Hi,
I cannot get a clean sound with the command line options I'm using, I always
get clicks:
csound -d -b1024 -B1024 -W -+rtaudio=PortAudio -odac6 (my mackie interface)
band.csd
I tried different combinations of -B and -b but it doesn't help.
The version I'm using is:
Csound version 5.10 (double samples) Jan  9 2009

Another problem is that even if I specify dac6, when I hit enter it always
asks about a not found MOTU interface: Sometimes I use a MOTU traveler, so
I'd like to keep its drivers installed. Same happens with pure-data, but
once I select the right device, the warning popup window doesn't show
anymore.

Finally, the  http://www.cockos.com/wiki/index.php/ReaRoute rearoute  asio
driver from reaper  is absent from the devices list. However, in pure-data,
using asio via portaudio, it's there.

Windows xp home sp3
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 / 2.4 GH
Mackie satellite audio interface

Any suggestion? I'm not really a frequent user of csound, so it's quite
possible that I'm missing something really obvious.
thanks a lot (especially for qutecsound, looks really great!)

Libero Mureddu
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/windows-asio-audio-problem-tp22254858p22254858.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Just some suggestions, maybe it helps maybe not.

The ksmps value, -b and -B should be in integer ratios,
ksmps can be == -b
-B should be at least two times -b

for example
ksmps = 100
-b = 400
-B = 800

for really slow drivers:
ksmps = 100
-b = 1000
-B = 2000

It might also be easier to help you if you include a console print
from your Csound session, so we can verify that it indeed does what
you expect (uses the correct drivers etc.).
best
Oeyvind


2009/2/27 Libero Mureddu :
>
> Hi,
> I cannot get a clean sound with the command line options I'm using, I always
> get clicks:
> csound -d -b1024 -B1024 -W -+rtaudio=PortAudio -odac6 (my mackie interface)
> band.csd
> I tried different combinations of -B and -b but it doesn't help.
> The version I'm using is:
> Csound version 5.10 (double samples) Jan  9 2009
>
> Another problem is that even if I specify dac6, when I hit enter it always
> asks about a not found MOTU interface: Sometimes I use a MOTU traveler, so
> I'd like to keep its drivers installed. Same happens with pure-data, but
> once I select the right device, the warning popup window doesn't show
> anymore.
>
> Finally, the  http://www.cockos.com/wiki/index.php/ReaRoute rearoute  asio
> driver from reaper  is absent from the devices list. However, in pure-data,
> using asio via portaudio, it's there.
>
> Windows xp home sp3
> Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 / 2.4 GH
> Mackie satellite audio interface
>
> Any suggestion? I'm not really a frequent user of csound, so it's quite
> possible that I'm missing something really obvious.
> thanks a lot (especially for qutecsound, looks really great!)
>
> Libero Mureddu
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/windows-asio-audio-problem-tp22254858p22254858.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>

Oeyvind Brandtsegg-2 wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> It might also be easier to help you if you include a console print
> from your Csound session,
> 
> 2009/2/27 Libero Mureddu :
>>
>> Hi,
>> I cannot get a clean sound with the command line options I'm using, I
>> always
>> get clicks:
>> csound -d -b1024 -B1024 -W -+rtaudio=PortAudio -odac6 (my mackie
>> interface)
>> band.csd
> 

Hi and thanks a lot for your answer, I could just test a simple example but
now it seems to work fine from the command line. However, still no mention
of the rearoute asio driver from the device list.
Unfortuntely the output from qutecsound is full of clicks, even if it looks
to me that I'm choosing the same options.

Attached are the output from the terminal and the one from qutecsound. The
test file is the Toot2 example in qutecsound example files.
http://www.nabble.com/file/p22310540/qutecsound-output.txt
qutecsound-output.txt 
http://www.nabble.com/file/p22310540/terminal-output.txt terminal-output.txt 
Thanks,
Libero

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/windows-asio-audio-problem-tp22254858p22310540.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

I have never tested the Mackie audio interface, but it seems you
should use much larger buffers as a start.
Did you try -b1024 -B2048 ?
This will give terrible latency, you should be able to use -b128 but
clearly this does not currently work on your system, so you could try
starting higher.

