3538c 'known' issues and ideas

Chester01 · Dec 5, 2004, 05:43 PM

FYI everyone, I am "the guy" and so far we can "pack dsp's as I talk about throughout the thread http://www.hardwareheaven.com/showthre...t=53622&page=3 (Check out my idea for labling them) the only problems are that I need to unload all the input and output devices to insure compatability with other people AND when someone downloads it, they need to make a new DSP around what i have made. (you can download some samples in that thread too) I envision something (if not being able to make a "super plugin") being able to select multiple effects and save them specifically (like you can drag to select multiple items on the desktop) then i wouldnt have to unload everything else to send out the stuff.

I think there could be a portion of the KX site that would host these dsp's, there would need to be documentation of other plugins not normally in KX that would be needed and also what versions the plugins would run on (3537 vs 3538 etc)

Tiger M · Dec 5, 2004, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Of course this idea would come up..it's a natural evolution to the DSP window paradigm. Actually you could view it either way..you could say that it complicates things or you can say that it simplifies things. It would also give people the ability to design their own plugins even if they can't program...some people always use the same processors for certain tasks..so instead of having 4 modules they can have 1 and name it say "Microphone Processor"..or "Guitar Super Distorion" I another thread I was speaking with another guy who designed a frequency analyzer using instances of peak and 2 or 4th order croosovers...clutters the DSP..but is useful...now if these modules could be "COntained within one module and name "Frequency analyzer" then it simplifies things...for example in a right click menu..it would be possible to change the centers of the frequency bands..just an example...and modules could be posted and traded....if it was implemented all that would need to be posted is scripts that contained internal routings, I/O definitions...and perhaps presets native to that module. Of course this is just my opinion. I don't really think it's about complicating things it's about making things easier to use for people who are used to the DSP windows..it's about functionailty....of course people Don't have to use the container concept..

You are right about some things, no doubt. What I meant in my previous post is that you actually don't have the resources for a very complex and effect rich setup (unless you have 3 audigys linked together). You give the example of this improvised spectrum analizer (which by the way is not a 'real' spectrum analizer and is very inaccurate), but look how much resources it consumes - half of all the gprs of an Audigy. So if it's made into a single block or 'container', you would have only two of these in the whole dsp window.

I don't say that this is a stupid idea. It would have been very useful if an Emu10k2 dsp had 2048 gprs for instance, but it doesn't.

If you like your idea so much, you have the SDK and with the new Add-on API you can implement it.

Chester01 · Dec 5, 2004, 05:57 PM

Tiger, what plugin should i use to isolate the frequency better? the frequency splitter?

HunterZ · Dec 5, 2004, 05:59 PM

Tiger M: Dude, calm down. We're just responding to Eugue's solicitation for ideas, and we realize that it's totally up to him whether or not to look into implementing them.

Also, the specific example being discussed (Chester01's improvised spectrum analyzer) is just that - a specific example. It's equally likely that people would like to use the container idea for much less resource-hungry projects.

Even more important, however, is that this container mechanism would allow people to trade subsets of DSP setups that other users can then integrate into their existing DSP setup without having to recreate either the old part or the new part from scratch (which is what we have to do now).

Oh, you asked how complicated a DSP setup can be. My current setup uses around 40 plugins and is rather crowded (even though Eugene was awesome and added a larger DSP window size option!), so for me the ability to modularize/organize my setup via container plugins would be nice:

http://www.geocities.com/mirat_beryn/hunterzdsp.html

ROBSCIX · Dec 5, 2004, 06:14 PM

Well yes I realize...resources are low but the container idea does have uses...it's not MY idea...it's been mentioned a few times..you stated you also considered such an idea.. I know that you could not have alot of these containers loaded as they would chew up resources...BUT.... you could have a few containers for specific tasks.. Simple ones would not be so bad...I just liked the modular idea..because of the ease at which they coould be shared with other users..
the spectrum anylyzer is just an example... and I know it's taxing..I patched one last night..I actually use SONOSCOPE for such tasks..I just liked the concept. yes I do have the SDK..I might have a look when I get freetime.. I think such a broad concept would be out of my ability though..BUT people such as yourself and other on the forum have the skills....

Chester01 · Dec 5, 2004, 06:18 PM

after testing with all of the frequency splitters within 3538c, i have found that the 4th order crossover does provide the best cut for other frequencies. without programing a new plugin this is as accurate as i can make it. also, if you want to use the spectrum analyzer and it consumes too many resources, you can always use the 2nd order version

you can test the accuracy of my spectrum analyzer by loading ANOTHER instnace of the 4th order crossover and then playing music through it (only using one channel of output, put the lows on the left, the highs on the right and slide the crossover around, it works pretty well atleast...

EDIT: I see the need for the "DSP Packages" because it literally took me 10-20 minnutes to configure each of the downloads in the Spec Analyzer thread, it takes 2-3 minutes to add and configure a few other plugins such as src, gains, mixers, k1/2lt etc.

ROBSCIX · Dec 5, 2004, 06:35 PM

Yes hunter thats all it was just a idea....if it gets used then great if not then oh well.. You understand all the implications that such a system could provide to KX Users, I wasn't sure if I was explaining it correctly..but thats it dead on the nose..I didn't mean to offend anybody..and actually I am not sure how I did....

ROBSCIX · Dec 5, 2004, 09:48 PM

I think the container idea has been mentioned by enough advanced users that maybe it could be a possible consideration for addition to the new driver set....

DMNXS · Dec 6, 2004, 01:11 PM

I like the container idea, especially when using MX6 and virtual5.1 together, it would clean up the window.

**Eugene Gavrilov** · Dec 7, 2004, 12:36 AM

>> clicks

can you hear them when you start/stop playback or _during_ playback?

