Subject: Re: [ecasound] max decibels, mute-toggle, chain looping
From: Adam Linson (adam_AT_semioweb.com)
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 11:07:59 EET
hey kai, thanks for digging up my old post.
next time i will just repost the msg like you recommended (or a link to
the archive).
On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 19:24, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
>
> This is tricky. I admit that it would be better to have c-mute and
> c-unmute instead of the current toggling behaviour. On the other hand,
> breaking old behaviour at this point is very bad, so there's no easy to
> solve this. Possibly the most elegant solution would be to add c-is-muted.
> Comments?
>
"c-is-muted" would be fantastic!
>
> The chainsetup level looping is currently one big hack and I'd really like
> to replace it with something more elegant.
>
> Currently your best option is the ewf file format (see user's guide). It
> allows you to do audio-object level looping.
>
great tip! i have used .ewf's before, but it hadn't occurred to me to
use them in this setting.
> In future, we have a choice of either extending the ewf-format (ewf-v2),
> or adding special audio devices that provide looping, cutting, etc on the
> command-line (something like: ecasound -i fseq,loop,foo.wav -o alsa).
> I'm not yet sure which approach is better.
one big drawback of either of these two approaches is similar to a
problem i ran into with "reverse" -- when dealing with multiple complex
chain setups "on-the-fly", it is quite a pain to deal with a reversed
input as conceptually unrelated to the same input non-reversed. what i
mean by that is that since "reverse" is not really a property of the
input in the sense of a chain operator, the reversed input has to be
dealt with as if it were a unique input -- one can't "apply" or "remove"
reverse like one can a chain operator, or like one can toggle looping at
the cs level.
i am sensitive to the technical complexity of the situation, i just
wanted to illustrate a use example, to factor into your brainstorming
;-)
a
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Mar 19 2003 - 10:57:27 EET