Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Jens M Andreasen
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 21:43 -0400, David Robillard wrote: With buffer-size 3 × 1.3 ms @96KHz I have clock cycles to spare and can at ease display a stream of video (320×200) simultaneously for doing a soundtrack to some movie or something. And more ... Interesting... I am surprised you

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas
On Monday, August 10, 2009, Luis Garrido wrote: For what is worth, Qt's documentation is simply superb Agreed. Another excellent C++ multiplatform toolkit is Juce. It is worth to try it if you are writting audio/MIDI software. http://juce.sourceforge.net Regards, Pedro

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Steve Harris
On 11 Aug 2009, at 08:04, Jens M Andreasen wrote: On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 07:45 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: O If that's what the CUDA interface to the outside world looks like then wouldn't it be better to expose it as a JACK App, which loads CUDA- specific plugins onto the graphics card?

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Adrian Knoth
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 01:54:39PM +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote: It's not ideal, but assembling all the jack buffers into one big one is not going to be that much load on the CPU. OK .. Adrian Knoth showed some interest and says he knows his way around in jackd as well as a colleague

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Steve Harris
On 11 Aug 2009, at 12:54, Jens M Andreasen wrote: Continuing this increasingly inaccurately christened thread .. On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 11:26 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: It's not ideal, but assembling all the jack buffers into one big one is not going to be that much load on the CPU. OK ..

Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux

2009-08-11 Thread Chuckk Hubbard
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 7:49 PM, David Robillardd...@drobilla.net wrote: On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 03:40 +0300, Chuckk Hubbard wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Jens M Andreasenjens.andrea...@comhem.se wrote: On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 20:10 +0300, Chuckk Hubbard wrote: How much do normal

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Jens M Andreasen
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 00:32 +1000, Loki Davison wrote: Could you run convolution algo's i.e jconv stuff on the card via cuda? That's a very good question! One user vvolkov from Berkeley has posted some specially designed and optimized code for FFT sizes 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096 and 8192

Re: [LAD] LV2::GUI void port_event() and MIDI in?

2009-08-11 Thread Ulrich Lorenz Schlüter
On 08/11/2009 03:37 AM, David Robillard wrote: On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 00:12 +0200, Ulrich Lorenz Schlüter wrote: On 08/11/2009 12:03 AM, David Robillard wrote: On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 23:42 +0200, Ulrich Lorenz Schlüter wrote: On 08/10/2009 11:29 PM, David Robillard wrote:

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Ralf Mardorf
David Robillard wrote: using your desktop theme which might be bad, too. Ick! Using the desktop theme is not bad! The user chose it for a reason! Less atrocious and weird looking skinned UI's designed by seemingly half-blind artistically retarded programmers, please :) -dr

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Ralf Mardorf
Jens M Andreasen wrote: Really, an Atari ST is more responsive. For me TOS is still the best OS for MIDI usage with external MIDI equipment, but this isn't true, the Atari ST's response is very good when using a Blitter, but very bad when not using a Blitter. For Linux I noticed, that when

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Jens M Andreasen
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 00:32 +1000, Loki Davison wrote: Could you run convolution algo's i.e jconv stuff on the card via cuda? Forget what I wrote before. Since everything else has a take no prisoners, just instigate a bloody massacre aproach, then why not run 32 instances of jconv in parallel?

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Vincent Torri
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Ralf Mardorf wrote: For me TOS is still the best OS for MIDI usage with external MIDI equipment, but this isn't true, the Atari ST's response is very good when using a Blitter, but very bad when not using a Blitter. For Linux I noticed, that when running into trouble

Re: [LAD] linux audio standards base?

2009-08-11 Thread Ralf Mardorf
*???* Pulseaudio, 64-bit and JACK are a strange issue. I'm using 64-bit, the proprietary flash for 64-bit and I can run JACK, use audio software, e.g. Qtractor and at the same time watch YouTube etc.. Pulseaudio is not installed. Am I missing something, because I don't have Pulseaudio? Ralf

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread David Robillard
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 11:21 +0200, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote: On Monday, August 10, 2009, Luis Garrido wrote: For what is worth, Qt's documentation is simply superb Agreed. Another excellent C++ multiplatform toolkit is Juce. It is worth to try it if you are writting audio/MIDI

Re: [LAD] Lv2 port replication [was Re: the role of lv2 extensions]

2009-08-11 Thread David Robillard
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 15:15 +0100, james morris wrote: Hi all, I've been thinking about this dynamic ports idea, but without looking at the specification and without understanding how LV2 hosts work so much... So a few thoughts and/or questions: creation of a port property which

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread David Robillard
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 09:04 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote: On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 07:45 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: O If that's what the CUDA interface to the outside world looks like then wouldn't it be better to expose it as a JACK App, which loads CUDA- specific plugins onto the

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Ralf Mardorf
Vincent Torri wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Ralf Mardorf wrote: For me TOS is still the best OS for MIDI usage with external MIDI equipment, but this isn't true, the Atari ST's response is very good when using a Blitter, but very bad when not using a Blitter. For Linux I noticed, that when

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 06:50:50PM +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote: That would be four warps independently working their way through the variously sized sample blocks, each thread execting serial code that looks very much the same as jconv itself, including the threading. Note that the

Re: [LAD] Lv2 port replication [was Re: the role of lv2 extensions]

2009-08-11 Thread Steve Harris
On 11 Aug 2009, at 18:41, David Robillard wrote: i keep thinking about arrays. passing an array of outputs to connect to the plugin's inputs. null terminated array ( but this would require a new connect() method in the lv2core, which probably is a bad solution ). The connect method

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Ralf Mardorf
Vincent Torri wrote: E17 looks well, but when I used it a long time ago on another machine it was disgusting experimental ;). well, we work hard for a release, so a lot of things has been fixed / stabilized. Maybe you can try it again. I'll try it again. I can't play the OGG? Are you

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Jens M Andreasen
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 19:54 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 06:50:50PM +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote: That would be four warps independently working their way through the variously sized sample blocks, each thread execting serial code that looks very much the same

Re: [LAD] Lv2 port replication [was Re: the role of lv2 extensions]

2009-08-11 Thread David Robillard
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 19:01 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: On 11 Aug 2009, at 18:41, David Robillard wrote: i keep thinking about arrays. passing an array of outputs to connect to the plugin's inputs. null terminated array ( but this would require a new connect() method in the lv2core,

Re: [LAD] Lv2 port replication [was Re: the role of lv2 extensions]

2009-08-11 Thread Steve Harris
On 11 Aug 2009, at 20:09, David Robillard wrote: You might actually want a struct of { int channels; float *data[]; } though to keep all the pertinent stuff together. Good point... this also sets things up to be compatible with plugin-allocated dynamic output buffers in the future without

Re: [LAD] FLTK vs GTKmm

2009-08-11 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 08:56:56PM +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote: Say warp A (or process A) must do four smaller workloads while warp B is doing one bigger workload? The way to go would then be for warp B to call __syncthreads() when 25% of its work is done, thus assuring that warp A will be

Re: [LAD] Lv2 port replication [was Re: the role of lv2 extensions]

2009-08-11 Thread David Robillard
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 20:54 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: On 11 Aug 2009, at 20:09, David Robillard wrote: You might actually want a struct of { int channels; float *data[]; } though to keep all the pertinent stuff together. Good point... this also sets things up to be compatible with