|
|
| Re: Funkiest guitar player ever? [message #99484 is a reply to message #99483] |
Sun, 13 July 2008 07:43   |
|
|
ace.
>
>Here's a newer one.
>
>
>
>
>"Mike Audet" <mike@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Here's my latest build of the PSCL.
>>
>>I thought I should write a bit about what the PSCL is and what it does.
>
>>
>>
>>There is a set chain of communication that goes on in PARIS while the app
>>is running. It looks like this:
>>
>>PARIS App <--> PSCL <--> scherzo driver <---> hardware.
>>
>>Basically, the App calls functions in the PSCL in order to tell the hardware
>>to stop playing, or start, or load the driver for the 8 out cards, or whatever.
>> The PSCL translates these requests to commands that the cards can understand
>>and sends the commands to the scherzo driver to pass them down to the cards.
>>
>>
>>When the PSCL was first written - which was a long time ago now - there
>was
>>no way to run PARIS on a multi-CPU machine. Not only was there no need
>to
>>protect the code from the hazards of
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Funkiest guitar player ever? [message #99487 is a reply to message #99483] |
Sun, 13 July 2008 08:26 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
rogrammer. So, more
>than
>>once I've thought something was broken or messed up when it probably wasn't.
>> I just didn't understand it correctly.
>>
>>Anyway, what I have done is put locks on all the resources I can find that
>>could be affected by two CPUs trying to change them at the exact same time.
>> I've also discovered that there are certain card resources that the PSCL
>>tries to change directly without going through the scherzo driver. These
>>variables seem to need around 3 miliseconds to "take". I think that under
>>windows 95, the PSCL was directly altering the memory on the cards, but
>Windows
>>XP doesn't allow that. What I think is happening is that Windows is intercepting
>>the attempt to alter the variable and passing it down through the regular
>>mechanisms, and that imposes a delay. If the app moves on and tries to
>do
>>something that requires the value being set properly, things go wrong.
>I'm
>>guess that on a single CPU system, Windows is regularly interrupting to
>manage
>>memory, read files from the disk, update the clock, etc, etc., so these
>delays
>>were "filled in" by windows. I'm just making them explicit.
>>
>>Anyway, it seems to be working well for me. I also tightened up the start
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Funkiest guitar player ever? [message #99497 is a reply to message #99483] |
Sun, 13 July 2008 19:18 |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ng was broken or messed up when it probably wasn't.
>>> I just didn't understand it correctly.
>>>
>>>Anyway, what I have done is put locks on all the resources I can find
that
>>>could be affected by two CPUs trying to change them at the exact same
time.
>>> I've also discovered that there are certain card resources that the PSCL
>>>tries to change directly without going through the scherzo driver. These
>>>variables seem to need around 3 miliseconds to "take". I think that under
>>>windows 95, the PSCL was directly altering the memory on the cards, but
>>Windows
>>>XP doesn't allow that. What I think is happening is that Windows is intercepting
>>>the attempt to alter the variable and passing it down through the regular
>>>mechanisms, and that imposes a delay. If the app moves on and tries to
>>do
>>>something that requires the value being set properly, things go wrong.
>
>>I'm
>>>guess that on a single CPU system, Windows is regularly interrupting to
>>manage
>>>memory, read files from the disk, update the clock, etc, etc., so these
>>delays
>>>were "filled in" by windows. I'm just making them explicit.
>>>
>>>Anyway, it seems to be working well for me. I also tightened up the start
>>>up hardware detection timings because some of them seem to work fine at
>>one
>>>fifth what they were now that the direct writes are being managed.
>>>
>>>There are other small changes, too. Let me know if you have a chance
to
>>>try this and how it goes. There may be hardware configurations that don't
|
|
|
|
| Re: Funkiest guitar player ever? [message #99501 is a reply to message #99497] |
Sun, 13 July 2008 21:43 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
etal/jazz/fusion stuff I've done with the adat inputs the
>>> convertor quality is way more important than losing the last 4 bits. If
>> you
>>> keep a nice hot signal, you'd never know the difference IMO.
>>> AA
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:48cc7709$1@linux...
>>>> So, I've been reading a bit about the Presonus Digimax FS since there
>>>> seems
>>>> to be a lot of favorable talk about it. I'd like to have something w/
>>>> firewire
>>>> so I could do remote stuff w/ my wife's PC laptop but that seems to be
>> a
>>>> whole 'nother can of worms.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have experience with sending 24 bit ADAT lightpipe signal
>> into
>>>> Paris' 20 bit ADAT cards' inputs? Does it sound good, bad, indifferent?
>>>>
>>>> I'm also interested in the Mackie Onyx 1200F. 12 Onyx preamps, about
>> a
>>>> gazillion
>>>> other ins and outs, ADAT lightpipe, firewire, control room monitor,
>>>> headphone
>>>> outs. All for around $1700.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone want to buy my 1975 Martin D28?
>>>>
>>>> Gantt
>>>
>I checked on the web and only found version 1.3 for Mac OSX. Is this all that's
available for the trial version? I saww something also about a version 8
being the latest version.
Steve
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>I second that. I finally set up my rig again.
>
>Firepod
>Reaper
>Groove Agent
>Halion
>Sony Vaio laptop running VISTA!
>
>I recorded a quick and dirty version of http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/it-takes-lot-laugh-it-takes- train-cry
>on saturday and it was all rock solid.
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Funkiest guitar player ever? [message #99552 is a reply to message #99525] |
Thu, 17 July 2008 22:23 |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>>> for me because the PSCL was written in a c-like style. It's all
>>>>>> structures
>>>>>> and functions. It's not object oriented at all, which is what is more
>>>> common
>>>>>> today and what I'm used to. I'm also still a new programmer. So, more
>>>>> than
>>>>>> once I've thought something was broken or messed up when it probably
>
>>>>>> wasn't.
>>>>>> I just didn't understand it correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, what I have done is put locks on all the resources I can find
>>> that
>>>>>> could be affected by two CPUs trying to change them at the exact same
>>> time.
>>>>>> I've also discovered that there are certain card resources that the
>
>>>>>> PSCL
>>>>>> tries to change directly without going through the scherzo driver.
>>>>>> These
>>>>>> variables seem to need around 3 miliseconds to "take&quo
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
