Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.acorn.programmer > #1276 > unrolled thread

Sound hardware access for RO

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.acorn.programmer

Contents

  Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-11 12:18 +0000
    Re: Sound hardware access for RO Alan Wrigley <spamhater@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> - 2012-01-11 12:30 +0000
      Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-11 13:43 +0000
        Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2012-01-11 22:35 +0000
          Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-12 10:08 +0000
            Re: Sound hardware access for RO Alan Wrigley <spamhater@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> - 2012-01-12 17:57 +0000
              Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-13 12:05 +0000
        Re: Sound hardware access for RO Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-03 09:03 +0100
          Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-04-03 09:53 +0100
    Re: Sound hardware access for RO John Kortink <kortink@inter.nl.net> - 2012-01-11 14:10 +0100
      Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-11 15:13 +0000
        Re: Sound hardware access for RO Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-11 17:04 +0000
        Re: Sound hardware access for RO John Kortink <kortink@inter.nl.net> - 2012-01-11 19:58 +0100
      Re: Sound hardware access for RO "Ste (news)" <steve@revi11.plus.com> - 2012-01-15 17:14 +0000
        Re: Sound hardware access for RO Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-17 07:11 +0100
    Re: Sound hardware access for RO druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2012-01-11 20:52 +0000
      Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-12 09:21 +0000
        Re: Sound hardware access for RO druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2012-01-14 20:34 +0000
          Re: Sound hardware access for RO Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-15 05:19 +0100
            Re: Sound hardware access for RO druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2012-01-15 12:30 +0000
              Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-15 13:38 +0000
                Re: Sound hardware access for RO druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2012-01-17 23:38 +0000
                  Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-18 09:37 +0000
                    Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2012-01-27 02:05 +0000
                      Re: Sound hardware access for RO Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-27 05:19 +0100
              Re: Sound hardware access for RO Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-15 15:57 +0100
                Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-15 17:30 +0000
                  Re: Sound hardware access for RO Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-17 07:22 +0100
                    Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-17 09:28 +0000
                    Re: Sound hardware access for RO Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-17 11:31 +0000
                      Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-17 12:34 +0000
              Re: Sound hardware access for RO Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> - 2012-01-16 21:19 +0000
            Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-15 10:18 +0000
              Re: Sound hardware access for RO Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-15 16:18 +0100
                Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-15 17:39 +0000
          Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-15 10:01 +0000
    Re: Sound hardware access for RO Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> - 2012-01-16 21:28 +0000
      Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-17 09:35 +0000
      Re: Sound hardware access for RO Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-17 11:37 +0000
        Re: Sound hardware access for RO davehigton <davehigton14@googlemail.com> - 2012-01-17 05:07 -0800
          Re: Sound hardware access for RO Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-17 16:46 +0000
            Re: Sound hardware access for RO Ron <beeb@woosh.co.nz> - 2012-01-18 11:22 +1300
              Re: Sound hardware access for RO Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-17 23:42 +0000
                Re: Sound hardware access for RO Ron <beeb@woosh.co.nz> - 2012-01-18 13:47 +1300
        Re: Sound hardware access for RO Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> - 2012-01-17 12:36 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#1276 — Sound hardware access for RO

The 'Prize' I tried offerring to encourage someone to impliment modern USB
sound 'card' support for RO has now lapsed. No-one applied to me for this,
so I had essentially zero feedback. The closest I got was some people
saying they also wanted to see this being done.

What do people think would be needed to get someone interested in doing
this, and obtaining a satisfactory result that can then be applied to the
various hardware systems people are - or intending to - working on having
RO run on?

Is the problem simply that no-one with an interest in RO thinks they are
able to do this? Or is it lack of money on offer? Or that no-one has any
interest in serious audio? Or... what?

Slainte,

Jim

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1277

Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> The 'Prize' I tried offerring to encourage someone to impliment modern USB
> sound 'card' support for RO has now lapsed.
> 
> Is the problem simply that no-one with an interest in RO thinks they are
> able to do this? Or is it lack of money on offer? Or that no-one has any
> interest in serious audio? Or... what?

Is ANYONE interested in serious audio these days?

Alan

PS I would be, but I have far too many other projects that need my time, and
my hi-fi system works.

