Software synths

[Sean McMahon]

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