best
Oeyvind


2009/3/3 Libero Mureddu :
>
>
> Oeyvind Brandtsegg-2 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> It might also be easier to help you if you include a console print
>> from your Csound session,
>>
>> 2009/2/27 Libero Mureddu :
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I cannot get a clean sound with the command line options I'm using, I
>>> always
>>> get clicks:
>>> csound -d -b1024 -B1024 -W -+rtaudio=PortAudio -odac6 (my mackie
>>> interface)
>>> band.csd
>>
>
> Hi and thanks a lot for your answer, I could just test a simple example but
> now it seems to work fine from the command line. However, still no mention
> of the rearoute asio driver from the device list.
> Unfortuntely the output from qutecsound is full of clicks, even if it looks
> to me that I'm choosing the same options.
>
> Attached are the output from the terminal and the one from qutecsound. The
> test file is the Toot2 example in qutecsound example files.
> http://www.nabble.com/file/p22310540/qutecsound-output.txt
> qutecsound-output.txt
> http://www.nabble.com/file/p22310540/terminal-output.txt terminal-output.txt
> Thanks,
> Libero
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/windows-asio-audio-problem-tp22254858p22310540.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>

Oeyvind Brandtsegg-2 wrote:
> 
> Did you try -b1024 -B2048 ?
> This will give terrible latency, you should be able to use -b128 but
> clearly this does not currently work on your system, so you could try
> starting higher.
> 
> best
> Oeyvind
> 
Hi,
yes, I forgot to mention that I tried different values but it didn't help
(in qutecsound, it just slightly reduced the clicks). However, starting from
the command line or from csound5gui everything seems to work, now that you
explained me the -b/-B/ksmps relation, so it might be a problem related with
qutecsound.
But then, i cannot find the source of the problem: very simple examples like
the toot2 (one oscil playing 4 notes), gives lots of clicks, while bigger
ones (like "trapped" from csound example folder) works, even in high
resolution.
if it can help, I can add  that I don't usually have any buffer issue with
my setup, even working with really low latencies (64 samples or even 32),
with quite heavy audio projects.

thanks a lot and best regards,

Libero
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/windows-asio-audio-problem-tp22254858p22311874.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Did you choose "Run in seperate thread" (in Configuration -> Run ->  
Csound execution)?



Am 03.03.2009 um 17:17 schrieb Libero Mureddu:

>
>
>
> Oeyvind Brandtsegg-2 wrote:
>>
>> Did you try -b1024 -B2048 ?
>> This will give terrible latency, you should be able to use -b128 but
>> clearly this does not currently work on your system, so you could try
>> starting higher.
>>
>> best
>> Oeyvind
>>
> Hi,
> yes, I forgot to mention that I tried different values but it didn't  
> help
> (in qutecsound, it just slightly reduced the clicks). However,  
> starting from
> the command line or from csound5gui everything seems to work, now  
> that you
> explained me the -b/-B/ksmps relation, so it might be a problem  
> related with
> qutecsound.
> But then, i cannot find the source of the problem: very simple  
> examples like
> the toot2 (one oscil playing 4 notes), gives lots of clicks, while  
> bigger
> ones (like "trapped" from csound example folder) works, even in high
> resolution.
> if it can help, I can add  that I don't usually have any buffer  
> issue with
> my setup, even working with really low latencies (64 samples or even  
> 32),
> with quite heavy audio projects.
>
> thanks a lot and best regards,
>
> Libero
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/windows-asio-audio-problem-tp22254858p22311874.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
> "unsubscribe csound"

joachim heintz wrote:
> 
> Did you choose "Run in seperate thread" (in Configuration -> Run ->  
> Csound execution)?
> 
> 
Yes, it was already selected, I tried with and without it but it didn't
change.
But I just discovered that the problematic files work if I select "run in
term" from qutecsound interface. Checking from the task manager, i
discovered that when I run csound from qutecsound, the CPU used is between
25/30% while, running from the terminal, it barely reaches 0.1%. Also the
memory use seems quite high (40508 KB).
My system is:
Windows xp home sp3
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 / 2.4 GHz
Mackie satellite audio interface 
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/windows-asio-audio-problem-tp22254858p22314250.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hi,

On my superficial tests on Linux, the performance hit of running in
QuteCsound instead of on a terminal are very small. Can you try
running on a terminal from QuteCsound, to make sure the exact same
arguments are used? If you see adequate performance on the command
line or Csound5GUI, you should be able to get comparable performance
usign QuteCsound.

