Curious to know if the problem you explained with audio recording and software synths happens on systems with multi-channel soundcards? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janina Sajka" <janina@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup at braille.uwo.ca> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 6:59 AM Subject: Re: Software synths > But, Cecil, it's not a question of should or could, it's a question of > is and does. > > Clearly, all synths rely on software, whether or not they're housed in > the main computer or an auxiliary device. The point is how they > interface to the principle computer, and what resources they require to > function. To date it remains my quantified experience that those running > on the host computer are less respectful of system resources. I guess > it's something along the lines of software expanding to fill all > available space. > > The issue is further exaserbated if one attempts to do any serious audio > work while using a synth as one's interface device. At the moment, the > quickest way to crash Gnopernicus is to try and launch an audio > application like Beast or Gmorgan. Is that Gnopernicus fault? Or perhaps > gnome-speech? Or perhaps Esd? Or perhaps Jack? I don't know, and neither > does anyone else. The issue of appropriately handling multiple audio > streams on Linux remains fluid and unresolved. On Windows things aren't > much better as witnessed by all those messages in the MIDI-Mag archive > about keeping the speech synthesizer out of the music. > > So, the theory is just that--theory. The facts are something else. > > Whitley CTR Cecil H writes: > > From: Whitley CTR Cecil H <WhitleyCH.ctr at cherrypoint.usmc.mil> > > > > Hi, > > I'm sorry, I can't buy into there being anything inheriently bad with > > software synths. They actually provide an elegant solution. Even the > > dectalk is at it's heart a software synth, it just runs on an external > > computer all it's own. If I remember the specs, it's a 386 with a meg of > > memory. If you can get that out of a 386, what should you be able to do > > with one of the modern processors? > > > > Admittedly, the dectalk has some fancy DAC's..... But once again, they are > > circa 1990.... Shouldn't todays technology be able to at least match it?? > > After all, we're not talking tubes here. > > > > So in summary, I contend that with a modern processor and high end sound > > hardware it should be possible to exceed "old" hardware synths in all > > catagories. On the other hand, if you get my dectalk express you'll have to > > pry it from my cold dead fingers..... > > > > Cecil > > _______________________________________________ > > Speakup mailing list > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > -- > > Janina Sajka > Email: janina at rednote.net > Phone: +1 (202) 408-8175 > > Director, Technology Research and Development > American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) > http://www.afb.org > > Chair, Accessibility Work Group > Free Standards Group > http://a11y.org > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