-- 
RISC OS - you know it makes cents

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1279

In article
<gemini.lxmw39006h4xk01vw.spamhater@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk>,
   Alan Wrigley <spamhater@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > The 'Prize' I tried offerring to encourage someone to impliment modern
> > USB sound 'card' support for RO has now lapsed.
> > 
> > Is the problem simply that no-one with an interest in RO thinks they
> > are able to do this? Or is it lack of money on offer? Or that no-one
> > has any interest in serious audio? Or... what?

> Is ANYONE interested in serious audio these days?

I cartainly am.  :-)  And it seems clear from magazine sales and talking to
some makers, etc, so are a fair number of other people. However the market
is dividing into two categories.

1) users of iPlops and look-alikes and mobile 'mp3' players.

2) People who are introducing some form of 'media player' hardware into
decent audio systems.

Given the problems people can encounter with some 'computer' kit, and the
tendency for standard PCs <sic> to be over specced, noisy, have interrupted
or irregular data flow, etc, this seems a place were the smaller and
'lighter' systems that RO could run may have an attraction for a market
that is small as a percentage of the UK population, but quite big in terms
of how many people currently use RO.

> Alan

> PS I would be, but I have far too many other projects that need my time,
> and my hi-fi system works.

So do mine. :-)  But I did spend a fair bit of time and effort (and money)
on getting (Linux based) items into the audio systems I use that work well
enough for serious listening. The whole process made me think that a RO
based solution might prove very attractive to users not already committed.
But at present this is impossible due to a lack of the ability to drive
good quality USB DACs. And an advantage of the USB route is that it would
free RO from having to have a sound system that had to be adapted for each
different hardware platform.

FWIW I'm basing my views on more than my own experience. Since I've been
writing for HiFi News I've had various feedback from makers and users
interested in 'computer audio'. [1] But for whatever reasons, an almost
total lack of feedback from RO users/programmers. Hence my questions. I
wonder if those who do work on developing/porting RO have much of a view of
what might be possible here. Or if it is simply not something they could
do. To me, though, this seems like it could be am opportunity to gain a
niche that could be useful for RO and its users as well as music
enthusiasts.

Slainte,

Jim

[1] And also some work with makers under NDA related to kit that I'd love
to see based on RO.

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1289

Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> 1) users of iPlops and look-alikes and mobile 'mp3' players.

You do yourself no favours by descending to calling things silly names.


> Given the problems people can encounter with some 'computer' kit, and the
> tendency for standard PCs <sic> 

What's the "sic" for?  


> So do mine. :-)  But I did spend a fair bit of time and effort (and money)
> on getting (Linux based) items into the audio systems I use that work well
> enough for serious listening. The whole process made me think that a RO
> based solution might prove very attractive to users not already committed.
> But at present this is impossible due to a lack of the ability to drive
> good quality USB DACs. 

Why would someone interested in high-quality audio want to bring it into a
RO system, though?  Why not use the USB DAC to take it into a more
mainstream OS where versatile audio tools already exist?

> Or if it is simply not something they could do. To me, though, this seems
> like it could be am opportunity to gain a niche that could be useful for
> RO and its users as well as music enthusiasts.

I understand why you approach this from a RO point of view, but don't
understand why a music enthusiast would want RO.

What does RO bring to this that makes it worthwhile?

And note I mean the OS, not the GUI.

-- 
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsreplyaaa@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "aaa" by "284".  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1294

In article <mpro.lxno3g00ip4bv02ck@wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid>, Jeremy
Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > 1) users of iPlops and look-alikes and mobile 'mp3' players.

> You do yourself no favours by descending to calling things silly names.


> > Given the problems people can encounter with some 'computer' kit, and
> > the tendency for standard PCs <sic> 

> What's the "sic" for?  

For the usual reason I thought would be obvious. That to most of the public
'PC' means a standard desktop/laptop playing the current version of Home of
Office Windows and its bundled apps. Combined with the variability in
actual performance of such systems that a simple two-letter acronym
conceals.

> > So do mine. :-)  But I did spend a fair bit of time and effort (and
> > money) on getting (Linux based) items into the audio systems I use
> > that work well enough for serious listening. The whole process made me
> > think that a RO based solution might prove very attractive to users
> > not already committed. But at present this is impossible due to a lack
> > of the ability to drive good quality USB DACs. 