Cheers,
Andrés

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Libero Mureddu  wrote:
>
>
> joachim heintz wrote:
>>
>> Did you choose "Run in seperate thread" (in Configuration -> Run ->
>> Csound execution)?
>>
>>
> Yes, it was already selected, I tried with and without it but it didn't
> change.
> But I just discovered that the problematic files work if I select "run in
> term" from qutecsound interface. Checking from the task manager, i
> discovered that when I run csound from qutecsound, the CPU used is between
> 25/30% while, running from the terminal, it barely reaches 0.1%. Also the
> memory use seems quite high (40508 KB).
> My system is:
> Windows xp home sp3
> Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 / 2.4 GHz
> Mackie satellite audio interface
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/windows-asio-audio-problem-tp22254858p22314250.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>



-- 


Andrés

Andres Cabrera wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On my superficial tests on Linux, the performance hit of running in
> QuteCsound instead of on a terminal are very small. Can you try
> running on a terminal from QuteCsound, to make sure the exact same
> arguments are used? If you see adequate performance on the command
> line or Csound5GUI, you should be able to get comparable performance
> usign QuteCsound.
> Cheers,
> Andrés
> 
Hi,
maybe it wasn't clear from my previous post, sorry about that. In fact the
problem I'm reporting (the cpu issue) happens inside qutecsound, from the
command line it works.

to resume the situation:

Same example: toot2 from qutecsound example folder (see attachment)
http://www.nabble.com/file/p22330451/Toot2.csd Toot2.csd 

1)inside qutecsound
- run from terminal: cpu 0.1% (see attachment)
http://www.nabble.com/file/p22330451/qutecsound-output-run-in-term.txt
qutecsound-output-run-in-term.txt 
- run from "run"button: cpu 25/30% (see attachment)
http://www.nabble.com/file/p22330451/qutecsound-output-run.txt
qutecsound-output-run.txt 
2) command line
cpu 0%(doesn't even show 0.1)

3) csound5gui
cpu 0.1/02%

Windows xp home sp3
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 / 2.4 GHz
Mackie satellite audio interface

 Ciao
libero
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/windows-asio-audio-problem-tp22254858p22330451.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Andres Cabrera wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On my superficial tests on Linux, the performance hit of running in
> QuteCsound instead of on a terminal are very small. Can you try
> running on a terminal from QuteCsound, to make sure the exact same
> arguments are used? If you see adequate performance on the command
> line or Csound5GUI, you should be able to get comparable performance
> usign QuteCsound.
> Cheers,
> Andrés
> 
Hi,
maybe it wasn't clear from my previous post, sorry about that. In fact the
problem I'm reporting (the cpu issue) happens inside qutecsound, from the
command line it works.

to resume the situation:

Same example: toot2 from qutecsound example folder (see attachment)
http://www.nabble.com/file/p22330462/Toot2.csd Toot2.csd 

1)inside qutecsound
- run from terminal: cpu 0.1% (see attachment)
http://www.nabble.com/file/p22330462/qutecsound-output-run-in-term.txt
qutecsound-output-run-in-term.txt 
- run from "run"button: cpu 25/30% (see attachment)
http://www.nabble.com/file/p22330462/qutecsound-output-run.txt
qutecsound-output-run.txt 
2) command line
cpu 0%(doesn't even show 0.1)

3) csound5gui
cpu 0.1/02%

Windows xp home sp3
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 / 2.4 GHz
Mackie satellite audio interface

 Ciao
libero
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/windows-asio-audio-problem-tp22254858p22330462.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Thanks for the detailed report. I'll investigate.

Cheers,
Andrés

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Libero Mureddu  wrote:
>
>
> Andres Cabrera wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On my superficial tests on Linux, the performance hit of running in
>> QuteCsound instead of on a terminal are very small. Can you try
>> running on a terminal from QuteCsound, to make sure the exact same
>> arguments are used? If you see adequate performance on the command
>> line or Csound5GUI, you should be able to get comparable performance
>> usign QuteCsound.
>> Cheers,
>> Andrés
>>
> Hi,
> maybe it wasn't clear from my previous post, sorry about that. In fact the
> problem I'm reporting (the cpu issue) happens inside qutecsound, from the
> command line it works.
>
> to resume the situation:
>
> Same example: toot2 from qutecsound example folder (see attachment)
> http://www.nabble.com/file/p22330451/Toot2.csd Toot2.csd
>
> 1)inside qutecsound
> - run from terminal: cpu 0.1% (see attachment)
> http://www.nabble.com/file/p22330451/qutecsound-output-run-in-term.txt
> qutecsound-output-run-in-term.txt
> - run from "run"button: cpu 25/30% (see attachment)
> http://www.nabble.com/file/p22330451/qutecsound-output-run.txt
> qutecsound-output-run.txt
> 2) command line
> cpu 0%(doesn't even show 0.1)
>
> 3) csound5gui
> cpu 0.1/02%
>
> Windows xp home sp3
> Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 / 2.4 GHz
> Mackie satellite audio interface
>
>  Ciao
> libero
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/windows-asio-audio-problem-tp22254858p22330451.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"



-- 


Andrés