the listener is at the center of it all, and each listener is a different locus where some kind of rorschach-like experience takes places uniting musical experiences in unpredictable and, I suspect, utterly un-musical ways. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
[LAD] Music, Undecidability, and the tiling problem (was Re: update: OT-ish: realtime 2d placement algorithms :-/)
Related to my last reply to your question about the tiling problem vs undecidability... Ever since they started putting out relevant articles for computer scientists (in the last year), the American Math Society monthly Notices has gone from dull to fascinating; in the spirit of open-source, all the articles are available free and online. The latest ( http://www.ams.org/notices/201003/ ), focusing on Cryptography issues, has an excellent article that goes into the tiling problem in great detail -- and yet is a very clear explanation (IMHO) that isn't predicated on incomprehensible (to the general public) mathematical formalisms. http://www.ams.org/notices/201003/rtx100300343p.pdf Can't Decide? Undecide! by Chaim Goodman-Strauss See also: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/tiling/ I've posted previously about other excellent articles in a previous issue Mathematics and the Arts ( http://www.ams.org/notices/201001/ ) with a though-provoking introductory essay by Sir Michael Atiyah : In the broad light of day mathemati- cians check their equations and their proofs, leaving no stone unturned in their search for rigour. But, at night, under the full moon, they dream, they float among the stars and wonder at the miracle of the heavens. They are inspired. Without dreams there is no art, no mathematics, no life. Niels http://nielsmayer.com PS: I think the tiling problem is actually a direct analogy to music making... which involves fitting together tiles (musical passages, patterns, etc) that are highly constrained in terms of geometry (pitch, key, time-signature, BPM, starting and ending pitches or chords). Music making is clearly an undecidable problem, which is where human creativity comes in. Can computers help us tile music more easily and therefore augment our musical creativity?? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Music, Undecidability, and the tiling problem (was Re: update: OT-ish: realtime 2d placement algorithms :-/)
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Niels Mayer nielsma...@gmail.com wrote: PS: I think the tiling problem is actually a direct analogy to music making... which involves fitting together tiles (musical passages, patterns, etc) that are highly constrained in terms of geometry (pitch, key, time-signature, BPM, starting and ending pitches or chords). Music making is clearly an undecidable problem, which is where human creativity comes in. Can computers help us tile music more easily and therefore augment our musical creativity?? this might be how users of ableton live think about making music, and more generally, users of computer software aimed at pattern-based music composition/creation. but i would submit that if you offered this description of making music to musicians who play instruments or sing, they would find it unrecognizable. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Music, Undecidability, and the tiling problem (was Re: update: OT-ish: realtime 2d placement algorithms :-/)
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:59:45AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Niels Mayer nielsma...@gmail.com wrote: music making involves fitting together tiles (musical passages, patterns, etc) that are highly constrained in terms of geometry (pitch, key, time-signature, BPM, starting and ending pitches or chords). but i would submit that if you offered this description of making music to musicians who play instruments or sing, they would find it unrecognizable. Actually, I think most musicians would recognise this concept (though perhaps not when explained with too technical nomenclature), especially those who ever dabbled in composition, improvisation or even just playing together with someone else. Generally, a 'pleasing' piece contains enough 'structure' (chord progressions, chorus/verse/chorus, melody line vs counter-melody, even 'genre' in a way, etc) for the structure to be recognisable (instead of dissonant and random), yet not so much that it'd get predictable/boring. It doesn't seem far-fetched to use a computer to recognise (impro-visor) and/or apply (sibelius/finale plugins etc) those structures - at least to some extent. How far this envelope can be pushed and integrated into a composers' workflow - well - that's just interesting :). Arnout ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Music, Undecidability, and the tiling problem (was Re: update: OT-ish: realtime 2d placement algorithms :-/)
Paul Davis p...@linuxaudiosystems.com: this might be how users of ableton live think about making music, and more generally, users of computer software aimed at pattern-based music composition/creation. but i would submit that if you offered this description of making music to musicians who play instruments or sing, they would find it unrecognizable. Mathematics is fundamental to music -- everything from the relationship of notes to frequency, to what people consider musical, or rhythmic... has to do with math, group theory, etc. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what musicians recognize... what matters is what music *is* -- and when that *is* causes an audience to cheer, be moved emotionally, get up and dance, etc. Chances are, anybody too close to their own subject will be unable to actually recognize it's true shape and meaning -- due to can't see the forest for the trees syndrome Computer tools, pattern-based or not, are there to help us see that forest, (but usually lead us down the garden path instead). Sources: Book: David Wright's Mathematics and Music Book: J. Fauvel, R. Flood, and R. Wilson (eds.), Music and Mathematics: From Pythagoras to Fractals, Oxford, New York, 2003. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5783/72/DC1 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/313/5783/72/DC1/1 The Geometry of Musical Chords by Dmitri Tymoczko http://www.ams.org/notices/201001/rtx100100030p.pdf Music: Broken Symmetry, Geometry, and Complexity ( http://www.uwec.edu/walkerjs/MBSGC/ ) excerpt . Example 15 (Melody and rhythm in “Unsquare Dance”). In the 1961 Dave Brubeck Quartet’s recording of “Unsquare Dance” [94], there is an amazing performance involving hand claps, piano notes, and bass notes all played in the unusual time signature of 7 . In Figure 16 we show our analysis of the melody and rhythm in a passage from “Unsquare Dance”. We used three different frequency ranges from the spectrogram to isolate the different instruments from the passage. The passage begins with a transition from rapid drum- stick strikings to hand clappings when the piano enters. The rhythm of the hand clappings plus piano notes has a 7 time signature. Notice that the bass notes are playing with a simple repetition of 4 beats that helps the other musicians play within this unusual time signature. In sum, the analysis shown in Figure 16 provides quantitative evidence for the “tightness” (rhythmic coherence) with which these musicians are performing. Niels http://nielsmayer.com ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Music, Undecidability, and the tiling problem (was Re: update: OT-ish: realtime 2d placement algorithms :-/)