> Why would someone interested in high-quality audio want to bring it into
> a RO system, though?  Why not use the USB DAC to take it into a more
> mainstream OS where versatile audio tools already exist?

You mean, why would anyone be interested in RO? Why should anyone bother
to see if we can expand the usefulness and possible user base?

> > Or if it is simply not something they could do. To me, though, this
> > seems like it could be am opportunity to gain a niche that could be
> > useful for RO and its users as well as music enthusiasts.

> I understand why you approach this from a RO point of view, but don't
> understand why a music enthusiast would want RO.

> What does RO bring to this that makes it worthwhile?

There are a number of reasons I have in mind. None are killers in
isolation, but the overall picture seems to me more compelling in
potential. My own experience of using a 'PC' (actually three different
systems running various Linux disros that I've hacked about to a minimal
degree) - plus a lot of feedback from audio fans who get problems with
getting a satisfactory replay system lead me to the following.

Some reasons are primarily hardware, others 'software' (inc. exploiting the
way the OS works) Others a mix or more a matter of different approaches
like the RO preference for smaller and simpler task apps or lighter systems
in terms of mainsplug power.

A particular difficulty is the sheer variability (and closed detail) nature
of a lot of the 'PC' hardware on sale. So that when someone buys a machine,
even with pre-installed OS, etc, they have no idea if it will show detailed
problems that another machine with nominally the same OS and bundle would
not. This may not show up when using Word to write a letter. But it can and
does when it comes to something like playing out an audio stream. It seems
quite common in the PC biz to assume that "I can hear something" means
"sound works perfectly". But in reality, it doesn't. The closer
relationship and considered porting of RO to a select choice of hardware
may help avoid this *if* people take sound seriously in a way that many
mainstream PC makers fail.

Look at systems like BB, ARMini, and even Raspberry Pi in contast with
standard 'PC' hardware. For playing audio a small, low power, and
conventional HD based system can be an advantage. Easier to add to an
existing audio setup. Avoids unwanted background noise from fans, whirring
discs.  Lower power consumption makes it easier to make decent PSUs to
avoid interference, loop injections, etc. The low cost of the base system
also can be an advantage for someone wanted to develop a solution (sorry
about that term) for others.

Having available single tasking if that suits a developer of some user
software. (Note that many of the commercial solutions these days do package
as what behaves like a single task, even if not being so as this makes use
by those who want a music player not a computer easier.)  Having a system
that doesn't start off doing things like letting system houskeeping tasks
or screen dimming or even having some other process interrupt the audio or
overlay it with some other stream.

Yes, you can make a fine audio player based on Linux, Windows, or Macs, and
avoid the significant problems. But when I look at the systems I've tried,
and discuss this with other audio fans they often feel that something
simpler and lighter would do as well and be more convenient. One that might
work fine with a small low-power chipset and from a relatively small
capacity solid-state 'hard disc'. I use my systems with external storage
via USB HDs. But others would use net storage elsewhere, or other methods
as they prefer. So no need for a big 'hard disc' in the actual 'computer'
if the OS also has a small footprint.

Yes, there are simplified systems like Squeezeboxes, et al. But these
generally tie all but the most geeky into a 'take it or leave it' package.
Whereas with a system based more obviously on a more general OS with a GUI
and (desktop) filer available the user can adapt if they choose, install
alternative software, or change they way they use it *without* having to
know how to write programs or fiddle at a deep level.

Again, an example. If you use something like a Brennan or other device you
tend to end up being presented with how *it* decides to store and 'index'
the files. Wheras using a more 'computer' approach gives you more
individual flexibility. So a RO based system would give people a chance to
see alternatives to existing 'PC' or 'closed solution' products. Its called
competition and choice.

And why *not* have RO be able to do this so potential users can choose, and
we might expand the user base and range of uses? If we presume this is a
waste of time then that seems to me to be just like saying we shouldn't
bother with *any* more development as people can use Windows for all their
home uses.

FWIW In recent months I've been doing a fair bit of work on testing USB
DACs and during that I've had a chance to talk to a few people about this.
It may already be too late, but I do have a feeling that there is/has been
an opportunity here that fits fairly well with the light hardware and OS
footprint of RO as an overall package on the newer hardware that people are
looking at porting RO onto. Maybe I'm wrong. But unless someone produces a
way for the RO systems to drive the USB DACs we are never going to know
what was missed.

Alas, my skill is in being able to test the kit. I'm a hopeless programmer
when it comes to things like being able to write the USB interfacing
required. I can write programs that do things like measure replay timing
with resolution approaching parts-per-billion, and detect any missing,
garbled, or repeated sample values. But not make a RO system drive a USB
DAC. Hence my raising the idea that someone should consider this.

I'll stop rambling now. In the end people either have an interest in this,
or not. Although I'm happy to raise the profile of the topic I realise I'm
not likely to convince those who are happy with what is already on offer.

Slainte,

Jim

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1295

Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> I'll stop rambling now. In the end people either have an interest in this,
> or not. Although I'm happy to raise the profile of the topic I realise I'm
> not likely to convince those who are happy with what is already on offer.

If I won the lottery and thus had a source of cash to buy my food and other
necessities I would be very happy to immerse myself in something like this,
and I suspect one or two other RO users would feel the same. 30-40 years ago
I built amplifiers, loudspeakers, guitar effects, even a digital piano, but
the irony of getting old is that while your brain generates better and
better ideas based on increased experience, you feel less and less inclined
to damage your health by working your balls off to implement them.

Alan

-- 
RISC OS - you know it makes cents

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1300

In article
<gemini.lxp5vs00i5lke02bw.spamhater@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk>,
   Alan Wrigley <spamhater@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > I'll stop rambling now. In the end people either have an interest in
> > this, or not. Although I'm happy to raise the profile of the topic I
> > realise I'm not likely to convince those who are happy with what is
> > already on offer.

> If I won the lottery and thus had a source of cash to buy my food and
> other necessities I would be very happy to immerse myself in something
> like this, and I suspect one or two other RO users would feel the same.
> 30-40 years ago I built amplifiers, loudspeakers, guitar effects, even a
> digital piano, but the irony of getting old is that while your brain
> generates better and better ideas based on increased experience, you
> feel less and less inclined to damage your health by working your balls
> off to implement them.

I can sympathise with that! I'd be delighted to be able to write the
required USB software myself. But the reality is that I've never had the
level of skill and understanding of programming to be able to do so. So I'm
honest enough with myself to know I couldn't cope. However it does seem to
me that some people *are* still working at improving/porting/etc out of
interest, and have a much better skill set than mine. What I can't tell if
if none have the knowledge of the audio side and requirements, or have any
interest in that. Or if they haven't realised that it could be a useful
chance to extend the usefulness and user base for RO.

Slainte,

Jim

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1578

On 11 Jan 2012, Jim Lesurf  wrote:

> So do mine. :-)  But I did spend a fair bit of time and effort (and money)
> on getting (Linux based) items into the audio systems I use that work well
> enough for serious listening. The whole process made me think that a RO
> based solution might prove very attractive to users not already committed.
> But at present this is impossible due to a lack of the ability to drive
> good quality USB DACs. And an advantage of the USB route is that it would
> free RO from having to have a sound system that had to be adapted for each
> different hardware platform.

I haven't looked at ICs since I retired from electronics design 10 
years ago, but, rather than use a USB2 DAC, (and with the USB2 spec 
being such a hash and mis-match) are there not any USB3 DAC ICs?

USB3 not only has the data rate suitable for modern computers, but is, 
as I understand it,  a much cleaner implementation of USB with far 
less of all the exceptions and ifs that USB2 suffers so badly from.

So, why implement it in USB2 when everyone else is moving over to 
USB3...  Or Lightspeed?


-- 

Cheers
Roger
All who wander are not lost

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1580

In article <b3ad857a52.rogerarm@rogerarm.freeuk.com>, Roger Darlington
<rogerarm@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2012, Jim Lesurf  wrote:

> > So do mine. :-)  But I did spend a fair bit of time and effort (and
> > money) on getting (Linux based) items into the audio systems I use
> > that work well enough for serious listening. The whole process made me
> > think that a RO based solution might prove very attractive to users
> > not already committed. But at present this is impossible due to a lack
> > of the ability to drive good quality USB DACs. And an advantage of the
> > USB route is that it would free RO from having to have a sound system
> > that had to be adapted for each different hardware platform.

