[linux-audio-dev] ALSA OSS Emulation and emu10k1
Hi, I was wondering, is it possible to assign /dev/dspX devices to the secondary and tertiary PCM devices on an emu10k1? I have a SB Live! Platinum with LiveDrive IR. The stereo out is connected to my regular set of speakers. The surround output is connected to an earphone headset, it's mic is connected to the mic input on my sound card. Also, another microphone is connected to the mic/line on the LIveDrive. Now, I use skype, which is closed source. It uses OSS devices and aoss will not work with it. I would like to have a /dev/dspX device that records from the mic input and plays back to the surround output, so that skype, and skype only, will use the headset. The headset works fine in alsa mode and alsa apps can use it perfectly well. I tried all /dev/dspX and /dev/adspX devices, to no avail. I tries aoss with .asoundrc modifications, no luck. I even read the driver source, but I'm not really conversant with the structure of the driver and couldn't find anything useful. It would take me forever to figure it out from the source code. Is it possible, maybe with module parameters, to make alsa do this? Would it need a patch, if yes, does someone have one? If no, what would have to be done where to make that work? Melanie
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [linux-audio-user] Linux audio hardware market research [was: creating a wiki soundcard experiences site]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 22:14, John Check wrote: On Saturday 27 November 2004 07:43 am, Marek Peteraj wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 11:06, MarC wrote: what about creating a wiki website to submit soundcard experiences? This also seems like a good idea to me, and it would be cool to have a knowledgebase like that. However i think that doing a survey in order to measure how big the linux audio market is is a different project. Similar to what David did, i imagine that a RME (or M-Audio) customer would submit his name, optionally email, choose type of his card from a list, and enter approx. date of purchase so that we can track the growth of the market(thus it's possible to roughly estimate its future growth). Also we'd need to announce it to a broad range of people, LAD/LAU/LAA, ALSA-dev/user/site, and Slashdot i suppose, so that we reach as many such customers as possible. Let's also not forget about OSS users which are also linux users. (I personally reckon a few people from #lad having troubles with alsa, they switched to oss for that reason). However, since i've got no php experience and very little mysql experience, i can't tell how hard it would be to do such a sumbit/log system. Now that you mention it... I made some posts regarding a MIDI implementation chart reporting system over the summer. I'm getting in the home stretch with that, mainly gotta do something WRT of authentication before it's ready to roll out. Wouldn't be a big deal to add another area for that of which you speak That'd be great. It wouldn't need to be something really simple so that people don't have to bother with it too much. Most relevant information such as type of card, approx. date of purchase, so that we can count the numbers and estimate future growth. Marek
Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 21:43, Lee Revell wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 01:51 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote: They create software to support it and make it work. Then all the technical information goes into the public domain and some low cost manufacturer from Taiwan or Russia or somewhere else knocks off a copy and sells it for 1/2 the price. No one buys RME hardware, RME doesn't make money and goes out of business. Did this happen? Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Mackie designs hardware and manufactures it in the USA. Behringer reverse engineers Mackie's (among others) design, replaces some parts with cheaper ones, and manufactures in China. Mackie has lost a lot of money as a result and has had to move some production abroad. I don't believe it's the only cause. It's like saying that the recording industry is losing money just becasue people are pirating stuff. Nobody there cares about the quality. Besides, Mackie doesn't target low-end market that much anyway. Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:21, Lee Revell wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner wrote: Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally, open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my asbestos underwear? Eh, it's a slow day, I'm bored. But I mean it 100%. Flame away... So, the next question is, what would it take to make a closed source driver happen? They should start the bidding on alsa-devel at one free FireFace... Lee and Jan, i talk to you as an owner of fireface. :) I really like the philosophy of not letting any closed source drivers into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset because their XY nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working. Besides they'd need to provide it themselves, which means a lot more money than just handing out documentation or perhaps one free unit. My point of view - either open source alsa driver, or i'll just sell that unit. And now that they have accused me of causing damage to RME specifically because of this thread, i can only say, i'll stay away from any of their products. Speaking of damage, i'd like to see a slashdot story about this so that 30.000 people can judge for themselves. :) The best bet would be to find a adat/smux card manufacturer which is able to release specs and keep the rest as far away from your pc as possible. :) Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 22:36, Lee Revell wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: Did this happen? Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal recourse: http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is. Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. I don't think so. Currently there are new fw products coming out, in a few months time the audio market will be literally *flooded* with fw audio stuff. There's even mackie onyx analog mixer for which they offer an optional fw card for. Most of them *will* deliver 2-3ms latency i bet. And this under conditions which can't be guaranteed for many reasons(mostly rock-solid hw configuration which is guesswork to build most of the time, and *very* well tuned copy of windows that's installed). Heck i get crackles with a 256 setting with my fireface on an amd 2.2 system with amd761 northbridge and a g400(compared to what they claim, i.e. 1ms latency), don't ask what it does on a i815 chipset(which is crap chipset for critical applications such as audio but just to demonstrate). Of course i can't blame the hw manufacturers for that, it's simply impossible to guarantee that, it's just that it's achievable under some specific conditions. But nevertheless they *have* to deliver such performance because of the market. Now everybody does hiding it's own research from each other and the result is that there will be only these subtle differences in terms of performance. Who does suffer? Linux users. This just shows how healthy and benefitial the collaborative open source model is. Instead of working out an audio-over-ieee1394 standard they will just hide the stuff because everybody is just stealing. (their way of thinking) :/ So i think that no matter whether rme or other audio card manufacturer, in this case it's just not valid at all. Marek
Re: [linux-audio-dev] ALSA OSS Emulation and emu10k1
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:24:28 +0100 Melanie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I was wondering, is it possible to assign /dev/dspX devices to the secondary and tertiary PCM devices on an emu10k1? [snip] Is it possible, maybe with module parameters, to make alsa do this? Would it need a patch, if yes, does someone have one? If no, what would have to be done where to make that work? http://alsa-project.org/~iwai/OSS-Emulation.html Read up on the device mapping section. Flo
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Tastes like chicken!
