Thanks a lot Kai and Eric (see below) for your help. On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 Kai Vehmanen wrote:
> ecasound -a:1,6 -f:32,12,44100 -i alsa \ > -a:1 -f:32,1,44100 -o t1.wav \ > -a:6 -erc:6,1 -f:32,1,44100 -o t6.wav \ > -a:2 -i t2.wav -ea:200 \ > -a:5 -i t5.wav -erc:1,5 -ea:200 \ > -a:2,5 -f:32,10,44100 -o alsa > > Input object with the most channels determines the channel count of the > chain it is attached to. On the other end of the chains, if an output has > less channels than the chain it is attached to, extra channels are > discarded when writing to the output. With these simple rules you can > route audio between channels and chains, and without bloating the syntax > too much. Shouldn't there be a '-erc:1,2' on the t2.wav chain (it should go to ouput 2) ? > The '-ea:200' at the end of chains 2 and 5 helps to keep the volume > constant. This is ugly, but unfortunately something I cannot fix at this > point (I'd like to change the chain-mixing semantics from add'n'divide to > plain add'n'saturate like in most other systems, but unfortunately doing > the change now would break far too many existing scripts/sessions :( ...). Why is this necessary ? Nothing should be mixed... unless alsa inputs 2 and 5 are also mixed in. If this is so, can it be prevented ? and Eric Dantan Rzewnick wrote: > -a:t2 -i t2.wav -erc:1,2 -f:32,10,44100 -o alsa,hw:0 > -a:t5 -i t5.wav -erc:1,5 -f:32,10,44100 -o alsa,hw:0 > > -a:t1 -f:32,14,44100 -i alsa,hw:0 -f:32,1,44100 -o t1.wav > -a:t6 -f:32,14,44100 -i alsa,hw:0 -erc:6,1 -f:32,1,44100 -o t6.wav I kind of like this 'per chain' way of writing things. Would adding '-erc:1,1' to the a:t1 chain hurt in any way ? It would be nice to have a uniform syntax. -- Fons