> I haven't looked at ICs since I retired from electronics design 10
> years ago, but, rather than use a USB2 DAC, (and with the USB2 spec
> being such a hash and mis-match) are there not any USB3 DAC ICs?

> USB3 not only has the data rate suitable for modern computers, but is,
> as I understand it,  a much cleaner implementation of USB with far less
> of all the exceptions and ifs that USB2 suffers so badly from.

> So, why implement it in USB2 when everyone else is moving over to
> USB3...  Or Lightspeed?

I have no argument with that in theory. However the practical problem seems
to be that no-one seems willing and able to do either way for RO. That is
the factor that blocks progress on this front.

And IIUC the current situation is that the DACs tend to use USB2.

Slainte,

Jim

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1278

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:18:46 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>The 'Prize' I tried offerring to encourage someone to impliment modern USB
>sound 'card' support for RO has now lapsed. No-one applied to me for this,
>so I had essentially zero feedback. The closest I got was some people
>saying they also wanted to see this being done.
>
>What do people think would be needed to get someone interested in doing
>this, and obtaining a satisfactory result that can then be applied to the
>various hardware systems people are - or intending to - working on having
>RO run on?
>
>Is the problem simply that no-one with an interest in RO thinks they are
>able to do this? Or is it lack of money on offer? Or that no-one has any
>interest in serious audio? Or... what?

The couple of times that I glanced at what is being offered
for what (a.k.a. RISC OS Open 'bounties'), it looked like a
joke to me.

Professionals could not work for more than one or two days
for that sort of money. Let alone weeks or months, which is
more realistic in many cases. So forget about the money being
a real incentive. To pick something up, you almost have to
want it yourself.

Also, the requirements are (let's put it nicely) 'lacking in
detail'. They leave the door wide open for discussions about
what 'finished' means.

Just my two cents.


John Kortink

-- 

Email    : kortink@inter.nl.net
Homepage : http://www.inter.nl.net/users/J.Kortink

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1285

In article <kt0rg7h051kdvd8v8mi4jsj9jmu01pgjmc@4ax.com>, John Kortink
<kortink@inter.nl.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:18:46 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> >The 'Prize' I tried offerring to encourage someone to impliment modern
> >USB sound 'card' support for RO has now lapsed. No-one applied to me
> >for this, so I had essentially zero feedback. The closest I got was
> >some people saying they also wanted to see this being done.
> >
> >What do people think would be needed to get someone interested in doing
> >this, and obtaining a satisfactory result that can then be applied to
> >the various hardware systems people are - or intending to - working on
> >having RO run on?
> >
> >Is the problem simply that no-one with an interest in RO thinks they
> >are able to do this? Or is it lack of money on offer? Or that no-one
> >has any interest in serious audio? Or... what?

> The couple of times that I glanced at what is being offered for what
> (a.k.a. RISC OS Open 'bounties'), it looked like a joke to me.
> Professionals could not work for more than one or two days for that sort
> of money.

Did you not read the webpage (or the article)? It did clearly say:
  
"... a cash 'prize' to be awarded to the first person or company
or group of persons who produces new software for RISC OS that satisfies
the following requirements. The Prize is for £300 pounds. This is not meant
to be a full payment as if the project were a commercial commission. It is
simply offered to attract interest in the challenge to produce a specific
useful item for RO users, and win the prize‘ as a public recognition."

So I did realise it would not attract anyone who simply wanted a paid job.

I then listed the requirements, etc. cf below.
  
I can understand that you (and others) will have no interest if your
only concern is being paid a professional rate. That is fair enough. 
However my impression is that some other people work on RO for reasons
other than earning a weekly wage. And may do some work out of interest,
or challenge, or to aid the usefulness and useage of RO. Not all of
them may have realised that the modern USB DACs may be a neat way to
'abstract' good audio provision from the specific RO hardware.