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:36:10 -0500 John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyhoo, I had a spark of inspiration and banged out a little sort of folk tune tracked with ardour. Audacity as a front end for LAME. Still getting my ears calibrated to a subpar monitoring system so forgive the buried vox and any tubbyness. Great tune! I really enjyed it! And yes, the mix is a bit odd, but i like it. Gives the tune even more character :) Flo
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Tastes like chicken!
Hey John: I'll chime in with some kudos for the tune, but I agree with your own assessment re: the vocal, it does need to come forward. No point in singing words if they can't be heard or understood, yes ? Vocals are often a problem for people who don't particularly think of themselves as good singers (whatever that means: is Bob Dylan a good singer ?), and there's a resulting tendency to put the vocals too far back in the mix. The thought is often to truly mix the vocals in with the instruments, but I suggest taking it the other way on, i.e., mixing the instruments against the voice. The song is the thing, its melody and lyrics must be clearly heard (or at least clearly sensed: I can't usually understand the lyrics to Mudvayne but at least their man is out front). One of my favorite local musicians made a wonderful album years ago, but the one mistake he made on it was to mix his voice too deeply into the instrumental sounds. He told me he wished he hadn't done so, and that his decision was based on his poor opinion of his own singing. Sometimes it's best to get another opinion, I guess that's part of the function of a good producer. No tubby sound here, probably because my monitoring system is fairly decent. The instrumental mix has a nice loose sound to it that complements the song. I agree with Florian re: the character of the tune, the sounds really match the intent of the lyrics. Good stuff, let's hear some more ! Btw, perhaps this thread is more on-topic on the users list ? Best, dp Florian Schmidt wrote: On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:36:10 -0500 John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyhoo, I had a spark of inspiration and banged out a little sort of folk tune tracked with ardour. Audacity as a front end for LAME. Still getting my ears calibrated to a subpar monitoring system so forgive the buried vox and any tubbyness. Great tune! I really enjyed it! And yes, the mix is a bit odd, but i like it. Gives the tune even more character :) Flo
Re: [linux-audio-dev] ALSA OSS Emulation and emu10k1
Hi, AFAIK: OSS device on emu10k1 is always routed to front channels. Routing can be changed through alsa mixer api (there are controls controling channel routing), but this is not simple and there is problem to know what oss stream uses what hw stream, because these are alocated dynamicallly. Other ways will require driver change. Peter Zubaj http://www.pobox.sk/ - najvacsi slovensky freemail
[linux-audio-dev] Re: Behringer
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: Did this happen? Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal recourse: http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is. Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux driver, fine. No, not fine, not for me, not at all. Simplified, I'll buy FireWire interfaces from the first manufacturer who comes out with proper open source linux support and the features I need. For all others, sorry, no bussiness with me. Especially since there are PCI interfaces around, and if I really wanted to do pro audio on my laptop I could get a PCMCIA card as well. Maybe the reason no firewire hardware is supported is because Behringer and their ilk would instantly have all the info they need to copy the design and mass produce it. I highly doubt this argtument really holds, especially since we're just talking a driver here. You aren't exactly getting a hardware design file or something, you just get the source on how to drive the hardware. Doesn't matter how cheap the device is to design - it will _always_ be cheaper to rip someone off than design it yourself. Well then, simple, go through the linux sources and rip all the manufacturers off, you should be very rich in a matter of time, right? No, wrong. -- CYa, Mario
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:35, R Parker wrote: --- Marek Peteraj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:21, Lee Revell wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner wrote: Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally, open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my asbestos underwear? Eh, it's a slow day, I'm bored. But I mean it 100%. Flame away... So, the next question is, what would it take to make a closed source driver happen? They should start the bidding on alsa-devel at one free FireFace... Lee and Jan, i talk to you as an owner of fireface. :) I really like the philosophy of not letting any closed source drivers into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset because their XY nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working. Besides they'd need to provide it themselves, which means a lot more money than just handing out documentation or perhaps one free unit. My point of view - either open source alsa driver, or i'll just sell that unit. And now that they have accused me of causing damage to RME specifically because of this thread, i can only say, i'll stay away from any of their products. Speaking of damage, i'd like to see a slashdot story about this so that 30.000 people can judge for themselves. :) I really hope you don't do that. My intention wasn't