Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?
Thanks to everyone who has already expressed interest! Definitely looking like it may be a go on the project. I'll keep sursound informed as I do preliminary studies this summer. Dave On 05/07/2012 22:25, Gerard Lardner wrote: +1 here too. Gerard Lardner On 05/07/2012 14:41, Hugh Pyle wrote: +1. If you design a BeagleBone cape with 16 channels out (balanced or not, I don't really mind), or a dedicated system that includes the CPU, I'll want several :-) On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:16 AM, GP ga...@activatedspace.com wrote: Put me on your pre-order list already Dave! :-). Cheers Garth Sent on the Move On 05/07/2012, at 19:48, Dave Malham dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote: Wow! Fantastic response .. lots to think about. Will let you know how I get on. Part of the problem is hardware as I was unable (at the time I got this board) to find a case with a HD Audio front panel so it currently thinks it's running in AC97 mode, but I'm going to knock something up to get round this. In the mean time I'm going to play with the suggestions people have made (Puppy is currently booting). I'm also interested in the paper that Fernando gave us a link to. Although I don't want to use the Mamba hardware, I _am_ interested in the possibilities for a dedicated multichannel player for installation work (another retirement project!) What I'm looking at at present is a multichannel dac linked directly (not via USB or owt like that) to an Arm processor that'll just play a multichannel file off of a USB stick or SD card. For prototyping I'll be using a BeagleBone (as I definitely don't want the extra bells and whistles of the BeagleBoard itself) - I'd prefer to use the RPi but the chip used (at least, according to the manual) appears to have a crippled McASP port that can only handle stereo, whereas the ARM on the BeagleBone has a good enough implementation of McASP that it can do 16 channels at 48k for definite (EAOE) and probably up to 96k without too much trouble. If initial tests prove the concept, I'll look KickStarter funding. The idea is to have an absolutely rock solid box that just plays stuff without any of the hassles of systems relying on computers (ha! That'll be the day)) The most it would have is an on/off switch and play controls - but it would output up to 16 channels, balanced, 24 bits. Dave On 05/07/2012 07:50, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: On 07/04/2012 06:40 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote: Fernando Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu a écrit : Single board computers are interesting platforms to create dedicated ambisonic players. Indeed! Let us know how the beagle board perform with a port of Planet CCRMA. ;-) I will, I just have to find the time to test. I'm curious whether a small box like that can drive 1/2 of the Mamba box I was driving from a regular desktop. 32 channel playback through an ethernet port[*]... -- Fernando [*] https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~nando/publications/jack_mamba_lac2012.pdf ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer /*/ /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/;*/ /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450*/ /* York YO10 5DD */ /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */ /*http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/; */ /*/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer /*/ /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/; */ /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450
Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?
On 07/04/2012 06:40 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote: Fernando Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu a écrit : Yum has gotten much faster recently, but I have no idea how it compares with apt today. IMHO it is as easy to use as apt (ie: it is functionally equivalent), but it may be slow (perhaps to the point of being unusable?) on low end systems. I should give it a try in the beagle board systems we use @ ccrma. Fedora is the default distribution for the Raspberry Pi, so there's probably good reasons to use it on such a slow computer. When I tried YUM on the XO, the unusable part of the process was reading and refreshing the packages database. But installing packages seems to be as randomly slow with YUM or APT. A linuxer demoed it twice, for fun: APT wins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ejfNfEZDvs YUM wins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uRwFIb-g5w Single board computers are interesting platforms to create dedicated ambisonic players. Indeed! Let us know how the beagle board perform with a port of Planet CCRMA. ;-) I will, I just have to find the time to test. I'm curious whether a small box like that can drive 1/2 of the Mamba box I was driving from a regular desktop. 32 channel playback through an ethernet port[*]... -- Fernando [*] https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~nando/publications/jack_mamba_lac2012.pdf ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?
