On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 08:53 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
[...]
I'd say that the essential feature of JACK is not that it is a
callback based system, but that it presents and expects audio
data in fixed size blocks and enforces the rule that all clients
must have processed a block before the
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 17:50 +0100, Stéphane Letz wrote:
Le 3 nov. 06 à 17:39, Simon Jenkins a écrit :
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 08:53 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
[...]
I'd say that the essential feature of JACK is not that it is a
callback based system, but that it presents and expects
if there
might be a better way to gain or lose the occasional sample.
erm... Anyone?
Simon Jenkins
Bristol, UK
On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 21:00 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]If numbers
from binary 0.1 to 1.0 are represented using 24 bits (sign bit + mantissa, I
think the implicit 1 does not count)
You could represent numbers to 1 bit of precision using a zero bit
mantissa (ie exponent only) format.
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 13:04 +0200, Tim Goetze wrote:
[Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen]
breathe deeply. think of snakes. say python.
Are you serious? Do you know python? I hope not...
I don`t want to start a flame-war over programming languages,
but I know both scheme and python very well,
From: Arnold Krille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9/20/05, Aaron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
please save me from another lisp/scheme scriptable application
/me too
The scripting should be in a language easy enough for a non programer to
use.
Is xsl a possibility or is there a scripting language
.html
~ Simon Jenkins
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 00:47 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 21:13 +0100, Simon Jenkins wrote:
It seems the difference is that PD works on individual cycles of the
modulated waveform. The wiki author guesses that there may be an extra
synching oscillator but in fact
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 15:18 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 14:14 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
I am currently looking [in wikipedia] at the Casio section near the end
(regarding
phase distortion.) Wasn't this technique developed way back in the 60's
by french
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 19:34 -0500, Jan Depner wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 19:20, Dave Robillard wrote:
Premature optimization is the root of all evil. Using C arrays and
strings for no reason when a much more robust higher level type would
suffice is /just as stupid/ as always using slow
As far as data volumes go, for your 5 million integers, you're off by about
5
orders of magnitude ;-) So, now that 5ms just became 500 seconds. Yes, my
users do notice and appreciate that time savings ;-)
Jan
Sooo. if you stored this stuff on punched paper tape it would be long
enough to
into a single tree of all the locally known IDs.
-- Simon Jenkins
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 16:30 +0300, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
From: Simon Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. Is C++ OK? (You'd end up with a Patch class that could be
over-ridden to dump itself in whatever format was required).
C++ is ok, and would make sense because the nmedit code is C
snip
Tasks we have:
(1) To write the NM file parser which only maps the patch data to
a C data structures. E.g.,
module[4].name
module[4].col
module[4].row
module[4].p[2]
module[4].im[1]
module[4].ih[1]
module[4].ic[1]
That could be simpler than expected. NMEdit already
Marek Peteraj wrote:
Oh BTW, just in case :)
http://www.petitiononline.com/atipet/petition.html
Free as in Nelson Mandela :)
~ Simon
Marcus Andersson wrote:
Hi,
what you need to figure out is how hardware can be developed by people
living in different countries, the same way email/sourceforge/CVS
pretty much solved the distribution problem for software. Here is just
a couple of ideas.
All interested developers buy a
Lee Revell wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 02:14 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
The official statement is that there will be no support for ALSA (Linux)
FireWire drivers from RME. In other words there will be no such drivers,
as it is impossible to write them without tons of hardware and software
Bob Knight wrote:
I want an open ethernet audio device.
I do not want or need to deal with pci, firewire, usb.
Fair enough, and an interesting project, though personally I'm
more interested in doing a firewire device.
Use one of many controllers out there with a good embedded
linux port and build
Hi all:
I've been thinking some more about a prototyping/development board (not
a production board) for a free open multi-channel firewire audio interface.
The objective would be to keep initial development time and costs down
even at the expense of pushing component costs slightly up.
Here are my
quality,
number and types of inputs, packaging and price etc.
Simon Jenkins
software projects.
It's a different thing is someone is willing to sponsor such a project.
