Mark Knecht wrote: > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Rui Nuno Capela <rncbc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Mark Knecht wrote: > <SNIP> >>>> ok. we already have the "Root note", "Beats", "Meter" and "Tempo" >> fields in >>>> sight, which is a fair start imo. >>>> >>> Well, sndfile-info writes the word 'tempo' but I'm not completely >>> comfortable that we know where the tempo values are. Both of the >>> examples I provided say 120BPM. Unfortunately neither loop library is >>> actually recorded at that tempo! >>> >>> >> that is *bad* news :( so the meta-data we get from libsndfile is bogus? >> >> i guess we're back to square one (or is it zero?:). >> > > No, I really don't thin kit's quite that bad. In fact I thought it > worked better than it did so maybe part of the problem is just lack of > attention over the last few years and some bug creeping in here or > there. Some of what's there is right, I think. > > I really believe that just finding a couple of folks who have an > interest and digging in will probably figure it out pretty quickly. > > <SNIP> >> we'll have to resort that audio files must be integral in length to ever >> get some kind of loop auto-fitting ... >> > > Well, independent of what the tempo is in a session, if I know an > 8-bar pre-recorded loop is 120000 samples long (available from the > loop's meta-data) and I know my session requires 140,000 samples to > meet whatever the tempo is set to for 8 bars, then the resampling can > be done on the fly. > > To be clear, Acid Pro does NOT resample on the fly with extremely high > quality. The quality is good but if I change a 68 BMP loop to 160 BPM > I am absolutely going to hear artifacts all over the place. My > experience is, however, that this gives 'character' to my work. It > sounds real, funky, fun. Most of the time what I hear when I listen to > a single resampled loop by itself is completely covered up when the > song is done. If it's not then and only then would I bother with > external, high quality resampling. 99.99% of the time it's just not an > issue for me. > but qtractor *does* time-stretching (what you call resample) on-the-fly! you have two options here, being a trade-off between quality and cpu intensiveness: 1) soundtouch based, wsola-like algorithm - very fast but artifact prone--maybe with similar results as acid on-the-fly mode, you tell me 2) rubberband - good quality but resource intensive; might not be appropriate for heavy loaded sessions and/or older cpu's just to let you know. qtractor does *not* touch any of your audio sample files, nor it creates any unless you're recording or exporting one--almost everything is or can be done on-the-fly ;) byee -- rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela rncbc@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