to post that on /. at least not now. I was thinking out loud. Of course, in case we did a market survey it would definitely be needed. RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. They got a lot of units sold in return and built a very good reputation based on that fact and this went beyond the linux audio world i believe. I hope you consider how much work has gone into Linux Audio But that's what i'm talking about. So much effort, oustanding technologies(although i know the authors won't admit ;) and they(hw manufacturers) don't care! and how difficult it is to develop that type of business relationship. There is no relationship. The only real manufacturer from the POV of linux audio is audioscience(.com), which unfortunately does only broadcast hw. They do ALSA drivers, provide support and invest their time and money in doing so. They deserve highest respect for that considering the current situation. That's how it should be. And this is what we should fight for. Whether you are in the right or wrong, is it inconcievable for you to act for the interests of many people by selling the unit and getting something else? Not sure i understand. I'm about to sell my fireface copy as i declared previously. Of course if there's any way i could help out other people here in keeping the unit, i'm prepared to do so. Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:03, tim hall wrote: Last Saturday 27 November 2004 21:36, Lee Revell was like: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: Did this happen? Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal recourse: http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is. Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux driver, fine. Maybe the reason no firewire hardware is supported is because Behringer and their ilk would instantly have all the info they need to copy the design and mass produce it. Doesn't matter how cheap the device is to design - it will _always_ be cheaper to rip someone off than design it yourself. They can even sell at a loss, due to huge cash reserves - they only need to sustain it long enough to put the competition out of business. In the case of the Swizz Army Tuner, the original designers were ripped off by Behringer, but a lawsuit would have bankrupted them _even if they won_ so could not take action. I think many people in this thread underestimate how cutthroat the hardware business is. Yeah, If I was the MD of RME, after reading some of the responses on this thread I'd be thinking of flippin' the bird at all these ungrateful linux users. I think it's about defending the position of open source and its nature. And the work that people do here no matter whether for fun or not. From now on every company that doesn't do it like audioscience does, is a plain loser to me, no matter whether they provide specs or not. It's because other people do the actual work + support providing. If MacOSX can have them, so can we, we have a greater marketshare. Why the heck should we *always* understand them? Why can't they understand *us*? We're a minority group and I think the onus is on us to convince RME to produce a driver for their firewire hardware, politely and if necessary, via the florists ;-). OK, so closed-source drivers are far from ideal, but better than a hole in the head. http://www.audioscience.com If they can, who can't? I can't see the difference, can anyone explain? It means that the drivers can't be bundled with distros and we won't be able to provide users developers with technical support, which is a great shame. However, I suspect a certain amount of well-reasoned persistence will pay off here. Sure, our numbers on this list aren't great, but they are significant. There are many audio hw customers outside of this list (see CK's post for example, or judging form experience - somewhere on #gnome talking about rme ;) plus tons of talks on #lad - Q: hi, what's the best card for audio under linux? A: rme or if you don't have that much money, maudio) OK, _very_ few people are using firewire technology for music, up till now I'd considered it the preserve of mac/motu users. I think a majority of pc based audio hw will be fw based in the near future. Every manufacturer will have at least one product. Scary. I think we should continue to support RME where licenses allow and look forward to the day that they release their firewire drivers :-). That is going to be the day their hw becomes redundant on the market? Or even discontinued? That's the problem i'm seeing. I think we should keep up the pressure on manufacturers like MOTU too. They'll see sense eventually. ;-] I doubt it. They have their own sw products, like the DP. In their case i can pretty much understand why they don't do that if they see linux audio as a competition. Mine is an equally naive viewpoint, but with the knowledge that a little bit of positive thinking can go a long way, especially when backed up with a well-researched wish-list and plenty of patience. 2 years korg and now this. Trust me it's not possible to cope with that for a long time :) Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
[Marek Peteraj] RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. A not uncommon belief has it that the investment called 'trust' is worth more than any monetary investment. Cheers, Tim
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:50, Tim Goetze wrote: [Marek Peteraj] RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. A not uncommon belief has it that the investment called 'trust' is worth more than any monetary investment. Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com. Marek
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Tastes like chicken!
