Subject: Re: [ecasound] Samplerate fascism?
From: Kai Vehmanen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Nov 02 1999 - 12:09:34 EET
On 2 Nov 1999, Arto Hamara wrote:
> Ecasound really should lighten up when it comes to checking
> samplerates. After a long while of pondering I found out that my new
> card (sb pci128) actually _does_ work, but supports samplerates one
> lower than standard (ie. 44099, 22049 etc), which ecasound happily
> flunks as not being worth its output.
Hmm, if I understood right, pci128's 44099 does still mean 44100...?
I hope other soundcard manufactures don't have similar habits
(of course 12345 means 22050 samples per second! :)) Of course you
could set the internal sample rate to 44099, but I don't know how
useful the resulting 44099 samples/sec wav files are. ;)
> Hope you get ecasound to compile again, some day. =)
Well, yesterday I spent the whole day working on ecasound and eventually
got it to compile... but as expected: no sound. Aarggh! It appears
to work normally, but something in the signal chain mutes everything
that passes by. Oh well, I'll start debugging it today. Otherwise
things look rather good. All effect/dsp code is now converted to
the new iterator-design. I still have to work on the new user/library
interface, but there shouldn't be any big problems (=just lots
of trivial coding). If all goes as planned (I can fix the mute-bug
today), I might be able to release the first dev-version of 1.6.0
in a week or so.
-- Kai Vehmanen (email@example.com) Webmaster, Wakkanet Oy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue Nov 02 1999 - 12:11:13 EET