It will be balanced - not looking at anything else, especially as all dacs of any quality have balanced outs. My initial thoughts for a a Kickstarter reward structure is to do the usual special for early adopters which would, in this case, be what amounts to a cape (I'm wary of doing an actual cape as that might mean too much noise coupling from the CPU board into the analogue side of things) with people people who invest more getting the Beaglebone as well. Only in the second tranche would the dedicated CPU come out though whether on the same board or as a second board, I'm not sure yet, for the same reason as given above on noise coupling. Current thoughts have connectors for the audio on 25 pin D types (a la Tascam etc.) so that they can either go direct to an off-the-shelf loom which plugs into your amps/speakers. Alternatively the board(s) could go into a rack unit with connections from the D types to xlr's on the back (or front) of the unit - this might include dedicated balanced line drivers to extend the usable range. Dave On 05/07/2012 14:41, Hugh Pyle wrote: +1. If you design a BeagleBone cape with 16 channels out (balanced or not, I don't really mind), or a dedicated system that includes the CPU, I'll want several :-) On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:16 AM, GP ga...@activatedspace.com wrote: Put me on your pre-order list already Dave! :-). Cheers Garth Sent on the Move On 05/07/2012, at 19:48, Dave Malham dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote: Wow! Fantastic response .. lots to think about. Will let you know how I get on. Part of the problem is hardware as I was unable (at the time I got this board) to find a case with a HD Audio front panel so it currently thinks it's running in AC97 mode, but I'm going to knock something up to get round this. In the mean time I'm going to play with the suggestions people have made (Puppy is currently booting). I'm also interested in the paper that Fernando gave us a link to. Although I don't want to use the Mamba hardware, I _am_ interested in the possibilities for a dedicated multichannel player for installation work (another retirement project!) What I'm looking at at present is a multichannel dac linked directly (not via USB or owt like that) to an Arm processor that'll just play a multichannel file off of a USB stick or SD card. For prototyping I'll be using a BeagleBone (as I definitely don't want the extra bells and whistles of the BeagleBoard itself) - I'd prefer to use the RPi but the chip used (at least, according to the manual) appears to have a crippled McASP port that can only handle stereo, whereas the ARM on the BeagleBone has a good enough implementation of McASP that it can do 16 channels at 48k for definite (EAOE) and probably up to 96k without too much trouble. If initial tests prove the concept, I'll look KickStarter funding. The idea is to have an absolutely rock solid box that just plays stuff without any of the hassles of systems relying on computers (ha! That'll be the day)) The most it would have is an on/off switch and play controls - but it would output up to 16 channels, balanced, 24 bits. Dave On 05/07/2012 07:50, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: On 07/04/2012 06:40 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote: Fernando Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu a écrit : Single board computers are interesting platforms to create dedicated ambisonic players. Indeed! Let us know how the beagle board perform with a port of Planet CCRMA. ;-) I will, I just have to find the time to test. I'm curious whether a small box like that can drive 1/2 of the Mamba box I was driving from a regular desktop. 32 channel playback through an ethernet port[*]... -- Fernando [*] https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~nando/publications/jack_mamba_lac2012.pdf ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer /*/ /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/;*/ /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450*/ /* York YO10 5DD */ /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */ /*http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/; */ /*/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?
where do i sign up. have you started a kickstarter page? umashankar i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:57:07 +0100 From: dave.mal...@york.ac.uk To: sursound@music.vt.edu Subject: Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio? It will be balanced - not looking at anything else, especially as all dacs of any quality have balanced outs. My initial thoughts for a a Kickstarter reward structure is to do the usual special for early adopters which would, in this case, be what amounts to a cape (I'm wary of doing an actual cape as that might mean too much noise coupling from the CPU board into the analogue side of things) with people people who invest more getting the Beaglebone as well. Only in the second tranche would the dedicated CPU come out though whether on the same board or as a second board, I'm not sure yet, for the same reason as given above on noise coupling. Current thoughts have connectors for the audio on 25 pin D types (a la Tascam etc.) so that they can either go direct to an off-the-shelf loom which plugs into your amps/speakers. Alternatively the board(s) could go into a rack unit with connections from the D types to xlr's on the back (or front) of the unit - this might include dedicated balanced line drivers to extend the usable range. Dave On 05/07/2012 14:41, Hugh Pyle wrote: +1. If you design a BeagleBone cape with 16 channels out (balanced or not, I don't really mind), or a dedicated system that includes the CPU, I'll want several :-) On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:16 AM, GP ga...