In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Note that you need a RO machine for the system to work. (It may work
with an emulator, but I can't say.) However the code for what I'm
using is based on source code provided as an example. This is in 'C'
so if you can follow 'C' you can read it.

http://users.skynet.be/Andre.Timmerm...r/download.htm


Ah, right, I see. I can't see the stream capture plugin, but that was
all I meant - and you seem to be using it. I was confused by your
original phrase 'recording a stream of music'. I'd just adopted
'capture' because that's what the young people tend to use: record
sound, capture data.

I'm more used to the idea that we record data or music. For getting the
info from a URL I'd be more likely to say 'fetch' and then 'record'.

RO is 'modular', so any program can call on other sections of the code
provided. This makes it easy for a program to treat a URL as if it were a
file on your machine - provided the fetching then can work OK. e.g. you
haven't bungled the URL and have a suitable connection. The advantage is
that RO programs can avoid repeated re-inventions of wheels. This means
most RO applications are quite compact, as is the OS.

But that means that to understand the process fully you'd also need to see
what the PlaySample module and the URL fetching code are doing. I can't
comment on that as I haven't looked at it. Just use them via the interfaces
they provide.

And what a marvellous piece of software function over style it seems :-)

Not sure if you are referring to Andre's programming style or the way RO
tends to work. ;-

My own programs are nightmares as I rarely comment and often hack until it
sort-of-works...

[snip]
....

Luck, a grim determination, work and money.

Actually, not *too* much money - about £300 for cutting edge hardware,
£30 for something that works. Pleased to see they outstrip Intel's
latest on power consumption. And pleased, obviously, that you're happy
with it.

You can't budget for irrationality. I'd prefer to travel by steam train
and listen to music amplified by valves. All to do with the journey,
apparently.

The drawbacks with RO machines tend to be limited hardware, and lack of
'compatability' with widely used proprietary filetypes/methods. Hence the
snag when people use some formats for net radio. 'Real' because of its
proprietary nature, 'aac' because no-one has yet done the decoder for RO.
:-)

But the advantage (for me) is that the RO systems are quite simple to use,
and work with an efficiency that belies the crude measures like cpu speed
and available ram.[1] Of course, this also is because it is what I'm used
to and like. Just like a preference for steam train or valve amps. What
suits best depends on who you are, what you wish to do, and the style in
which you wish to do it. :-)

[1] Analogy here with the point about not just judging cameras by
'megapixels' but also checking things like the lens capability and how well
the images are encoded.

However the above is all straying OT... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Note that you need a RO machine for the system to work. (It may work
with an emulator, but I can't say.) However the code for what I'm
using is based on source code provided as an example. This is in 'C'
so if you can follow 'C' you can read it.

http://users.skynet.be/Andre.Timmerm...r/download.htm


Ah, right, I see. I can't see the stream capture plugin, but that was
all I meant - and you seem to be using it. I was confused by your
original phrase 'recording a stream of music'. I'd just adopted
'capture' because that's what the young people tend to use: record
sound, capture data.

I'm more used to the idea that we record data or music. For getting the
info from a URL I'd be more likely to say 'fetch' and then 'record'.

RO is 'modular', so any program can call on other sections of the code
provided. This makes it easy for a program to treat a URL as if it were a
file on your machine - provided the fetching then can work OK. e.g. you
haven't bungled the URL and have a suitable connection. The advantage is
that RO programs can avoid repeated re-inventions of wheels. This means
most RO applications are quite compact, as is the OS.


V. nice. I used to have a passing interest in Windows and DOS, but
recently fled to Mac because I decided, once and for all, that I just
wanted it to work and be done with all the .exe and .bat and .dll things.

But that means that to understand the process fully you'd also need to see
what the PlaySample module and the URL fetching code are doing. I can't
comment on that as I haven't looked at it. Just use them via the interfaces
they provide.