Another option would be to find someone who'd pay us *not* to do it :)
Simon Jenkins
Jussi Laako wrote:
On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 21:03 +, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Pessimistic. I had to specify a single 6-layer board, 5 days delivery
and 100 component placements before I got an online quote approaching
500Euro. And the price drops *fast* when you want a few more boards,
a bit
much do you need to make on each unit to be
worthwhile?
There's no law against providing windows mac drivers for it too.
Simon Jenkins
Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 00:19 +, Simon Jenkins wrote:
You were talking about a slightly more difficult and expensive thing than I
was. I was thinking about:
1. A DSP implementation, not FPGA
2. A firewire interface, not PCI
3. Creating a reference implementation
Orlarey
LAD post you mentioned, and also to much information. One of the
implementations - lock-free-lib - is reported to be GPL'd and to cover
Alpha, Mips, ia64, x86, PPC and Sparc.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
Simon Jenkins wrote:
During collisions there is a busy retry loop, but
1) everything else trying to access the protected structure during the
collision
is also in a busy retry loop
and
2) any of them can succeed, at any time, by making it once through the
loop
without something else hitting
with standard
m(/f)utexes, and
are intended for real-time use.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
you
certainly /want/ to run) then only a continual barage of *new* collisions
can starve you of access to the structure.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
be achieved, anyway) to keep track of where (/when)
they all are. The GUI provides this convenience... IF you
can use it. But if you can't? The capabilities are still there!
You just need to find a different way of getting at them.
(OK, that's a big just).
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
... Boggs believes
window
to detect
the location of finger taps on the surface of the window. Some of it
might be
relevant.
Also... hmmm. Could also be relevant to a cheap DIY drum pad.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
Tim Goetze wrote:
[Tim Blechmann]
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:38:24 -0500
Jan Depner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 13:49, Tim Blechmann wrote:
I have a denormal fix without a branch but you probably don't want
to see it ;-)
It's pretty simple, just OR the bits of the
Tim Goetze wrote:
[Simon Jenkins]
Tim Goetze wrote:
8-bit exponent and no assumption about its value made, 8 binary
'shift', 7 'or' and 1 'and' statement if i'm not badly mistaken. and
if i'm not, a branch will probably hurt less.
Three shifts, three copys, three 'or's
blunt because it damages the precision of
extremely low but not yet denormal numbers: Anything
of magnitude 2 ** -103 loses one bit of precision for
each binary order of magnitude it is below that number.
(This means that denormal numbers lose /all/ of their
precision and become zero).
Simon Jenkins
is because casting macro arguments to volatile wasn't having
the desired effect on the optimiser, whereas this does.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
_some_ means not _any_: could you specify those entitled and those not?
What, *again*? OK then.
If you distribute an executeable and provide a written offer of source
(section
3b) then your distributees may pass along the written offer to third parties
(section 3c).
Simon Jenkins
code, valid
for three years. (If you also make the source available by FTP then
maybe nobody
will ever order a physical copy).
But also (important):
3. A copy of the GPL licence itself must accompany the executeable!
Simon Jenkins
versions even EXIST.
But if (and only if) you distribute an executeable, then you are obligated
to make source available to those who you distribute it to, and to third
parties as described above.
Simon Jenkins
target processor (a courtroom)? /That's/ what you'd
need
a lawyer to tell you.
Simon Jenkins
Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 19:42, Simon Jenkins wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IANAL, but I'm 99% sure that when you give someone a GPLd executable,
you're only obligated to provide that one person with the sources, not the
general public (read: everyone on earth
Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 21:01, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 19:42, Simon Jenkins wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IANAL, but I'm 99% sure that when you give someone a GPLd executable,
you're only obligated to provide that one person
Jan Depner wrote:
I agree completely. The relevant quote from the GPL FAQ is this:
You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a
physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a
way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the
Tim Goetze wrote:
Simon Jenkins wrote:
I can definitely get
asm (movaps %%xmm1 %0 : =m (t[0]));
to exhibit the optimisation problem (the one I couldn't get your
original line to show) and then fix it again by removing the [0].
[snip]
ok, here is a distilled test of how i allocate and use
Simon Jenkins wrote:
[...]
printf (z is %.2f\n, z ); } /* end */
[...]