> Also, the requirements are (let's put it nicely) 'lacking in detail'.
> They leave the door wide open for discussions about what 'finished'
> means.

Again, for the Prize that was explained in the webpage/article. Defined
in terms of the tasks a system would perform and how this would be
judged. However I can see that if someone is unfamiliar with the
operation of the relevant types of USB DAC, what is required may
be unclear. And if someone can't see any point in RO supporting modern
audio, I understand why they would not be interested.

But of course anyone who wanted to clarify could have contacted me.

Be interested to see what others think.

Slainte,

Jim

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1286

Jim Lesurf <jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> Again, for the Prize that was explained in the webpage/article. Defined
> in terms of the tasks a system would perform and how this would be
> judged. However I can see that if someone is unfamiliar with the
> operation of the relevant types of USB DAC, what is required may
> be unclear. And if someone can't see any point in RO supporting modern
> audio, I understand why they would not be interested.

My concern on seeing the initial advert is that the 'prize' is
all-or-nothing.  To claim it, you have to do a substantial amount of work. 
Not only that, but it's a competitive task - winner-takes-all.  So, by
undertaking it, you take a risk that someone might pip you at the post.  And
therefore you have to do your work in secret, and risk duplicating the work
of other people.  That's not how open source development works these days... 
commit early, commit often is the way it goes.

But the bottom line is there aren't enough developers with enough time.

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1287

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:13:53 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<jcgl@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <kt0rg7h051kdvd8v8mi4jsj9jmu01pgjmc@4ax.com>, John Kortink
><kortink@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>Did you not read the webpage (or the article)?

Yes, I did.

>It did clearly say:
>  
>"... a cash 'prize' to be awarded to the first person or company
>or group of persons who produces new software for RISC OS that satisfies
>the following requirements. The Prize is for £300 pounds. This is not meant
>to be a full payment as if the project were a commercial commission. It is
>simply offered to attract interest in the challenge to produce a specific
>useful item for RO users, and ?win the prize‘ as a public recognition."
>
>So I did realise it would not attract anyone who simply wanted a paid job.

That makes two of us. But it hardly invalidates the point.

>I then listed the requirements, etc. cf below.
>  
>I can understand that you (and others) will have no interest if your
>only concern is being paid a professional rate. That is fair enough. 
>However my impression is that some other people work on RO for reasons
>other than earning a weekly wage. And may do some work out of interest,
>or challenge, or to aid the usefulness and useage of RO.

I'm not unfamiliar with the concept.

>Not all of
>them may have realised that the modern USB DACs may be a neat way to
>'abstract' good audio provision from the specific RO hardware.

That's probably an understatement. Perhaps 2 out of 100 ?

I'd be one of them. I've actually looked into it in the
recent past (with the idea of creating my own player,
using an external DAC).

>> Also, the requirements are (let's put it nicely) 'lacking in detail'.
>> They leave the door wide open for discussions about what 'finished'
>> means.
>
>Again, for the Prize that was explained in the webpage/article. Defined
>in terms of the tasks a system would perform and how this would be
>judged. However I can see that if someone is unfamiliar with the
>operation of the relevant types of USB DAC, what is required may
>be unclear. And if someone can't see any point in RO supporting modern
>audio, I understand why they would not be interested.

I don't think the specifics of the DACs are the major
concern in this sort of project. It's being able to
properly code a realtime process.

>But of course anyone who wanted to clarify could have contacted me.

The lack of clarity is not only the reader's problem.
It's also yours. Re: what exactly is it that you want.

The presentation is a lot more convincing if you don't
leave open ends. Describe. What goes in, what goes out,
what happens in between (e.g. do you want to control or
read state). Don't consciously try to leave open ends
to appear flexible. Be specific.


John Kortink

-- 

Email    : kortink@inter.nl.net
Homepage : http://www.inter.nl.net/users/J.Kortink

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1319

In article <kt0rg7h051kdvd8v8mi4jsj9jmu01pgjmc@4ax.com>,
   John Kortink <kortink@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> The couple of times that I glanced at what is being offered
> for what (a.k.a. RISC OS Open 'bounties'), it looked like a
> joke to me.

OK. So let's take this point by point...

> Professionals could not work for more than one or two days
> for that sort of money.