On Tue, 25 May 2010 12:31:57 -0700 Niels Mayer nielsma...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Davis p...@linuxaudiosystems.com: this might be how users of ableton live think about making music, and more generally, users of computer software aimed at pattern-based music composition/creation. but i would submit that if you offered this description of making music to musicians who play instruments or sing, they would find it unrecognizable. Mathematics is fundamental to music -- everything from the relationship of notes to frequency, to what people consider musical, or rhythmic... has to do with math, group theory, etc. This is putting the cart before the horse. People were making music long before there was any remotest concept of mathematics. Many of us still work on the basis of just noodling about and 'ooo, that sounds nice' without the slightest thought of relationships etc. The only time I ever think about chords, progressions, is when I've more-or-less finished a composition and/or want to collaborate with someone else. When I was a child, I put together a construction of timber and waxed string. To this day I don't have the faintest idea what the string tunings were. I just know it produced some lovely sound combinations. Group/orchestral instrument synth makers are no doubt deeply involved in the mathematics of their designs, but the players don't necessarily have any concept of this. A friend of mine is a member of a local choral group. He can't read music, just uses the dots as a vague reminder of when bits go up, down speed up or slow down. He seems quite happy like that. There may be incredible mathematical 'truths' in music, but I think it will be a very sad day when people concentrate on these rather than just having fun. -- 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. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Music, Undecidability, and the tiling problem (was Re: update: OT-ish: realtime 2d placement algorithms :-/)
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Folderol folde...@ukfsn.org wrote: On Tue, 25 May 2010 12:31:57 -0700 Niels Mayer nielsma...@gmail.com wrote: Mathematics is fundamental to music -- everything from the relationship of notes to frequency, to what people consider musical, or rhythmic... has to do with math, group theory, etc. This is putting the cart before the horse. People were making music long before there was any remotest concept of mathematics. Many of us still work on the basis of just noodling about and 'ooo, that sounds nice' without the slightest thought of relationships etc. I think the point Neils has is just that the outcome of your noodling is somewhat independent of your explicit intention. Notes that sound satisfying together are probably going to sound satisfying largely because of some intrinsic mathematical relationship, or at least something that is probably open to analysis to some extent but that you don't yourself understand or plan. Quite an interesting philosophical avenue here, and one that's fairly well trodden in other fields (ask an English theory student about Wimsatt and Beardsley). As an angle for compositional software, this suggests that if you can begin to model what actually happens, you may be able to help to short-circuit your limited understanding of your own work. The problem with that (as I think Paul was saying?) is that as long as the model can be comprehended, the departures from it will continue to be more interesting than the model itself. Excuse me, I've probably had a glass of interesting Croatian red too many. Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Music, Undecidability, and the tiling problem (was Re: update: OT-ish: realtime 2d placement algorithms :-/)
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 03:46:23PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Niels Mayer nielsma...@gmail.com wrote: Ultimately, it doesn't matter what musicians recognize... what matters is what music *is* i believe it was lord kelvin who once said don't mistake your models for reality. anyone who thinks that there is a single way to adequately describe music clearly hasn't listened to enough of it yet. True. After probably more than half of the time I'll have to understand how music works and why we are so sensitive to it, I'm nowhere at all. It's way too complicated. The 'math' relation can't be ignored. Clearly our brain loves to discover and decode patterns, and see expectations based on them either first contrasted and then confirmed. I'm not a big Arvo Part fan, but I do like some his works. One of the best known ones, 'Fratres' [*] is very 'mathematical', you can describe it by 3 or 4 nested for() loops with very little code inside. But it has this haunting beauty that works even if you don't consciously discover the structure. Ciao, [*] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4UecUwdalI -- FA O tu, che porte, correndo si ? E guerra e morte ! ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Music, Undecidability, and the tiling problem (was Re: update: OT-ish: realtime 2d placement algorithms :-/)
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Chris Cannam can...@all-day-breakfast.com wrote: I think the point Neils has is just that the outcome of your noodling is somewhat independent of your explicit intention. Notes that sound satisfying together are probably going to sound satisfying largely because of some intrinsic mathematical relationship, or at least something that is probably open to analysis to some extent but that you don't yourself understand or plan. testify(wordUp); /*Chris, thanks for clarifying my point!*/ Consider how the snowflake, the mountain, coastlines, leaves and trees, whose shapes put the cart before the horse of the mathematics of fractals: http://www.ams.org/notices/201001/rtx100100010p.pdf (the most mind-blowing AMS paper i've read so far: is DNA and life itself shaped fractally in the same way time and erosion sculpts a mountain?). nature put the cart before the horse of analog synthesizers/computers when it made the sounds in the link below, without ever conceiving of operational-amplifiers: http://boingboing.net/2010/01/17/cracking-ice-sheets.html Last time I was thinking about this in public, I said: The other thing that would be interesting is to explore the intersection between fractal self-similarities and rhythm/melody. Is music, and that which sounds musical fractal in nature, much like when we see something and instantly identify tree or mountain or coastline because of their fractal nature? Do we appreciate when music is more fractal, versus being a kind of latticework, infinite pattern, or just a random potpourri of sounds strung together for no purpose? Niels http://nielsmayer.com ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
