Indeed it does. I have a Soundblaster Live here and tried that one.On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Sean McMahon wrote: > 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 at rednote.net> > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup >
