Apologies if everyone here has seen this, it's not really linux or audio
related, but I think people will find it interesting and somewhat relevant:
http://research.microsoft.com/~mbj/Mars_Pathfinder/Mars_Pathfinder.html
Lee
Hello Dr. Graef,
> Well, I'm experimenting with different temperaments, adaptive tunings,
> psychoacoustic stuff, so this would be very useful for me. (I'm
> currently using SuperCollider for that purpose, but my home-grown synths
> don't sound all that good yet. ;-) But I'd vote for MIDI tunin
Joshua Haberman wrote:
At the moment I am favoring an approach that uses multiple discrete
buffers and passing pointers to them, rather than pushing data on a
ring buffer. One major reason is that it allows you to send the data
to multiple places. Say you want to send a captured buffer to both
th
Matthias Nagorni wrote:
Yes: The MIDI's are up on the alsamodular site:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=69130&package_id=121417
That's great, thanks a lot!
Albert
--
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PRO
Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
4. Are the temperaments configurable somewhere?
No, ATM the four that are built-in are all you have. It's a quick
solution but it should cover most periods. I plan to add direct support
for the Scala database at some time. If changing the temparament is
important to you, ju
[Paul Davis]
>>pipe()s here too. last time i benchmarked on an early 2.4 kernel, pipe
>>and socketpair gave about the same timing figures, quicker than
>>msgsnd/rcv. i don't remember the exact numbers but i remember being
>>positively surprised.
>
>from the whitepapers that IBM did, the linux FIFO
Hi Mark:
Actually, yes, there is (see the other sites). But for some reason the
atnet site is still accessing old files, so it is *not* sync'd to the
other mirrors. I've written to atnet but have received no response from
anyone there yet. Sorry for the confusion, I'll try to get it worked out
Joshua Haberman wrote:
At the moment I am favoring an approach that uses multiple discrete
buffers and passing pointers to them, rather than pushing data on a
ring buffer. One major reason is that it allows you to send the data
to multiple places. Say you want to send a captured buffer to both
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 07:23:00PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> i also don't use conditions for RT stuff - they are not RT
> safe.
Could you explain this ? AFAIK, if you use try_lock() on
the mutex (and thus accept that the operation may fail),
there is no problem. Occasional failure can easily be
Paul Davis wrote:
in a lock-free way. This ensures zero-copy operation.
until you want to start processing the data but keep the original
around. i was always attached to the zero-copy model, but it just
doesn't seem to pan out in real life.
I don't know how ardour works internally, so in y
On Friday 18 Jun 2004 12:23 am, Paul Davis wrote:
> i also don't use conditions for RT stuff - they are
> not RT safe. currently, i use FIFO's, and i plan to switch to
> futexes when they become available. NPTL uses futexes to implement
> condition variables, but linuxthreads uses signals.
Thanks,
On Friday 18 June 2004 12:35, Dave Phillips wrote:
> The European mirror of the Linux soundapps site is back online with a
> new address:
>http://linuxsound.atnet.at
> Please update your bookmarks.
> This site is now in sync with the US and Japanese sites.
There is still no link to h
On Jun 17, 2004, at 11:25 PM, Tim Hockin wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:22:29PM -0700, Joshua Haberman wrote:
One final thing: I'm not sure if this is a problem in practice, but
most (if not all) processors do not guarantee that memory reads and
writes are performed in order, as observed by othe
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:07:04PM +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 07:04:42PM +0200, Dr. Matthias Nagorni wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
> >
> > > - I have the same SL 9.0 and ALSA version (but other soundcards)
> > > - The ALSA code is a near copy
On fre, 2004-06-18 at 08:25, Tim Hockin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:22:29PM -0700, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > One final thing: I'm not sure if this is a problem in practice, but
> > most (if not all) processors do not guarantee that memory reads and
> > writes are performed in order ...
15 matches
Mail list logo