On Sunday 28 November 2004 07:52 am, Dave Phillips wrote: Hey John: I'll chime in with some kudos for the tune, but I agree with your own Thanks assessment re: the vocal, it does need to come forward. No point in singing words if they can't be heard or understood, yes ? Vocals are often a problem for people who don't particularly think of themselves as good singers (whatever that means: is Bob Dylan a good singer ?), and there's a resulting tendency to put the vocals too far I say two words to my comparatively green musician friends who say ya gotta have good vox; Tom Waites. AFAICT it's the same with every singer as far as insecurity goes and I've worked with lots. Under normal circumstances I belt, and had it been a serious recording I would have done things a lot differently. Really, to get a good vocal mix I'd have to shitcan the scratch track, but there's some things I really like about the guitar performance. And you can hardly tell where I had to turn the page on the lyric sheet! I'm still debating cutting the extra 2 beats. Probably go 12 string when it's time to rerecord. back in the mix. The thought is often to truly mix the vocals in with the instruments, but I suggest taking it the other way on, i.e., mixing the instruments against the voice. The song is the thing, its melody and lyrics must be clearly heard (or at least clearly sensed: I can't Yup. I used to work a lot with doo woppers. 'Nuff said. usually understand the lyrics to Mudvayne but at least their man is out front). One of my favorite local musicians made a wonderful album years ago, but the one mistake he made on it was to mix his voice too deeply into the instrumental sounds. He told me he wished he hadn't done so, and that his decision was based on his poor opinion of his own singing. Sometimes it's best to get another opinion, I guess that's part of the function of a good producer. Budgets do get in the way. Years ago, I'm sure it was analog with no automation and I can tell you that having reproduceability makes life _so_ much easier. I'm lacking 2 things right now. A quiet location and enough space to set up my console and stands. No tubby sound here, probably because my monitoring system is fairly decent. The instrumental mix has a nice loose sound to it that complements the song. I agree with Florian re: the character of the Right well I didn't use a click or anything. I got the idea for the hook, banged out the lyric in about 15 minutes, tried it on top of the progression (had been kicking the tires on the progression, but with a madrigal feel), gave it the cowboy spin and let it rip. tune, the sounds really match the intent of the lyrics. Good stuff, let's hear so Btw, perhaps this thread is more on-topic on the users list ? I meant to apologize for that. Sorry guys. Best, dp Florian Schmidt wrote: On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:36:10 -0500 John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyhoo, I had a spark of inspiration and banged out a little sort of folk tune tracked with ardour. Audacity as a front end for LAME. Still getting my ears calibrated to a subpar monitoring system so forgive the buried vox and any tubbyness. Great tune! I really enjyed it! And yes, the mix is a bit odd, but i like it. Gives the tune even more character :) Flo
Re: [linux-audio-dev] ALSA OSS Emulation and emu10k1
Hi, Peter Zubaj wrote: Other ways will require driver change. Any pointers to where (file, ~line) this is allocated/assigned. Where I would need to change this? Melanie
Re: [linux-audio-dev] ALSA OSS Emulation and emu10k1
HI, Florian Schmidt wrote: http://alsa-project.org/~iwai/OSS-Emulation.html Read up on the device mapping section. I already found that. It's not what I need, it doesn't allow to re-route the OSS devices. The secondary PCM on emu10k1 is not represented as the 2nd channel by the driver. Melanie
[linux-audio-dev] GNU Common C++ 1.3.0, new ccAudio2 0.1.0, ccrtp 1.1.2 released this morning
Along with Common C++, I also made available the first release of the new and much improved stand-alone (no longer requires GNU Common C++) version of the GNU Common C++ Audio class framework; ccaudio2. This new framework, in addition to being more portable and fully endian aware than it's predecessor (it builds and runs on platforms as varies as GNU/Linux, various BSD's, OSX, and W32) also includes a new stand-alone utility, audiotool, which can do various basic manipulations with audio files, and a revised system for supporting audio codecs as plugins. ccAudio2 still needs additional work, particularly in support of .mp3 and .ogg audio containers, and in getting additional codecs working. We also had a w32 installer built using GNU GPL licensed inno setup builder which installs all three class libraries together, along with a new class reference manual, for those using a freedom challenged platform. The one place all these things can be found together at the moment is: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=1523package_id=41672release_id=285980
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Hallo, Jan Depner hat gesagt: // Jan Depner wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:36, Lee Revell wrote: IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is. Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux driver, fine. Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally, open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my asbestos underwear? Closed source drivers are *the* evil force threatening open source and free software. Closed source drivers means no open source drivers, that's a simple fact. Why? Because with the availability of closed drivers the (market) demand for open source drivers suddenly becomes as small as the handful of Libre Software supporters like I am one. The just make my hardware work type of Linux users is not interested in Open Source drivers anymore, so why should someone still write this kind of drivers? NVidia is the prime example. They provide closed source drivers, a lot of (probably most) users are happy about this, NVidia makes millions of dollars also in the Linux market. No free software drivers? Bah, who the heck cares? And who the heck cares, that you cannot buy a single modern 3D-card anymore, which has open source drivers, by any manufacturer? Oh, that's not the fault of the linux community, Matrox simply sucks, they don't provide binary only drivers, NVidia rulez. If RME doesn't want to support Linux for their FW card, that's fine with me. There are still enough alternatives. But think about this: There are no alternatives in the graphics card market anymore. Think about, why this situation is so? In this regard, providing closed source drivers and not providing docs is even worse than not providing specifications only. It's a trojan horse, and a big part of the Linux community bites it. Just working may be enough for most users, but it is not enough for me. And that's not because I would be an RMS zealot (at least, RMS is smart enough, to not let the Trojan horse in). It's simply, what decades of open source history have told those, who know about it: It's not Linux, that's the threat to the Big Bosses, it's the idea of Free Software. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org__
