Re: [linux-audio-dev] alsa ethernet streaming?

2005-06-17 Thread Asbj�rn S�b
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 11:38:24AM -0600, Garett Shulman wrote: Hello, I would like push audio streams over ethernet and was wondering what avenues people have tried. I have an interest in the same thing, but with an emphasis on low latency. I did a little bit of looking around this fall,

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

2005-06-17 Thread Alfons Adriaensen
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:33:20AM +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote: Out of interest, what APIs do you think GNOME and KDE should provide for sound? None. Why should a window manager / desktop provide its own API for such things ? -- FA

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

2005-06-17 Thread Stéphane Letz
Le 17 juin 05 01:51, Jay Vaughan a crit : Maybe the timers used aren't precise enough for this.. I don't know. Anyone? coreaudio does dynamic re-sampling of its 'common feed-pool' ring- buffer for audio i/o, so maybe this delay compensation is factored in that calculation? I think

Re: [linux-audio-dev] Direct Stream Digital / Pulse Density Modulation musing/questions

2005-06-17 Thread Alfons Adriaensen
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 09:46:23PM +0200, Mickael Vardo wrote: Just try this simple experience: sample a 1 Hz pulse that is triggered after a random non-quantized delay that is less than four seconds. Sample it at a rate of 2 sps and then, try to get the original signal back with all its

[linux-audio-dev] [ANN] QjackCtl 0.2.17 released!

2005-06-17 Thread Rui Nuno Capela
Hi, QjackCtl 0.2.17 update release is out. Directly from the change log: - Systemic I/O Latency settings are now featured for the alsa, oss and coreaudio backends, letting you specify the known latency of external hardware for client aware compensation purposes (thanks to Wolfgang Woehl, for

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

2005-06-17 Thread Damon Chaplin
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 09:57 +0200, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:33:20AM +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote: Out of interest, what APIs do you think GNOME and KDE should provide for sound? None. Why should a window manager / desktop provide its own API for such things ?

Re: [linux-audio-dev] Two / Three HDSPM Cards?

2005-06-17 Thread Joachim Deguara
Lee Revell wrote: On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 11:35 -0500, Jack O'Quin wrote: Paul Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matthew, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but JACK does not have support for more than 32 channels at this time. Adding it is not particularly hard, its just a matter of someone

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

2005-06-17 Thread Alfons Adriaensen
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:48:11PM +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote: On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 09:57 +0200, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:33:20AM +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote: Out of interest, what APIs do you think GNOME and KDE should provide for sound? None. Why

Re: [linux-audio-dev] Two / Three HDSPM Cards?

2005-06-17 Thread Joachim Deguara
Matthew Simmons wrote: I am currently using the code from CVS. It is jack version, 0.100.0. There was a bug in libjack/client.c. Trutkin removed char c = 0 on line 1098, apparently to quite compile errors in OS X 10.4. However Jack still hangs. To me it does not look like a channel problem. I

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

2005-06-17 Thread Christoph Eckert
Hi, 1. You don't need GNOME or KDE support to develop audio applications any more than you need their support for accessing files, the network, the display or whatever. So they should remain neutral on this matter. I absolutely agree. But why did they start to use arts/esound/gstreamer?

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

2005-06-17 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Christoph, On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 18:09 +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote: 1. You don't need GNOME or KDE support to develop audio applications any more than you need their support for accessing files, the network, the display or whatever. So they should remain neutral on this matter. I

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

2005-06-17 Thread Frank Barknecht
Hallo, Alfons Adriaensen hat gesagt: // Alfons Adriaensen wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:48:11PM +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote: GNOME KDE are complete development platforms, so they need to support the development of audio applications. 1. You don't need GNOME or KDE support to develop

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

2005-06-17 Thread Chris Cannam
On Friday 17 Jun 2005 14:24, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: A few days ago I kicked up Rosegarden again to see if it could be useful for the project I was starting. It wasn't so I terminated it, only to find out later that there were still a number of KDE applications running, including a sound

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

2005-06-17 Thread fons adriaensen
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:09:52PM +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote: Which audio subsystem should they support? ALSA direct access is no choice because it blocks the device. DMIX is a choice, but what if I want to use JACK simultaneously without using DMIX? Is that realistic ? Would you do

Re: [linux-audio-dev] alsa ethernet streaming?

2005-06-17 Thread Garett Shulman
Asbjorn, LDAS looks perfect. Can you give more detail about the status? -Garett Asbjrn Sb wrote: On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 11:38:24AM -0600, Garett Shulman wrote: Hello, I would like push audio streams over ethernet and was wondering what avenues people have tried. I have an

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

2005-06-17 Thread fons adriaensen
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:58:18PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote: ... like Ardour, which requires Jack instead of working with Arts or Esound. JACK is not part of any desktop system. It's absolutely neutral in this sense, _and_ designed to support 'professional' audio. For a tool like Ardour,

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

2005-06-17 Thread Frank Barknecht
Hallo, fons adriaensen hat gesagt: // fons adriaensen wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:58:18PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote: ... like Ardour, which requires Jack instead of working with Arts or Esound. JACK is not part of any desktop system. It's absolutely neutral in this sense,

Re: [linux-audio-dev] Two / Three HDSPM Cards?

2005-06-17 Thread Lee Revell
Lee Revell wrote: FWIW, you could test this with an Audigy if you felt like it (can capture 64 channels). It requires a slight change to the driver; I'll try it if I get a chance. Lee Lee, which Audigy do you mean? Looking at the Soundblaster Audigy family I only see 6 channel recording

Audio APIs GNOME KDE (was Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?))

2005-06-17 Thread Erik de Castro Lopo
Damon Chaplin wrote: GNOME KDE are complete development platforms, so they need to support the development of audio applications. I'm not saying they should develop new libraries. Just that they need to standardize on particular APIs/libraries that all work together OK. (I think both

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

2005-06-17 Thread Christoph Eckert
Which audio subsystem should they support? ALSA direct access is no choice because it blocks the device. DMIX is a choice, but what if I want to use JACK simultaneously without using DMIX? Is that realistic ? Would you do any serious audio work and leave all the desktop toys enabled

[linux-audio-dev] Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great?

2005-06-17 Thread Christoph Eckert
I think we should (and can) keep the desktop and 'pro' worlds separate. I do not agree :) . We're in the free software world, so there's no need to tell the non-pro-audio-users use anything else. And if they have to be integrated, the solution will be JACK. Agreed. Writing a JACKified

Re: What Parts of Linux Audio Simply Work Great? (was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Best-performing Linux-friendly MIDI interfaces?)

2005-06-17 Thread Rui Nuno Capela
I guess we are in need of some guys who help making JACK ready for the desktop. If you're on KDE 3.3+, try these Setup/Options on qjackctl: [X] Execute script on Startup: `artsshell -q terminate` [X] Execute script after Startup: `artsd -F 4 -S 1024 -a jack -m artsmessage -c