@activatedspace.com wrote: Put me on your pre-order list already Dave! :-). Cheers Garth Sent on the Move On 05/07/2012, at 19:48, Dave Malham dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote: Wow! Fantastic response .. lots to think about. Will let you know how I get on. Part of the problem is hardware as I was unable (at the time I got this board) to find a case with a HD Audio front panel so it currently thinks it's running in AC97 mode, but I'm going to knock something up to get round this. In the mean time I'm going to play with the suggestions people have made (Puppy is currently booting). I'm also interested in the paper that Fernando gave us a link to. Although I don't want to use the Mamba hardware, I _am_ interested in the possibilities for a dedicated multichannel player for installation work (another retirement project!) What I'm looking at at present is a multichannel dac linked directly (not via USB or owt like that) to an Arm processor that'll just play a multichannel file off of a USB stick or SD card. For prototyping I'll be using a BeagleBone (as I definitely don't want the extra bells and whistles of the BeagleBoard itself) - I'd prefer to use the RPi but the chip used (at least, according to the manual) appears to have a crippled McASP port that can only handle stereo, whereas the ARM on the BeagleBone has a good enough implementation of McASP that it can do 16 channels at 48k for definite (EAOE) and probably up to 96k without too much trouble. If initial tests prove the concept, I'll look KickStarter funding. The idea is to have an absolutely rock solid box that just plays stuff without any of the hassles of systems relying on computers (ha! That'll be the day)) The most it would have is an on/off switch and play controls - but it would output up to 16 channels, balanced, 24 bits. Dave On 05/07/2012 07:50, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: On 07/04/2012 06:40 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote: Fernando Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu a écrit : Single board computers are interesting platforms to create dedicated ambisonic players. Indeed! Let us know how the beagle board perform with a port of Planet CCRMA. ;-) I will, I just have to find the time to test. I'm curious whether a small box like that can drive 1/2 of the Mamba box I was driving from a regular desktop. 32 channel playback through an ethernet port[*]... -- Fernando [*] https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~nando/publications/jack_mamba_lac2012.pdf ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer /*/ /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/;*/ /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450*/ /* York YO10 5DD */ /* UK 'Ambisonics
Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?
Dave, You can include me in, as well. John On 5 Jul 2012, at 15:16, Dave Malham wrote: Not yet, I'm just testing the waters, so to speak, at present. I'm hopefully going to be doing some preliminary tests over the summer, but I won't be able to start serious work until late autumn as I don't retire till the end of September. I won't put up the Kickstarter page until I have a clearer idea of timescales as I would want to be sure I can deliver what I promise on it :-) Dave ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?
+1 here too. Gerard Lardner On 05/07/2012 14:41, Hugh Pyle wrote: +1. If you design a BeagleBone cape with 16 channels out (balanced or not, I don't really mind), or a dedicated system that includes the CPU, I'll want several :-) On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:16 AM, GP ga...@activatedspace.com wrote: Put me on your pre-order list already Dave! :-). Cheers Garth Sent on the Move On 05/07/2012, at 19:48, Dave Malham dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote: Wow! Fantastic response .. lots to think about. Will let you know how I get on. Part of the problem is hardware as I was unable (at the time I got this board) to find a case with a HD Audio front panel so it currently thinks it's running in AC97 mode, but I'm going to knock something up to get round this. In the mean time I'm going to play with the suggestions people have made (Puppy is currently booting). I'm also interested in the paper that Fernando gave us a link to. Although I don't want to use the Mamba hardware, I _am_ interested in the possibilities for a dedicated multichannel player for installation work (another retirement project!) What I'm looking at at present is a multichannel dac linked directly (not via USB or owt like that) to an Arm processor that'll just play a multichannel file off of a USB stick or SD card. For prototyping I'll be using a BeagleBone (as I definitely don't want the extra bells and whistles of the BeagleBoard itself) - I'd prefer to use the RPi but the chip used (at least, according to the manual) appears to have a crippled McASP port that can only handle stereo, whereas the ARM on the BeagleBone has a good enough implementation of McASP that it can do 16 channels at 48k for definite (EAOE) and probably up to 96k without too much trouble. If initial tests prove the concept, I'll look KickStarter funding. The idea is to have an absolutely rock solid box that just plays stuff without any of the hassles of systems relying on computers (ha! That'll be the day)) The most it would have is an on/off switch and play controls - but it would output up to 16 channels, balanced, 24 bits. Dave On 05/07/2012 07:50, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: On 07/04/2012 06:40 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote: Fernando Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu a écrit : Single board computers are interesting platforms to create dedicated ambisonic players. Indeed! Let us know how the beagle board perform with a port of Planet CCRMA. ;-) I will, I just have to find the time to test. I'm curious whether a small box like that can drive 1/2 of the Mamba box I was driving from a regular desktop. 32 channel playback through an ethernet port[*]... -- Fernando [*] https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~nando/publications/jack_mamba_lac2012.pdf ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer /*/ /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/;*/ /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450*/ /* York YO10 5DD */ /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */ /*http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/; */ /*/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?