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Why? Because with the availability of closed drivers the (market) demand for open source drivers suddenly becomes as small as the handful of Libre Software supporters like I am one. The just make my hardware work type of Linux users is not interested in Open Source drivers anymore, so why should someone still write this kind of drivers? NVidia is the prime example. They provide closed source drivers, a lot of (probably most) users are happy about this, NVidia makes millions of dollars also in the Linux market. No free software drivers? Bah, who the heck cares? And who the heck cares, that you cannot buy a single modern 3D-card anymore, which has open source drivers, by any manufacturer? Oh, that's not the fault of the linux community, Matrox simply sucks, they don't provide binary only Gone are the beautiful days, closed already (their 650, 750 and parhelia series - binary only) Oh BTW, just in case :) http://www.petitiononline.com/atipet/petition.html If RME doesn't want to support Linux for their FW card, that's fine with me. There are still enough alternatives. We're risking a case where the alternatives would soon be redundant technically or discontinued. And firewire is der letzte schrei, almost every manufacturer has got or prepares his own firewire product. Marek
[linux-audio-dev] [ANN] Hydrogen v0.9.1
I'm proud to announce a new stable release of Hydrogen Drum Machine!! Features: __General__ * Very user-friendly, modular, fast and intuitive graphical interface based on QT 3. * Sample-based stereo audio engine, with import of sound samples in .wav, .au and .aiff formats. * Support of samples in compressed FLAC file. __Sequencer and mixer__ * Pattern-based sequencer, with unlimited number of patterns and ability to chain patterns into a song. * Up to 64 ticks per pattern with individual level per event and variable pattern length. * 32 instrument tracks with volume, mute, solo, pan capabilities. * Multi layer support for instruments (up to 16 samples for each instrument). * Ability to import/export song files. * Unique human velocity, human time and swing functions. * Multiple patterns playing at once. __Other__ * JACK, ALSA and OSS audio drivers * ALSA MIDI input with assignable midi-in channel (1..16, ALL). * Import/export of drumkits. * Export song to wav file. * Export song to midi file. Changes: * New ALSA driver * New french tutorial and manual page (thanks to Pierre 'AlSim' Chapuis) * Bug fix Download: http://hydrogen.sourceforge.net Vote hydrogen at the italian open source contest! http://hydrogen.sourceforge.net/HowToVote.html Happy drumming! :^) -- Alessandro Comix Cominu http://hydrogen.sf.net e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Icq: 116354077 Linux User # 203765
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Marek Peteraj wrote: Oh BTW, just in case :) http://www.petitiononline.com/atipet/petition.html Free as in Nelson Mandela :) ~ Simon
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Tastes like chicken!
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 06:52, Dave Phillips wrote: Hey John: I'll chime in with some kudos for the tune, but I agree with your own assessment re: the vocal, it does need to come forward. No point in singing words if they can't be heard or understood, yes ? Vocals are often a problem for people who don't particularly think of themselves as good singers (whatever that means: is Bob Dylan a good singer ?), and there's a resulting tendency to put the vocals too far back in the mix. The thought is often to truly mix the vocals in with the instruments, but I suggest taking it the other way on, i.e., mixing the instruments against the voice. The song is the thing, its melody and lyrics must be clearly heard (or at least clearly sensed: I can't usually understand the lyrics to Mudvayne but at least their man is out front). One of my favorite local musicians made a wonderful album years ago, but the one mistake he made on it was to mix his voice too deeply into the instrumental sounds. He told me he wished he hadn't done so, and that his decision was based on his poor opinion of his own singing. Sometimes it's best to get another opinion, I guess that's part of the function of a good producer. Absolutely. It took me forever to get used to listening to myself sing. You've got to bring the vocals out front. Bob Dylan is a perfect example ;-) Jan
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 10:15, Marek Peteraj wrote: On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:50, Tim Goetze wrote: [Marek Peteraj] RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. A not uncommon belief has it that the investment called 'trust' is worth more than any monetary investment. Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com. Why don't the guys who do the driver development see if audioscience would be interested in producing pro audio cards (not just broadcast) with driver help from the OS community. They seem like they have their act together. Jan
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 19:53, Jan Depner wrote: On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 10:15, Marek Peteraj wrote: On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:50, Tim Goetze wrote: [Marek Peteraj] RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. A not uncommon belief has it that the investment called 'trust' is worth more than any monetary investment. Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com. Why don't the guys who do the driver development see if audioscience Do you mean the ALSA developers? Audioscience does its drivers for ALSA, no volunteers needed. :) would be interested in producing pro audio cards (not just broadcast) with driver help from the OS community. They seem like they have their act together. Seems like a good idea to me. The 5044 cards offers 8 analog i/os of 24/192 and i wonder whether such card could not already be used for studio purposes. But in any case, they're very close. Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 18:12 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote: And who the heck cares, that you cannot buy a single modern 3D-card anymore, which has open source drivers, by any manufacturer? Sure you can. The VIA unichrome cards have open 3D drivers. But, of course, it's not the best 3D hardware on the market. From the vendor's perspective if getting your device supported under linux means you _need_ to release an open source driver, you will find that the best hardware is disproportionately unsupported. Nvidia has a lot more valuable IP at stake than VIA when they release an open source driver for their 3D gear. If you don't understand why, I can't help you. Lee
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Open firewire audio interface: A back-of-an-envelope prototype plan
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 prototype card each. You manufacture it and then mail the cards to the developers. You set up a PC with remote login and give each developer an account. Then hook up the prototype to the PC with firewire, JTAG, software controllable power supply (GPIO?), webcam and other things that makes it possible to test the card remotely. I think it would have to be a prototype card each. The development bottleneck would be making sure the first, physical prototype was basically correct. Someone would have to sit down at a bench with it and make sure the power supply was OK, get the dsPIC going, get it programming the FPGA, get some communication with the 1394 link going and get some basic end-to-end dsPIC to host over 1394 transfer going. Anyone wishing to collaborate at this stage would probably want to arrange to be in the same room while it was happening although crude telepresence (webcam/irc/voice) might be worthwhile if things got really stuck. Before the first prototype all collaboration would be electronic. Its just as easy to share a schematic across oceans as it is a body of code. After the first prototype a small batch could be made up and posted to interested developers and then its back to electronic collaboration again. The developer prototypes would probably have to be self-funded although it might also be a good time to see if a bit of money could be sourced from somewhere. Another per-developer expense here would be a debugger/programmer for the dsPIC, probably the MPLAB ICD2, currently @ 125UKP. The IDE is free but there's a question mark over the s/w toolchain. (Compiler/assembler/linker are gnu with source available, but the toolchain as a whole costs money. AFAIK its something to do with the C library being commercial). Oh, and there's A/Ds and D/As to consider. Probably ignore them at first and just stick a scope on the audio interface header, but sooner or later will have to get some sound out of the thing. thinks for a while/. Its probably worth putting a couple of mid-price converters on the proto board. It will not be as easy as pure software though. With software, you can just pop in and actually contribute something with a very small investment. In this case all developers have to be dedicated enough to actually buy the hardware. Yes, this would cost money to develop. Hardware does. But remember, the early prototypes are useful little dev boards in their own right. I wouldn't mind paying to own one and I guess there are others who wouldn't mind either, including maybe people who aren't involved in linux and/or aren't involved in audio. Anyway, the lets reverse engineer a driver for product X approach also requires developers to actually buy the hardware. In both cases, I'd expect the people involved to be people who also had other reasons to want to own the hardware. Even if the hardware design is open doesn't prevent a company to make money selling it. Why not design everything the open source way, then let one or more companies make the investment required to prototype and test the card. These companies can then make money by selling the hardware, either completely assembled or in parts. To get someone to do an initial investment is probably required to get the price down. It is often necessary to buy components in the thousands to get a reasonable price. Yes, and there's lots of additional costs involved in a production model, eg packaging, production engineering, CE marking etc. It would require the involvement of a business, or the developers would have to put on business hats. Maybe you should first investigate if there already is a firewire prototype card on the market, which can be hooked up to audio converters. I'd be surprised to find anything combining dsPIC, FPGA and firewire. Buy a dev board for one and you'd still have to lay out the others. Might as well just lay out all three. This thing *is* a dev board which can be hooked up to audio converters. Cheers Simon
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com. Why don't the guys who do the driver development see if audioscience Thanks for the vote of confidence! Do you mean the ALSA developers? Audioscience does its drivers for ALSA, no volunteers needed. :) Not so fast... we at audioscience would love to have some help with our ALSA driver and our underlying HPI driver. We are a small company that supports various Micros~1 flavours as well as Linux 2.4 and 2.6 kernel variations. I am the single person who does all the linux stuff, and would still say I don't know enough to do it easily or properly. (Of course I have had help from our customers and other alsa developers, and kudos to Takashi Iwai for doing the work to incorporate our ALSA driver into the alsa tree) So step right up... would be interested in producing pro audio cards (not just broadcast) with driver help from the OS community. They seem like they have their act together. So, what is the difference between our current offerings and what you'd like to see in a pro audio card? Seems like a good idea to me. The 5044 cards offers 8 analog i/os of 24/192 and i wonder whether such card could not already be used for studio purposes. But in any case, they're very close. Marek regards Eliot Blennerhassett
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Tastes like chicken!