>> containers

the idea is 2 years old

however, I doubt I have enough time to implement it.
it is possible for any 3-rd party developer to do that by using 'hidden DSP objects' and 'custom draw' feature... (I will definitely help / add any necessary features to the kernel-level & kxmixer)

>> sharing presets

this idea is 2 years old, too
I mentioned earlier I might need help from a PHP/MySQL-experienced person
(moreover, the overall concept as well as data types and so on are already created... and everything's available in a form of M$ word document

)

>> dsp

what about minimize/restore buttons? I haven't checked them thoroughly

E.

Samir · Dec 7, 2004, 12:56 AM

Quote:

>> containers
the idea is 2 years old
however, I doubt I have enough time to implement it.
it is possible for any 3-rd party developer to do that by using 'hidden DSP objects' and 'custom draw' feature... (I will definitely help / add any necessary features to the kernel-level & kxmixer)

E.

Didn't I politely asked what ARE hidden DSP effects?!?

Please, Eugene, give us more detailed information...

**Eugene Gavrilov** · Dec 8, 2004, 02:12 AM

>> hidden DSP effects

developer can set any effect to be 'hidden'
in this case it won't be displayed by kX DSP, nor will any connections to/from it will be.

E.

Samir · Dec 8, 2004, 03:15 AM

Thanks, that's fahr simple than i taught...

So, it should be possible for someone to program 'container' kX AddOn, wich should contain few hidden effects & connections, with programable global inputs & outputs... now, this 'container' should be represented as single effect in DSP window...

Actually, we only need a separate edit window, like DSP window (but smaller), where you can edit these hidden plugins and make connections... Of course, final 'container' effect need to be visible in DSP window...

Should not be too hard?

**Eugene Gavrilov** · Dec 8, 2004, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samir

Should not be too hard?

everyone's welcome to start the development

E.

**Eugene Gavrilov** · Dec 8, 2004, 11:30 PM

3538e quickfix is available:
http://driverheaven.net/showthread.p...962#post508962

Tiger M · Dec 9, 2004, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samir

Thanks, that's fahr simple than i taught...

So, it should be possible for someone to program 'container' kX AddOn, wich should contain few hidden effects & connections, with programable global inputs & outputs... now, this 'container' should be represented as single effect in DSP window...

Actually, we only need a separate edit window, like DSP window (but smaller), where you can edit these hidden plugins and make connections... Of course, final 'container' effect need to be visible in DSP window...

Should not be too hard?

I think that someone should be you

Samir · Dec 9, 2004, 04:40 PM

Jeahhh, you wish!

Not until i get my real computeer reapired, exams finished, new year's booze 'hangovered', girlfriend satisfied... May start doing it in feb., maybe?

nakamichi · Dec 11, 2004, 04:02 AM

Oops.I posted the message that was supposed to be here in the "3538c released" topic.
So,instead of posting it again,I must note:
Eugene,please check out my post in the "3538c Released" topic and then reply here.

hoes in da back · Dec 12, 2004, 02:45 AM

Yes please add support for the gateway oem card. The newest drivers available from gateway are from 2001. I get no sound when digital output is checked or un checked. Creative drivers don't work either. Its the speakers it connects through the front speaker input, i had other digital speakers and they worked fine on new drivers i know its not the card. But the driver is what makes the card reconize the speakers.

Boston BA7500G speakers

igor_levicki · Jan 3, 2005, 03:19 AM

@Eugene:
I have some question about status of following features:

* Audigy 2 ZS I/O
- Is I/O on this card similar to Audigy 1 & 2 or routing should be different?
- Any chance on publishing details on I/O of this card (including i2s and spdif)?

* Audigy 2 ZS 24/96 from line-in
- Is this possible and if not, why?

* Audigy 2 ZS AC97
- Does AC97 configuration differ from Audigy 2?
- How various settings affect audio signal quality?
- Does the front/rear issue still apply?

Thanks in advance.
Igor

**Eugene Gavrilov** · Jan 7, 2005, 03:33 AM

I don't have a2zs, so I cannot be 100%-sure.
----

* Audigy 2 ZS I/O
- Is I/O on this card similar to Audigy 1 & 2 or routing should be different?

is similar to audigy2

- Any chance on publishing details on I/O of this card (including i2s and spdif)?

which details? hardware specs? I don't have them atm

* Audigy 2 ZS 24/96 from line-in
- Is this possible and if not, why?

perhaps, possible [on-board line-in]
possible - external line-ins [bay/livedrive]

* Audigy 2 ZS AC97
- Does AC97 configuration differ from Audigy 2?

probably not

- How various settings affect audio signal quality?
?..

- Does the front/rear issue still apply?
probably yes
-----
E.

**dj_stick** · Jan 7, 2005, 04:29 AM

i think the only real difference in between the audigy 2 and the audigy 2 zs is the extra output channel
if you mean i/o as in the AD_EXT header etc, it is the same as the Audigy 2

Samir · Jan 7, 2005, 04:31 PM

There is also slight difference in P16V chip...

On Audigy 2 it's NO250 revision, A 2 ZS has NO302 revision... I saw somewhere that it has been renamed to p17v for A2 ZS... Anybody to confirm this?

**dj_stick** · Jan 8, 2005, 01:18 AM

is that written on the chip or no? the p16v router works fine with my zs however…

ROBSCIX · Jan 12, 2005, 04:30 AM

Hey stick I cannot find the thread where the individual modules were posted I think by eugene for test individual functions of the drivers...I remember it's a list of links...is it possible to add the effect lib of 3538 to the stable 3537..well I guess I can try it myself...

igor_levicki · Jan 20, 2005, 05:12 PM

Quote: