Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Linux audio questions...
From: jiva (jiva_AT_mindless.com)
Date: la loka 30 1999 - 10:31:04 EDT
Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
>
> >Paul Barton-Davis discourseth:
> >> if by sequencing, you just mean MIDI sequencing: be sure to use a
> >> cheap, old, 2nd hand box for the sequencing one. i have a 100MHz
> >> 486-DX that sits (mostly idle) next to my main rack (which holds a
> >> dual PII-450 as my "main" computer). the 486 is *more than adequate*
> >> for any Linux MIDI sequencing task you can imagine.
> >
> >Hmm..doesn't it depend on the sequencer(s)? How much of that
> >processor does softwerk use. I expect the next-generation of softwerk
> >will use more. What if a sequencer were written in Python? "Software
> >is a gas." :)
>
ok, the sequencer is keykit and it will be running on an amd k6-200 with
40MB of ram, so I don't think clock speed is going to be an issue...
what will be an issue is what network card, video card and IDE HD to
use. I'd like to use SCSI, but I don't want to spend too much on a box
just for sequencing. At this point, these questions are probably best
addressed to another list, you know, [linux-box-newbie].
> i think i would still stick to the claim that even a 486-100 should be
> able to do this. its really just a question of how much work the
> software will do per clock tick (whether its SIGIO from the RTC,
> SIGALRM from sigitimer or whatever). i find it *very* hard to believe
> that any MIDI-only sequencer will ever have too much to do in that
> interval. even a hyperseq-like system - i mean, whats the longest time
> you've ever seen a spreadsheet take for a full-cell update. duh. don't
> answer that :) lets just say that the current meaning of "sequencer"
> (i.e. "i have 162,234 recorded notes of MIDI along with 23,000
> controller messages, and i want them all played back") will *never*
> cause there to be too much work to do per clock tick. OK, OK: all
> 162,234 notes are to be played simultaneously by the largest ensemble
> of outboard synths you've ever seen - yes, then we'd have a problem :)
>
> Of course, it might have a lot of graphics to do, but that should in a
> separate thread, and should never block the actual "sequencer"
> thread. So yes, the screen representation might lag whats actually
> happening for a few hundred milliseconds, or perhaps even a second,
> but the MIDI output would still be totally precise.
>
keykit's graphics are basic at best, but still not like cakewalk for DOS
which I used to great satisfaction for many years on a 286 with two megs
or RAM and seemed to hold time much tighter than the first time I used
cakewalk audio on Win3.1 - my first GUI letdown. Still, I would think
with the box, the OS and that I'm going to go for... oh, btw - best
cheap MIDI soundcard? - video card, tuned drive (I still don't know what
this means)... it should be ample.
> >I'd actually like some cheapo machines myself. I always worry about
> >how I'll find replacement parts for them. It can be pretty difficult
> >to find new cpus below a certain clock-rate, for example. Does one
> >just use used replacement parts?
>
> my attitude (and it hasn't been tested yet) is to throw away the box
> if that happens. these things are like paperweights these days.
>
> --p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:28:00 EST