get the new blue version of rtsynth from:
www.linux-sound.org/rtsynth/
enjoy,
Stefan
P.S. An updated jackified version will follow as soon as i can
test it on my machine in RT mode.
_
Internet access plans that fit your
there has been a massive spam attack against linux-audio-dev yesterday.
expect longer round-trip times and even more anal filtering while i'm
tracking this down.
regards,
jörn
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Kurfürstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany
http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server)
Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
there has been a massive spam attack against linux-audio-dev yesterday.
expect longer round-trip times and even more anal filtering while i'm
tracking this down.
looks like somebody abused a machine of hostpoint.ch. i was just about
to start bitching, but a
Hi,
I meant of sending midi events from the master keyboard via USB to the PC
which runs an internal soft-synth/sampler.
In that case USB should improve timing because of the bigger bandwidth,
(but will add 1msec of latency due to USB1 polling mechanism as far as I can
understand).
Correct me
found out some interesting facts about the chebyshev. been playing
around a little with a chebyshev shaper, feeding it various harmonic
amplitudes and a sine oscillation, taking an FT afterward.
it seems that in order to get a harmonic of amplitude 0.5, you must
not pass 0.5 to chebpc for that
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 05:08:33 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote:
the peak value of the chebyshev-shaped output will be the sum of all
coefficients calculated in this manner. the further the incoming sine
is scaled down (from [-1,+1]), the less the harmonic mix will match
the wanted amplitudes.
Hmm,
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 08:12:10 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote:
In the instantaite block fixes it up more-or-less. Maybe even adds a bit
of compression (it boosts the gain to make it roughly 1:1 too).
have you modified the lut in the meantime? i don't seem to be getting
the right results with the
Steve Harris wrote:
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 05:08:33 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote:
the peak value of the chebyshev-shaped output will be the sum of all
coefficients calculated in this manner. the further the incoming sine
is scaled down (from [-1,+1]), the less the harmonic mix will match
the
I meant of sending midi events from the master keyboard via USB to the
PC which runs an internal soft-synth/sampler.
Sorry, I misunderstood. You are right, if the keyboard is connected
through usb big chords will have much better timing. The 1msec added
latency should not make any difference
Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
If I start jackd and then use the freqtweak jack client I get a completely
dead machine in a very short time (from a few seconds to 10 or 20
seconds).
[...]
I get exactly the same results as you. 2.4.19 works fine,
2.4.20-pre10-ac3, 2.5.41 -
Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
Have you tried anything in between pre10-ac3 and pre4? I know pre4 works
fine. I probably should post to the lkml with as much detail as we can
get (unless some kernel hacker is actually reading these messages).
Hmm, it's actually pre10-ac2, there hasn't
Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
through usb big chords will have much better timing. The 1msec added
latency should not make any difference at all when compared to normal
midi. One midi note (no running status) takes about 1msec to be
transmitted at 31250 baud.
there's a difference though:
work with Linux ?
Tim Goetze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
there's a difference though: the usb 1 ms is jitter, there's no way
to reconstruct the original timing. this in contrast to midi, where
you can extrapolate the exact event time quite well (provided you're
looking at a stream of mostly
Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
Have you tried anything in between pre10-ac3 and pre4? I know pre4 works
fine. I probably should post to the lkml with as much detail as we can
get (unless some kernel hacker is actually reading these messages).
Does it fail with 2.4.20-pre5? I've found
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 07:48:55 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote:
OK, why do they use two shapers? Or is it one cheby and one non polynomial?
two chebyshevs, blend factor depending on incoming amplitude.
Thats interesting, cos liiing at your waterfall plot it doesn;t seem liek
that should be enough.
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 08:06:53 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote:
i'm not up to understanding all implications of the fact that the
incoming signal is not a pure sine; neither do i have a recipe for
preparing the coefficient tables -- if we scale the individual
coefficients by 1/sum their mix will
I wouldn't go as fas as to blame any developers for this. ALSA is being
integrated in the mainline kernel and that by itself should keep
everyone busy.
I think its somehow the duty of the people who figured out how to
configure it in an easy way to write it up (cfr. Patricks quicktoots
section).
Steve wrote:
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 16:39:02 +
From: Steve Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, I'm thinking we're not tackling it right, if behringer can knock out
a virtual amp harware box for E150 it can't the that cycle hungry.
There's a good chance I could get my hands on a Behringer V
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:19:51PM +1100, Stuart Allie wrote:
My first thoughts were:
- a range of pure tones, say starting at 440Hz and going up 3 octaves,
low E on a bass is about 40 - 41 Hz, and on guitar
it's about 81 Hz, so I'd suggest starting a lot lower
than 440.
--
Paul Winkler
19 matches
Mail list logo