Indeed. We at ROOL expect the same when we work professionally. That hasn't
stopped us putting at least a man year _each_ into ROOL for absolutely
nothing. Doing a tiny extra job on the side and actually getting a few
hundred quid for it looks bloody attractive compared to that!

> Let alone weeks or months, which is more realistic in many cases. So
> forget about the money being a real incentive. To pick something up, you
> almost have to want it yourself.

That's true. Or, if you're a wealthy benefactor who can't program, you need
to put your money where your mouth is and donate more to those bounties.

The list of bounties on the ROOL site, and the current size of each pot, is
an illustration of just how much that is happening and just how much spare
cash the existing community has to hand.

In summary, it underlines, in bold, full upper-case the point I and many
others have been saying for years: RISC OS is dead as a commercial market
for software developers. And without compelling software being developed,
the few existing users will drift away - we certainly won't attract many new
ones!

So something needs to happen to get more money into the RISC OS ecosystem
and channel most of that to the developers. Our bounty scheme isn't that
something; it's simply a barometer.

> Also, the requirements are (let's put it nicely) 'lacking in detail'. They
> leave the door wide open for discussions about what 'finished' means.

It's a good job you put it nicely, because otherwise I'd've told you to
RTFM. ;) There are a few points to keep in mind here:

1. the description needs to be clear to the USERS so they can decide whether
   they want to donate and how much it deserves

2. we don't want to spend the rest of our (unpaid) lives at ROOL writing 
   detailed requirements specifications, functional specifications, 
   architecture diagrams, proposed database schemas, washing your underware, 
   etc.

3. part of the work of doing half of these tasks is thinking about what's
   involved. It'd take days/weeks for any of us at ROOL to get our heads
   around some of them. So...

If you, as a developer, think something sounds like it might be the sort of
thing you'd be interested in and the bounty pot looks like it's enough to
get you off your arse then you get in touch.

Then and only then will we look into the fine detail of what that task needs
to include and agree the acceptance criteria between you and ROOL. This may
take both parties a reasonably amount of time/effort. So be it. If we can't
reach an agreement, then we go our separate ways. If we can agree, then
we'll also agree a deadline and mark that bounty as "claimed".

You work towards the acceptance criteria within the agreed timescales and
ROOL will make periodic assessments of your progress. If you're getting
close to the deadline and haven't finished, we can always extend it if we
think you're making the right kind of progress.

At any time, you can throw in the towel and say "sod it". We'll simply
re-open the bounty to other developers.

> Just my two cents.

If this was Apple, and we have a few billion quid in the bank, a market of
hundreds of thousands of users, a pool of tens of thousands of developers,
then yes, I'd probably agree with you. But I don't; we have to be a little
more pragmatic than that.

Thanks,

Steve

-- 
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1332

On 15/01/2012 18:14, Ste (news) wrote:

> washing your underware, etc.

ROTFLMAO. :-)


> If you, as a developer, think something sounds like it might be the sort of
> thing you'd be interested in and the bounty pot looks like it's enough to
> get you off your arse then you get in touch.

I'm looking at the bounty page. Keyboard shortcuts in the filer - 
expired - didn't anybody think to ask Thomas Olssen? I'm running 
FilerPro (or is it ProFiler?) on my RiscPC (3.70). It's pretty nice indeed!
I can't think EDID support would be *that* hard to do, though on the 
other hand fixing up the USB stack is waaaaay above my skill level!


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1288

On 11/01/2012 12:18, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> The 'Prize' I tried offerring to encourage someone to impliment modern USB
> sound 'card' support for RO has now lapsed.

[Snip]

> Is the problem simply that no-one with an interest in RO thinks they are
> able to do this? Or is it lack of money on offer? Or that no-one has any
> interest in serious audio? Or... what?

Where are all the RISC OS audio applications which would take advantage 
of a sound card? I don't think I've got any audio applications which 
were even ported to 32bit, so the hardware isn't going to do much.

---druck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1293

In article <jeksq3$2b4$1@dont-email.me>, druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:
> On 11/01/2012 12:18, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > The 'Prize' I tried offerring to encourage someone to impliment modern
> > USB sound 'card' support for RO has now lapsed.