We should not fight over distributions ... But Avlinux has one advantage, that is that There has been a lot of work invested in making shure that all the program are of compatible versions and are interworking well with all other included softwares. The latest and greatest software releases of all programs is not always the best way to have a trouble free experience of using the applications in a distribution. Try Avlinux from a fast USB stick or DVD to see what a well integrated distribution lets you do. - Bosse -Original Message- From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Augustine Leudar Sent: den 4 juli 2012 13:07 To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio? Have you tried upgrading ubuntu to ubuntu studio ? On 4 July 2012 11:41, Dave Malham dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote: Hi folks, I'm looking for recommendations on a preferred (small) Linux distro for surround work. To start with, I'd like to run on a Asus 35 M1-M Pro motherboard as I have one handy. Unfortunately, my current Ubuntu distro seems to have difficulties picking up its built-in 8 channel audio but my relatively poor knowledge/experience of Linux means I can't be sure if I'm doing something wrong (most probable scenario) or if it's a distro or hardware limitation. As I only went for Ubuntu because I had some experience with it already, I thought it would make sense, before going further, to seek advice about optimum-for-audio distros and concentrate on one of those and preferably one without much bloat. Dave -- These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer /*** **/ /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/**research/dave-malham/http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/*/ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/; */ /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450*/ /* York YO10 5DD */ /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */ /* http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/**mustech/3d_audio/http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/ */ /*** **/ __**_ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursoundhttps://mail.mus ic.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120704/3b4ec3b6/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio? AVlinux
http://www.remastersys.com/forums/index.php?topic=1975.0 sorry for spamming you :-) But as a donating user of Avlinux I feel it is my duty :-) A new release is very close in time, but the 5.03 is good, and soundcard support is VERY good. - Bosse -Original Message- From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Bo-Erik Sandholm Sent: den 4 juli 2012 13:34 To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio? We should not fight over distributions ... But Avlinux has one advantage, that is that There has been a lot of work invested in making shure that all the program are of compatible versions and are interworking well with all other included softwares. The latest and greatest software releases of all programs is not always the best way to have a trouble free experience of using the applications in a distribution. Try Avlinux from a fast USB stick or DVD to see what a well integrated distribution lets you do. - Bosse -Original Message- From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Augustine Leudar Sent: den 4 juli 2012 13:07 To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio? Have you tried upgrading ubuntu to ubuntu studio ? On 4 July 2012 11:41, Dave Malham dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote: Hi folks, I'm looking for recommendations on a preferred (small) Linux distro for surround work. To start with, I'd like to run on a Asus 35 M1-M Pro motherboard as I have one handy. Unfortunately, my current Ubuntu distro seems to have difficulties picking up its built-in 8 channel audio but my relatively poor knowledge/experience of Linux means I can't be sure if I'm doing something wrong (most probable scenario) or if it's a distro or hardware limitation. As I only went for Ubuntu because I had some experience with it already, I thought it would make sense, before going further, to seek advice about optimum-for-audio distros and concentrate on one of those and preferably one without much bloat. Dave -- These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer /*** **/ /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/**research/dave-malham/http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/*/ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/; */ /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450*/ /* York YO10 5DD */ /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */ /* http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/**mustech/3d_audio/http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/ */ /*** **/ __**_ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursoundhttps://mail.mus ic.