On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 14:42 +0400, Andrew Gaydenko wrote:
> Hi, All!
>
> Say, we have such audio-chain:
>
> 1. analogue source (say, mic-amp),
Adds noise.
> 2. sound card's line input (let sound card be rme hdsp9632),
Soundcard must dither correctly (This sorts the linearity of the
quantisatio
On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 09:45 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2007, at 13:56, Dan Mills wrote:
> > Be very careful how you write float->int conversions (it is not
> > trivial), and work in floating point as far as is possible, there is
> > little reason (other th
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 19:07 -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
>
> Same with LV2 ports; works perfectly for port types. Problem is,
> sticking a URI in each /event/ is far too bloated/slow.
>
I am coming horribly late to this discussion, so I might be being thick,
but what happens if each event con
On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 20:57 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
>
> http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Data_Sheets/AD1988A_1988B.pdf#xml=http://search.analog.com/search/pdfPainter.aspx?url=http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Data_Sheets/AD1988A_1988B.pdf&fterm=pcm&fterm=pcm&la=en
>
> .. appears to b
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 15:31 -0500, Eric Shattow wrote:
> Correction: the Indigo IO is 2 in / 2 out; the Indigo DJ is 0 in, 4
> out
>
> Unless I am mistaken.
>
> I'm guessing that the F/OSS options are basically:
>
> Custom board design with PCI envy24 chipset => ALSA : JACK / ~2ms
> IEEE1394 d
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 20:21 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
>
> Heh, this might be crazy enough to work, with O_DIRECT|O_SYNC and
> exclusive access to the raw block device.
> Heck, I've seen embedded audio devices that implement PCM as a stream
> of MIDI messages ;-)
>
> Wouldn't recommend it if your t
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 20:21 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Sorry, but that forum is located in just the right place: in the
> vicinity of other pseudoscientists and ufologists. Water has been
> their favourite topic for ages (I mentioned the "Age of Aquarius"
> deliberately). If you want some mor
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 09:38 -0400, Fred Gleason wrote:
> I can sure vouch for the truth of this. Been in enough high-power
> broadcasting plants (>=50 kW) at both MW and FM frequencies to see it lots of
> times. It can be a real bugbear, especially with consumer or even semi-pro
> gear.
Even
On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 14:56 +0200, Olivier Guilyardi wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> why don't you answer on the mailing list?
I thought I had!
> > That is a fairly common approach, one thread per core is good. I have
> > code that reads audio, sample rate converts it, time-stretches it if
> > appropriate
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 21:03 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> Both are examples of braindead ways to do things,
> both originate from the same source. Dbus ties
> jackd to the desktop and is just one more example
> of the same insane evolution.
Indeed.
I might be way off base, but what is wrong wi
On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 18:57 +1000, Fraser wrote:
>
> The amount of headroom between 0dB on the VU to digital 0dB is selectable from
> - -15dB to -3 dB. There is no right value for this, it really depends on the
> music, so just pick whatever value that causes the VU to spend most of it's
> time
On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 18:26 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> - Bad! Having a VU meter that can be adjusted to allegedly be in sync
> with some analogue VU meter never ever will be fine. Compare margin for
> your digital meters and the meters on your mixing console by playing the
> same song seve
On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 20:08 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> On English, for international broadcasting you need different
> adjustments. But then it's important that the meter is informed about
> the analogue mixer of the sound card too ;). I guess it will become
> nearly impossible to fit a dB
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 12:56 -0400, Raymond Martin wrote:
>
> 15 meters is a recommendation based on typical cables used in a simple system.
> Data corruption ensues somewhere after 15m, depending on cable quality, EMI,
> and so forth. I would imagine a CAT5 as having better shielding and IIRC runs
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 10:52 +1100, David wrote:
> Another thing about the that MIDI spec is where it says "optoisolators
> ... rise and fall times should be less than 2 microseconds" which is
> amusing because the total time of one midi bit is 3.2 microseconds. So
> don't imagine you have nice squ
On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 17:33 +0100, Ludovic RESLINGER wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm student in computer science and for one of my projects, I
> would like to program an audio player.
>
> The player will be developed for GNU/Linux environment but I would like
> to use an audio library which permit a port
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 23:34 +0100, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> But take into account that 192 kHz is the same
> type of marketing scam as gold-plated optical
> connectors. In other words completely useless.
...For audio!
However, I am seeing something being discussed that could potentially
ha
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 11:37 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>
>http://www.mega-nerd.com/libsndfile/FAQ.html#Q020
>
> When the patents expire I'll support MP3.
>
Well, MPEG 1 layer II is (as far as I can tell) due to expire this year
and supporting it as both a raw mp2 file and as a compr
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 11:53 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>
> Sure! As long as its LGPL compatible code and not your pipe/dup2/execve
> hack :-).
While that is undeniably a hack of the first order, it does hide a
certain truth in that a lot of the lossy audio codecs out there have a
bit of a
On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 12:14 -0700, Rory Filer wrote:
> * What's the general flow of the data from the disk file (or
> streaming audio source) to the device driver? Is it: MP3file
> -> streaming software -> codec -> driver or// MP3file ->
> streaming software -> Codec
On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 22:15 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 20:57 +0100, James Morris wrote:
>
> A comparison to the C64 is caring it to extremes, perhaps I should
> compare to at least 80286.
> It became very hard to learn and it was very easy years ago. Not
(only)
> failure by
On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 22:56 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Good to read about this issue. I always disable the on-board audio
> devices, but I would add a second PCI card to my PC and sync it with
the
> already installed sound card, so I better don't do it. It at least
would
> be nice to have sever
On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 23:35 +0200, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> Well, at least those sound cards that provide both audio and midi
> *could* do this - timestamp incoming midi and provide that info
> in some way, and requiring similar time stamps for outgoing midi.
Could do it even with separate m
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 00:04 +0200, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> What an EQ is supposed to do doesn't in any way depend on the
> signal level. As long as you don't have any non-linear things
> in the signal chain (dynamics and some effects) it doesn't
> matter where you do the EQ.
Except that p
On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 00:11 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
>
> Actually, it's quite swift and effective method; it's the cutting and
> stripping of the wires that's a PITA, unless you have a really good
> tool - which I didn't at the time! :-D
Yep a good tool makes all the difference as does using
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 09:23 +, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
> But even that won't work if there is just one output connected
> to the loopback input: the optimisation means its data is not
> copied and you will see an empty buffer anyway.
That seems likely to be the problem, but the internal met
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 09:34 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Dan Mills wrote:
>
> > From your comments I take it that a patch to jack has been tried and
> > rejected?
>
> it hasn't, and i was planning to cook one up since fons has finally
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 22:13 +0200, torbenh wrote:
> err... please describe how you dont want to break ardour with this
> patch. (it would add N periods of latency)
>
> it probably is possible to fix this, but its not really clear to me,
> how.
I assume there is sufficient SHM available for the
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 00:12 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
>
> Real-time means "as fast as possible".
Err not really.
Real-time means "Has a bounded response time", locks generally put your
completion time at the mercy of another process that is often not
designed to have a bounded response time
29 matches
Mail list logo