> [Snip]

> > Is the problem simply that no-one with an interest in RO thinks they
> > are able to do this? Or is it lack of money on offer? Or that no-one
> > has any interest in serious audio? Or... what?

> Where are all the RISC OS audio applications which would take advantage
> of a sound card? I don't think I've got any audio applications which
> were even ported to 32bit, so the hardware isn't going to do much.

Put that the other way around. Why would anyone consider writing a playing
application that can play out, say, 96k/24 bit flac files on RO if there is
no way to get that though the hardware to a DAC than can then replay this
with no loss of sample values, etc?

Am I wrong to think that writing such a player would be much simpler than
the task of implimenting the USB async/isochronous path? Either way, why
write such a player when it can't be used?

Slainte,

Jim

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1305

On 12/01/2012 09:21, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> Where are all the RISC OS audio applications which would take advantage
>> of a sound card? I don't think I've got any audio applications which
>> were even ported to 32bit, so the hardware isn't going to do much.
>
> Put that the other way around. Why would anyone consider writing a playing
> application that can play out, say, 96k/24 bit flac files on RO if there is
> no way to get that though the hardware to a DAC than can then replay this
> with no loss of sample values, etc?

Playback only is rather pointless, there are any number of devices which 
can play such files. It would only be worthwhile the considerable effort 
of writing drivers to run software that performs more sophisticated use 
of the sound card, such as running audio creation or editing software. 
But I doubt any RISC OS system has the horse power to deal with 96K/24 
bit sound.

> Am I wrong to think that writing such a player would be much simpler than
> the task of implimenting the USB async/isochronous path? Either way, why
> write such a player when it can't be used?

The simplest solution would be to play using an iPod. If you really want 
to involve the computer, how about DNLA software control streaming it 
from a storage device to a home theatre system.

---druck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1309

On 14/01/2012 21:34, druck wrote:

> But I doubt any RISC OS system has the horse power to deal with 96K/24
> bit sound.

?

A 200MHz ARM with 100MHz DSP (DM320 chip) is quite capable of 128K AAC 
audio and 2500kbps H.263 video, playback or recording, in realtime, 
while (slowly) running an OS for telnet access via ethernet.

A generic last-year Android mobile, running on 700MHz-1GHz, ought to 
find D1 H.264 and XviD a breeze, while 800MHz up ought to get some 
mileage out of HD XviD with software decode. Such phones are comparable 
to the likes of RaspberryPi (which can do HD) and the Beagle.

If that is possible, I can't see 96K/24bit being *that* much of a 
struggle, surely?


> If you really want to involve the computer, how about DNLA software

To Jim: Please name our killer application.

I see it as a chicken and egg, for we *have* no killer audio playback 
app because we have no killer audio DAC because... The thing is, a lot 
is needed besides USB support. Application support to make best use of 
the DAC, for instance.

I cannot comment more, I listen with ear buds to MP3s on my mobile, and 
I've never owned a speaker larger than myself, so you're kinda talking 
to the wrong guy. ;-)


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1311

On 15/01/2012 04:19, Rick Murray wrote:
> On 14/01/2012 21:34, druck wrote:
>
>> But I doubt any RISC OS system has the horse power to deal with 96K/24
>> bit sound.
>
> ?
>
> A 200MHz ARM with 100MHz DSP (DM320 chip) is quite capable of 128K AAC
> audio and 2500kbps H.263 video, playback or recording, in realtime,
> while (slowly) running an OS for telnet access via ethernet.

Note the use of the DSP chip.

> A generic last-year Android mobile, running on 700MHz-1GHz, ought to
> find D1 H.264 and XviD a breeze, while 800MHz up ought to get some
> mileage out of HD XviD with software decode. Such phones are comparable
> to the likes of RaspberryPi (which can do HD) and the Beagle.

Again Andriod makes use of the on chip PowerVR DSP.

> If that is possible, I can't see 96K/24bit being *that* much of a
> struggle, surely?

On a machine without DSP such as the Iyonix, then it would be a struggle.

We'd need to see a significant number of people using a system with a 
DSP on board, and any RISC OS software written to make use if it.

---druck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.acorn.programmer

csiph-web