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120704/3b4ec3b6/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 11:41:53AM +0100, Dave Malham wrote: I'm looking for recommendations on a preferred (small) Linux distro for surround work. To start with, I'd like to run on a Asus 35 M1-M Pro motherboard as I have one handy. Unfortunately, my current Ubuntu distro seems to have difficulties picking up its built-in 8 channel audio but my relatively poor knowledge/experience of Linux means I can't be sure if I'm doing something wrong (most probable scenario) or if it's a distro or hardware limitation. As I only went for Ubuntu because I had some experience with it already, I thought it would make sense, before going further, to seek advice about optimum-for-audio distros and concentrate on one of those and preferably one without much bloat. Ubuntu comes with the Gnome desktop which uses PulseAudio as its 'audio server'. PA has many qualities for the typical desktop user but is completely unsuitable for any serious audio work, for one it doesn't handle real multichannel interfaces (because the underlying ALSA layer doesn't provide any info that would enable PA to find out 'standard' channel mappings). For anything serious you need to run Jack as the sound server. It's not possible to 'uninstall' PA on a system with Gnome (it's a hard dependency) but you can tell PA to get out of the way when Jack needs access to the sound card, and you can even configure PA to become a Jack client so your 'desktop sounds' continue to work. I can't provide any reliable help on how exactly to do this (since none of my systems have PA installed), but you could ask on the Linux Audio Users or Developers mailing lists, see http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user/ http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev/ for how to subscribe etc. If you want a 'lean and mean' and generally unbloated linux distro I could recommend ArchLinux (used on 10 systems here). Compared to e.g. Ubuntu it has a rather steep learning curve, you will need to learn a lot about system administration (the docs on the Arch Wiki are quite good), but you'll be rewarded with actually knowing how your system works and remaining in control of it. But I admit it can be a bit hard the first time. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?
I have almost no experience in this, but it seems like this discussion would be incomplete without mentioning the Planet CCRMA distribution: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/ written with too much blood in my caffeine stream. Eric - Original Message From: Dave Malham dave.mal...@york.ac.uk To: Surround Sound discussion group sursound@music.vt.edu Sent: Wed, July 4, 2012 3:42:11 AM Subject: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio? Hi folks, I'm looking for recommendations on a preferred (small) Linux distro for surround work. To start with, I'd like to run on a Asus 35 M1-M Pro motherboard as I have one handy. Unfortunately, my current Ubuntu distro seems to have difficulties picking up its built-in 8 channel audio but my relatively poor knowledge/experience of Linux means I can't be sure if I'm doing something wrong (most probable scenario) or if it's a distro or hardware limitation. As I only went for Ubuntu because I had some experience with it already, I thought it would make sense, before going further, to seek advice about optimum-for-audio distros and concentrate on one of those and preferably one without much bloat. Dave -- These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer /*/ /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/;*/ /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450*/ /* York YO10 5DD */ /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */ /*http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/; */ /*/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 08:19:05PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: On 07/04/2012 06:51 PM, Eric Benjamin wrote: I have almost no experience in this, but it seems like this discussion would be incomplete without mentioning the Planet CCRMA distribution: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/ speak of the devil :) hi nando. nice to see you on sursound! Would be nice, but it wasn't Nando who wrote that... :-) Ciao, P.S. Off to Iceland soon I presume ? -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?
I can second the recommendation for Planet CCRMA. I've used it for for audio work for a decade (since Red Hat 7 days) on various mini-ITX based systems and laptops. 'Nando Lopez-Lezcano (the maintainer) and others on the mailing list are helpful and quick to reply. On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Eric Benjamin eb...@pacbell.net wrote: I have almost no experience in this, but it seems like this discussion would be incomplete without mentioning the Planet CCRMA distribution: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/ written with too much blood in my caffeine stream. Eric ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?