No I didn't. Something's eaten a couple of
linefeeds here. (other than that it still looks ok).
~S
the compiler that the entire array t
is in memory to which the instruction writes. This
*ought* to discourage the optimiser from doing
anything too drastic. (Maybe/AFAIK/IANAL/etc).
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
Tim Goetze wrote:
Simon Jenkins wrote:
for a simplified example, i'm using
float t[4];
...
asm (movaps %%xmm1, %0 : : m (t[0]));
to move 4 packed floats from xmm1 into 't'.
I couldn't get this to fail in practice - though I didn't
try all that hard - unless t isn't on a 16 byte boundary
leaves anything higher than 9.8607615E-32
(ie 2 ** -103) completely unchanged. Numbers below this
value lose one bit of precision for each binary order of
magnitude they are below it. This has the effect that
denormal numbers lose *all* their precision, ie they
become zero.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
Steve Harris wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:55:54 +, Simon Jenkins wrote:
This will 'work', AFAICS, but with one cycle delay.
One or two cycles, depending on whether the client containing A and B
guesses
correctly that A comes before B in the overall graph. (It doesn't know
+---+
Oh dear... C needs to be called between A and B, but even if JACK and the
two clients know that A-C-B is the correct order (which none of them do)
it can't be achieved because A and B must be processed in a single callback.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
Whoops: Those ascii diagrams again:
+---+
| +---+ |
JACK -|- A -|---+
| | |
+--|- B -|-- JACK
+---+
+---+
| |
+---|- C -|--+
| | | |
| +---+ |
|
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:56:52PM +, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Worse:
JACK - A - JACK - C - JACK - B - JACK
Where C is in a separate client.
Now...
+---+
| |
+---|- C
a good idea :)
Even making the front half and back half of the mixer into separate
clients can be
defeated by a sufficiently pathological user. (Eg by chaining all the
input sections
together in the wrong order).
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
*/
/*..*/
/* flush results to zero or - depending what the math was - take
some other appropriate action */
/*..*/
}
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
Simon Jenkins wrote:
[...]If it still doesn't
work after they are applied then you could try -ffloat-store. The
compiler manual
says that programs which rely on the exact storage format of IEEE
floats should
use this option, but I am unable to break the macro in a way that this
fixes
Steve Harris wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 07:47:31 +0100, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Here's where I've got to so far. Comments are welcome.
Looks fine in theory, but it forces an extra branch per MUL, which is not
really practical.
Its only an extra branch on the MULs where you actually use
Steve Harris wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:36:22 +0100, Simon Jenkins wrote:
There are some limitiations though:
Those are all good points, but my concerns are that I dont think it
actually does what its supposed to do :)
It could be the pointer aliasing + optimisation thing thugh
place.
6. Performance
I'd classify this as quite fast but not very fast. This is in some
ways a good thing: Its probably cheap enough to be carefully deployed in
exactly the places where its needed, but not so cheap that it can be
sprinkled around all over the place where it isn't.
Simon Jenkins
Simon Jenkins wrote:
If you're doing this sort of thing you need to fix it with a couple
more brackets...
#define FLUSH_TO_ZERO(fv) *(unsigned
int*)(fv))0x7f80)==0)?0.0f:(fv))
...and then, as far as I can see, the macro always does exactly what
it is supposed
to do.
Whoops... I spoke
events, OTOH, has an event switch input.
~ Finally, define some default conversion plugins which can cast
between various events and signals, allowing most things to be
connected to most others.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
for a dsp,
modular synth developers would want to make different decisions
from each other regarding some of the above points.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 08:36:04PM +, Simon Jenkins wrote:
I'm trying to think about the most general model, at least at this
stage. It might
become unmanageably complex and need to be stripped back. OTOH its
possible that a
whole lot of complexity could suddenly
() manages to avoid recursion by using an intermediate list.
Note: I've tried to give this a half decent test, and it does seem to
work every
time, but your original code has executed successfully about a zillion times
more than this code has...
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 09:06:02PM +, Simon Jenkins wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ok ... now to the API...
Here's my thinking so far, modulo some of your comments
(I'll need to think a bit more about some other of your comments,
eg what you need
.