On Sunday 28 November 2004 01:40 pm, Jan Depner wrote: On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 06:52, Dave Phillips wrote: Hey John: I'll chime in with some kudos for the tune, but I agree with your own assessment re: the vocal, it does need to come forward. No point in singing words if they can't be heard or understood, yes ? Vocals are often a problem for people who don't particularly think of themselves as good singers (whatever that means: is Bob Dylan a good singer ?), and there's a resulting tendency to put the vocals too far back in the mix. The thought is often to truly mix the vocals in with the instruments, but I suggest taking it the other way on, i.e., mixing the instruments against the voice. The song is the thing, its melody and lyrics must be clearly heard (or at least clearly sensed: I can't usually understand the lyrics to Mudvayne but at least their man is out front). One of my favorite local musicians made a wonderful album years ago, but the one mistake he made on it was to mix his voice too deeply into the instrumental sounds. He told me he wished he hadn't done so, and that his decision was based on his poor opinion of his own singing. Sometimes it's best to get another opinion, I guess that's part of the function of a good producer. Absolutely. It took me forever to get used to listening to myself sing. You've got to bring the vocals out front. Bob Dylan is a perfect example ;-) Jan FWIW I took another pass and posted it to the same URL
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Hallo, Lee Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote: Nvidia has a lot more valuable IP at stake than VIA when they release an open source driver for their 3D gear. If you don't understand why, I can't help you. I do understand this very well. Because this is the central conflict: I will not deal with companies who hide their so called Intellectual Property in an area where many free software developers (Jarolav, Takashi, Paul, Miller, Linus, Guido, ...) release their so called Intellectual Property into a freedom so that it is not *their* property anymore but free to use for a whole community. As we have Behringer as a subject currently: Behringer is a problem for Mackie, but we here invite people into our house to become Behringers, and to become a Behringer is a good thing here. Ardour is trying to become a Behringer for Digidesign. Nobody can steal free software, because they already own it. (As long as they follow the rules as stated in the GPL etc.) IP however and free software don't match very well together. Free software is at least a decade older than the term Intellectual Property (read the Wired-CD text to learn more), which was only coined as a term to fight free property, to fight sharing, to fight Behringers, etc. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org__
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:27:46AM +1300, Eliot Blennerhassett wrote: So, what is the difference between our current offerings and what you'd like to see in a pro audio card? I don't see any gross difference except the input/output connectors. Bundle the 5042 or 5044 with adapters or breakout boxes, and price them roughly in the ballpark (allowing for feature and/or spec differences) with M-audio's Delta 1010LT and 1010, and you might have another market to tap into. Worth investigating anyway. That's a pretty low price target, though. The Delta 1010 can be had for $500 new; the 1010 LT for considerably less. Another point of comparison would be Echo Layla for ~ $700 US. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 22:09 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote: Hallo, Lee Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote: Nvidia has a lot more valuable IP at stake than VIA when they release an open source driver for their 3D gear. If you don't understand why, I can't help you. I do understand this very well. Because this is the central conflict: I will not deal with companies who hide their so called Intellectual Property in an area where many free software developers (Jarolav, Takashi, Paul, Miller, Linus, Guido, ...) release their so called Intellectual Property into a freedom so that it is not *their* property anymore but free to use for a whole community. I think you are confusing the distinction between software and hardware. I agree that software should be free. The issue here is what the software reveals about the hardware. This is the reason Linus allows binary Linux drivers, but not, say, a binary I/O scheduler. Lee
Re: why open source drivers [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 21:31, Mark Knecht wrote: On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:20:33 -0500, Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 12:06 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: Fine with me. If I shelled out for RME hardware I better be able to call RME for support, same as on any other OS. You get what you pay for, right? Sure, but when you buy it and the box says 'Requires Mac OS X or Windows XP' then as a buyer I have to respect that. I cannot expect them to support Linux when it wasn't advertised that it works on Linux. RME has given me GREAT support under Windows and I expect that this will not change. They are a great company. I own two cards and wouldn't hesitate to buy another if I was going to set up another Windows box. Yeah, I was referring to an Nvidia like scenario, where they don't release open drivers, but release closed Linux drivers of comparable quality and the same support as the Windows driver. Sure, I get it. However I think you and plug in a close source RME card driver and happily use it if it was available. I think Marek, Frank and others do not feel this way. I had no second thoughts about putting an NVidia controller in my dad's Linux box even though I used ATI up until then. My experience using both is no that different, but for me it's not political. Am I wrong when I think this desire is particularly European in nature? I'm so Open Market driven, especially when it comes to technology, that I hardly seem to understand this oter POV. However, I am interested. One nice example. Korg 1212 i/o, worked under win98, doesn't under winXP because korg does not provide support for it. There is an alsa driver for it now(and specs), so basically the life of that card is extended to eternity. There are more such damn good reasons for open source drivers. People just don't shout too loud. :) Of course I would be pretty annoyed if they just drop Linux completely, for the same reasons as others in this thread - they have a relationship with the community at this point. But I don't think they would be that stupid. After all pissing off hundreds of potential customers is just as bad an idea as giving valuable IP to the competition. Darn straight. However how did Marek end up being an RME customer when there was (as far as I know) never any support for this device under Linux, nor anyone even really saying there would be? Actually not quite, it seemed as if there would be support, Thomas wanted to do the driver. I just invested too much trust in RME. My fault. In my case I Was told that supporting the HDSP 9652 would be a non-issue based on the DigiFace working. It turned out to be true, but then again it took about a year to become really useful to me, and even today doesn't work as well as it does under Windows. How did he end up with this device and in this position? I somehow don't think this is RME's fault... If RME did the drivers for your HDSP 9652 then you could directly contact them and ask them for support. I'm sure Thomas would help you aswell if he had the card, and that's the problem. In such case claiming that they do support alsa is just plain unfair. Marek