And what a marvellous piece of software function over style it seems :-)

Not sure if you are referring to Andre's programming style or the way RO
tends to work. ;-


Well, the screenshots remind me of Windows 3.1. Although in all honesty
if it works, go with it. I find Mac apps look like something out of
(what i might imagine to be) a child's nightmare. But they just toddle
along in a *consistent and reliable* sort of way.

My own programs are nightmares as I rarely comment and often hack until it
sort-of-works...

[snip]
...

Luck, a grim determination, work and money.

Actually, not *too* much money - about £300 for cutting edge hardware,
£30 for something that works. Pleased to see they outstrip Intel's
latest on power consumption. And pleased, obviously, that you're happy
with it.

You can't budget for irrationality. I'd prefer to travel by steam train
and listen to music amplified by valves. All to do with the journey,
apparently.

The drawbacks with RO machines tend to be limited hardware, and lack of
'compatability' with widely used proprietary filetypes/methods. Hence the
snag when people use some formats for net radio. 'Real' because of its
proprietary nature, 'aac' because no-one has yet done the decoder for RO.
:-)

But the advantage (for me) is that the RO systems are quite simple to use,
and work with an efficiency that belies the crude measures like cpu speed
and available ram.[1] Of course, this also is because it is what I'm used
to and like. Just like a preference for steam train or valve amps. What
suits best depends on who you are, what you wish to do, and the style in
which you wish to do it. :-)


Quite, wouldn't argue with that at all.

[1] Analogy here with the point about not just judging cameras by
'megapixels' but also checking things like the lens capability and how well
the images are encoded.

However the above is all straying OT... :-)


Indeed. Life bumbles along :-)

rob

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


RO is 'modular', so any program can call on other sections of the code
provided. ...

[snip]

V. nice. I used to have a passing interest in Windows and DOS, but
recently fled to Mac because I decided, once and for all, that I just
wanted it to work and be done with all the .exe and .bat and .dll things.

If I had to move platform I'd most likely go to Mac, particularly as IIUC
it is now BSD based. In the past I started with ICL1900 mainframes with
FORTRAN and progressed though various mainframe systems, also using
PDPs, etc. But I ended up preferring RO for 'domestic' tasks like document
creation, etc. Also use *NIX (Solaris mostly) for specific purposes, but
just hack to get what I need. Have tried doze and linux, but can't say I
liked either. Linux is Ok for programming, but I prefer RO for domestic
purposes. Simple works in a more convenient way for me.

FWIW You can get emulators for RO running on doze and mac. So I may end up
in future years with a mac and use an emulator for the domestic tasks. :-)



Not sure if you are referring to Andre's programming style or the way
RO tends to work. ;-


Well, the screenshots remind me of Windows 3.1. Although in all honesty
if it works, go with it. I find Mac apps look like something out of
(what i might imagine to be) a child's nightmare. But they just toddle
along in a *consistent and reliable* sort of way.

The look of RO may be deceptive. Bit like the way some linux disros
deliberately 'look like doze' but work differently when you get into using
them. My own RO machines have a slightly different desktop appearance as
this is easy to change. But I like simple, colourful, icons, etc, as I have
poor eyesight and I find this easier to see. You'd need to try using RO to
discover the differences.

The most obvious distinction with doze 3.x for me would be that onscreen
text with ancient doze looked truly awful. Whereas from the year dot RO
onscreen text has tended to be well antialiased so looks much more like
print on paper. One of the reasons I avoided doze for years was that the
text it displayed was so rough and ragged it made my eyes water, and become
sore. (This is quite literally correct, not just an expression of
distaste!)

It was quite funny a a year or two ago when I read in IEEE Spectrum an
'article' on progress in font anti-aliasing that was little more than an ad
from microsoft promoting their catching up with what others had been doing
for over a decade. I could just hear Uncle Bill saying, "text dithering
/anti-aliasing - what's that?" as an echo of his fabled comment about the
net. :-)

All wildly off-topic, though... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html