On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 Kai Vehmanen wrote: >> -a:2 -i t2.wav -ea:200 \ >> -a:5 -i t5.wav -erc:1,5 -ea:200 \ >> -a:2,5 -f:32,10,44100 -o alsa > Shouldn't there be a '-erc:1,2' on the t2.wav chain (it should go to > ouput 2) ? Yes, error in my example. >> The '-ea:200' at the end of chains 2 and 5 helps to keep the volume >> constant. This is ugly, but unfortunately something I cannot fix at this > Why is this necessary ? Nothing should be mixed... unless alsa inputs > 2 and 5 are also mixed in. If this is so, can it be prevented ? Ecasound has to combine chains 2 and 5. Former has 1 channel of audio, the latter 5 channels. Now the problem is two-fold: first, Ecasound does not know that only ch5 of chain 5 has audio and others are in fact silent. Secondly, Ecasound mixes chains by doing channel-by-channel add+divide. So without the '-ea:200', volume of channels 1 and 5 in the stream going to the ALSA device would be halved. It's ugly, but ensures backwards compability. >> -a:t2 -i t2.wav -erc:1,2 -f:32,10,44100 -o alsa,hw:0 >> -a:t5 -i t5.wav -erc:1,5 -f:32,10,44100 -o alsa,hw:0 [...] >> -a:t1 -f:32,14,44100 -i alsa,hw:0 -f:32,1,44100 -o t1.wav >> -a:t6 -f:32,14,44100 -i alsa,hw:0 -erc:6,1 -f:32,1,44100 -o t6.wav > I kind of like this 'per chain' way of writing things. Unfortunately the above examples are not quite correct as '-a:t2 -o alsa,hw:0 -a:t5 -o alsa,hw:0' is not equivalent to '-a:t2,t5 -o alsa,hw:0'. The former creates two devices (which will fail in this case as you can open an ALSA hw-device just once), while the latter creates one ALSA device and connects it to two chains). For this reason, I like to write Ecasound setups with one input/output per line. This helps to write valid setups. > Would adding '-erc:1,1' to the a:t1 chain hurt in any way ? It would be > nice to have a uniform syntax. It wouldn't change the processing result in anyway, so it's ok. But it does add to CPU usage. -- http://www.eca.cx Audio software for Linux!