Re: audioscience [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 10:27, Eliot Blennerhassett wrote: Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com. Why don't the guys who do the driver development see if audioscience Thanks for the vote of confidence! Do you mean the ALSA developers? Audioscience does its drivers for ALSA, no volunteers needed. :) Not so fast... we at audioscience would love to have some help with our ALSA driver and our underlying HPI driver. We are a small company that supports various Micros~1 flavours as well as Linux 2.4 and 2.6 kernel variations. I am the single person who does all the linux stuff, and would still say I don't know enough to do it easily or properly. (Of course I have had help from our customers and other alsa developers, and kudos to Takashi Iwai for doing the work to incorporate our ALSA driver into the alsa tree) So step right up... Hi Eliot, thanks for clarifying this up for us. Nevertheless i think that what you do is great and your the *only* company that does provide official alsa drivers and support for professional audio products(i know it's just you but anyway, the philosophy is cool). I think that you would get a lot of feedback if you entered the studio market. would be interested in producing pro audio cards (not just broadcast) with driver help from the OS community. They seem like they have their act together. So, what is the difference between our current offerings and what you'd like to see in a pro audio card? I think that having a breakout box with 24/192 converters inside the breakoutbox would rock. 8 analog i/o is fine too. Most such devices usually offer around 26 channels of inputs + 26 chans of outputs, ~1/2 being digital. Hmmm now that i think about it, the 5042(the AES/EBU one) with a breakoutbox with analog i/o would be really cool. Not sure about how much load the DSP processor can handle and whether it's flotingpoint capable, but running a few ladspas on such DSP would be very nice too. :) Just some initial thoughts. Marek
Re: why open source drivers [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 00:58, Mark Knecht wrote: On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:25:09 +0100, Marek Peteraj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 21:31, Mark Knecht wrote: One nice example. Korg 1212 i/o, worked under win98, doesn't under winXP because korg does not provide support for it. There is an alsa driver for it now(and specs), so basically the life of that card is extended to eternity. There are more such damn good reasons for open source drivers. People just don't shout too loud. :) Fair enough. There are companies here in Silicon Valley that take over 'end of life' chip designs and manufacturer them for a while to help customers, but there isn't much money in it most of the time, just as there is probably no financial reason for Korg to support that card. I didn't like it when DigiDesign said they weren't going to continue to support the 001 forever and I was forced into buying an 002 or going away from Windows. Unortunately there was no other platform that maintained my music investment as well so I stuck with Digi. That's the nature of technology. It gets outdated. Not too many companies making buggy whips anymore either... However how did Marek end up being an RME customer when there was (as far as I know) never any support for this device under Linux, nor anyone even really saying there would be? Actually not quite, it seemed as if there would be support, Thomas wanted to do the driver. I just invested too much trust in RME. My fault. And I am very sorry about that. You don't have to be. It is a disappointment I'm sure. You're a long ways away. If it was more practical I'd probably buy the unit from you. I have uses. I'm sure others will too. You'll sell it and get good money. Chalk the loss up to learning and remember...Trust, but verify. Agreed. It was a lesson to learn. Thanks for your 'heads up' :) In my case I Was told that supporting the HDSP 9652 would be a non-issue based on the DigiFace working. It turned out to be true, but then again it took about a year to become really useful to me, and even today doesn't work as well as it does under Windows. How did he end up with this device and in this position? I somehow don't think this is RME's fault... If RME did the drivers for your HDSP 9652 then you could directly contact them and ask them for support. I'm sure Thomas would help you aswell if he had the card, and that's the problem. In such case claiming that they do support alsa is just plain unfair. RME never 'supported' the card under Linux. The 'supported' the developers by providing technical info. I did not purchase the card because of RME telling me it would be OK to use the card under Linux. They never stated such things. Unfortunately they did. To quote a part of their response: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more Complete BS. We have and will support Linux/Alsa as before. The only excluded product is the Fireface. Marek
Re: why open source drivers [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 01:32, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 03:19:14 +0100, Marek Peteraj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RME never 'supported' the card under Linux. The 'supported' the
developers by providing technical info. I did not purchase the card
because of RME telling me it would be OK to use the card under Linux.
They never stated such things.
Unfortunately they did. To quote a part of their response:
[linux-audio-dev] RME is no more
Complete BS. We have and will support Linux/Alsa as before. The only
excluded product is the Fireface.
Marek
Well, I don't know exactly what you're calling BS
No no you don't understand, i was quoting RME. I had a discussion with
them on their forum.
Marek