(Problem with this is that the implementation needs inheritance
which would have to be hand rolled in C, were it to be exposed
to the application.)
==
Copyright (c) Simon Jenkins 2003 licence
Dave Griffiths wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 03:03:37 +
Simon Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just took a look at the SSM GraphSort code (from 0.2.1rc2). Its a
neat encapsulation but the sort algorithm
seems to mess up on an important case:
Nicely spotted, I hadn't noticed that one
David Olofson wrote:
On Saturday 01 March 2003 04.03, Simon Jenkins wrote:
[...all good points...]
That's easily solved... but here's a problem that's not:
A general solution to the graph sorting problem would have to know
about the I/O dependencies *inside* the nodes. This isn't usually
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 03:03:37AM +, Simon Jenkins wrote:
A general solution to the graph sorting problem would have to know about the
I/O dependencies *inside* the nodes. This isn't usually a problem on
the scale
where a node represents, for example, a simple
but which amble doesn't, making sure
it actually is correct, and releasing it as an LGPL library.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
probably wouldn't
bother to sort the graph: it could rapidly calculate the execution
order at runtime, executing each node as its data became available.
OTOH I agree that there's an inconsistency at the implementation
level, if thats what you're concerned about.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
David Olofson wrote:
On Saturday 01 March 2003 17.12, Simon Jenkins wrote:
[...]
then these components must be built of other components...
i dont see a reason why one wants a big complex component
if it could be built from smaller components...
(other than performace)
Absolutely
to use STL on the inside, its
just exposing it on the outside that I'm worried about).
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
reasonable graphs: Different parts of their
internals need to
be executed at different times!
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
like this sort of thing:
http://www.sbibble.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/amble/amble-0.1.1.tar.gz
Some (not all) of the demos require libsndfile and its headers.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
leo zhu wrote:
I have already got the sound data from sound card into
the buffer, and I've also finished it to encode the
data to gsm and send to another server. Right now I
need to store the sound data to some .wav file in the
server. How can I do it, ether from memory buffer or
gsm? Are there
.
(IMHO:)
Denormals need to be detected and killed in the feedback paths that
generate them. These paths are inside the plugins, not between them,
so its something the plugin author has got to get right, not something
the API/host can effectively deal with.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
zapper.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol UK)
*hehe* I offer to shut up and code unless somebody pokes me with a
sharp stick
or something and the next thing that happens is:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 07:47:07PM +, Simon Jenkins wrote:
It sounds like you'd be better off working form the Sfront SAOL code.
Well, I'm working from
, but still a lot less than useable release code.
I'll post it up somewhere when its done. Meanwhile I'd better shut up
about the
whole thing (unless somebody pokes me with a sharp stick or something).
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
Steve Harris wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 05:43:01PM +, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Steve Harris wrote:
Damn... dont encourage me. I'm gonna end up implemnting this thing for real
if I'm not careful and I allready have a dozen other things that are more
important.
I'm currently
on how the *entire* graph to be processed
fitted into the *actual* available cache.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
the existing modules reset themselves and
everything starts again with the new module, suggesting that the existing
modules have all lost their contexts. This is *really* annoying if
you're trying
to develop a patch or sequence that evolves very slowly.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
processing they can have it.
+ plugins can be compiled for and run on a dedicated DSP
board given an appropriate compiler.
+ plugins are unavoidably open source.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
Len Moskowitz wrote:
Simon Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But where would they have been now if they had taken the fully
open route? Somewhere better? Somewhere worse? Where could
a hypothetical competitor who started now, from scratch, with a
fully open model get to? Would they catch up
, with a
fully open model get to? Would they catch up and overtake? Would
they fail to catch up? Would they win or lose against chameleon in
its own niche? Or would they carve out a new niche, next-door to
the chameleon but not quite competing with it?
I don't know the answers to these questions.
Simon
Steve Harris wrote:
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 07:15:02AM +, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Audio-related examples might include things like:
Making a multi effects rack unit with pro-audio i/o, a heap of DSP
power, front panel display and controls, and filling it with the
pick of the available open
hardware.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
should be able to make a lot of money selling a box like
that.
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)
86 matches
Mail list logo
