On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Rui Nuno Capela <rncbc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 ;) OK, certainly I'm confused about the current feature set. I thought this was all a discussion for the future and that what qtractor supported today was pitch shifting. Let me spend time in the program and see what it actually does. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
