Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] non-destructive editing
From: Juhana Sadeharju (kouhia_AT_nic.funet.fi)
Date: la loka 09 1999 - 06:38:06 EDT
>From: Benjamin GOLINVAUX <golinvaux_AT_benjamin.net>
>
>I thought of keeping consecutive editing chunks in different files, in order
Yep, that is the way my system is doing it: each time a new audio segment
is needed to store the result of effect, we create a new file.
>of actions. Then, I read that Fairlight MFX3, which is a rather old (1994)
>machine, uses chunks of 128K inside a _single_ file...
I'm really waiting a full explanation about it. It might be that Fairlight
has only some layer over the disk which has nothing to do with audiofiles.
Maybe Fairlight uses some specially formatted disk. By the way, what really
happens when we seek and replace data on a file? Will the new data be written
to the same physical location on the disk? If so, Fairlight maybe wants
to know always where the new data will be located.
I think we should really forget the one audiofile unless it is proven to be
useful. If data is physically rewritten to the same place on the disk,
then we may use the Lucasfilm's system to order requests with respect to the
shortests path through the disk surface. (I scanned the paper only for
educational/research purposes: "http://www.funet.fi/~kouhia/abbott.tar".)
>Furthermore, I would like to be able to MOVE parts of one sound to another,
>possibly on another track, which makes the non-destructive stuff complex
You change the editlist/playlist only. No audio data is duplicated or moved.
(The complexity comes from elsewhere :-)
>What's your opinion on the tradeoffs and advantages of both methods?
You're comparing apples and oranges. Editlist is for fast non-destructive
editing. Disk files are for storing the audio data. If we keep all
audio data in one file, we have to come up with our own "file system"
for sure.
Yours,
Juhana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:27:13 EST