I use the KXStudio distribution based on the latest Ubuntu 12.04 LTS (Long Term Support). Two installation methods are proposed with a live-dvd (easiest) or a small netboot iso (prefered). It's also possible to use the kxstudio packages with a normal Ubuntu (my method). http://kxstudio.sourceforge.net/ In any case, I much prefer the classic XFCE desktop to the weird Unity/Gnome3 desktops. There's the KDE4 desktop, but it's also bloated with useless eye candies and package dependencies. XFCE is simple, stable and friendly. I disable all desktop (2D and/or 3D) effects for a more responsive system. KKstudio can be installed with a realtime kernel version 3.2; I don't use it yet because the (evil proprietary) NVidia drivers are incompatible, so I might use the GPL nouveau driver to avoid this problem. But audio works well enough with the low latency kernel. I use Jackd2 instead of Jackd1, and I use the new Pulse Audio 2.0. To use PA 2.0 with Jackd2, install Pulse 2.0 from this PPA: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-audio-dev/+archive/ppa then follow these instructions: http://trac.jackaudio.org/wiki/WalkThrough/User/PulseOnJack This perl script helps *a lot* to configure realtime audio on Linux: http://code.google.com/p/realtimeconfigquickscan/ For basic sound troubleshooting on Ubuntu, here's a good resource: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SoundTroubleshootingProcedure For extra multimedia goodies (especially for proprietary codecs), I complement my system with the Medibuntu packages: http://medibuntu.org/ The Planet CCRMA distribution is also ideal for sound, and it's very well maintained. But I much prefer Debian based distributions (like Ubuntu) for their APT packaging system (instead of RPM on Fedora based distributions). -- Marc Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.org a écrit : On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 11:41:53AM +0100, Dave Malham wrote: I'm looking for recommendations on a preferred (small) Linux distro for surround work. To start with, I'd like to run on a Asus 35 M1-M Pro motherboard as I have one handy. Unfortunately, my current Ubuntu distro seems to have difficulties picking up its built-in 8 channel audio but my relatively poor knowledge/experience of Linux means I can't be sure if I'm doing something wrong (most probable scenario) or if it's a distro or hardware limitation. As I only went for Ubuntu because I had some experience with it already, I thought it would make sense, before going further, to seek advice about optimum-for-audio distros and concentrate on one of those and preferably one without much bloat. Ubuntu comes with the Gnome desktop which uses PulseAudio as its 'audio server'. PA has many qualities for the typical desktop user but is completely unsuitable for any serious audio work, for one it doesn't handle real multichannel interfaces (because the underlying ALSA layer doesn't provide any info that would enable PA to find out 'standard' channel mappings). For anything serious you need to run Jack as the sound server. It's not possible to 'uninstall' PA on a system with Gnome (it's a hard dependency) but you can tell PA to get out of the way when Jack needs access to the sound card, and you can even configure PA to become a Jack client so your 'desktop sounds' continue to work. I can't provide any reliable help on how exactly to do this (since none of my systems have PA installed), but you could ask on the Linux Audio Users or Developers mailing lists, see http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user/ http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev/ for how to subscribe etc. If you want a 'lean and mean' and generally unbloated linux distro I could recommend ArchLinux (used on 10 systems here). Compared to e.g. Ubuntu it has a rather steep learning curve, you will need to learn a lot about system administration (the docs on the Arch Wiki are quite good), but you'll be rewarded with actually knowing how your system works and remaining in control of it. But I admit it can be a bit hard the first time. Ciao, ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?
On 07/04/2012 01:44 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote: [MUNCH]... But I much prefer Debian based distributions (like Ubuntu) for their APT packaging system (instead of RPM on Fedora based distributions). Caveat (apt != rpm): underlying package system: .deb packages in Debian, .rpm packages in Fedora dependency resolvers: apt in Debian, yum in Fedora I have used both apt and yum, they do the job... You don't want|have to deal with deb or rpm packages directly, you always install them using apt or yum. -- Fernando ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?
I stopped using RedHat (before Fedora) in favour of Debian, to get out of the RPM dependency hell. At the time, there was no YUM to resolve the package dependencies, like APT does so well. But I remember my experience with YUM on the XO computer (from the OLPC project); it was was extremely slow. With Ubuntu it was much faster to customize a new system for my XO. Here's a few benchmarks to compare YUM with APT: http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7382/ I know from experience that .deb based distributions are easier to use than .rpm distributions, especially on slow computers (like the XO or the Raspberry Pi). For maintainers, rpm packages are easier to build, so that might be why you prefer Fedora. Marc Fernando Lopez-Lezcano na...@ccrma.stanford.edu a écrit : On 07/04/2012 01:44 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote: [MUNCH]... But I much prefer Debian based distributions (like Ubuntu) for their APT packaging system (instead of RPM on Fedora based distributions). Caveat (apt != rpm): underlying package system: .deb packages in Debian, .rpm packages in Fedora dependency resolvers: apt in Debian, yum in Fedora I have used both apt and yum, they do the job... You don't want|have to deal with deb or rpm packages directly, you always install them using apt or yum. -- Fernando ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
