multitasking

multitasking

[Glenn English]

I'm writing a wrapper around SoX, and I've come to the point where a
number of it's capabilities are required at the same time (eq,
bandpassing, speech rate change, etc.) and I'm confused about the best
way to get these all done.

I'm running on a multi-core CPU, so I turned on mult-threaded but it
doesn't seem to use more than one -- it seems to hop around from one
to another, but always running on just a single core at a time.

There's talk of a 'chain' in the dox consisting of a number of args
with ':' between them, but I'm not sure what this means. Does just
asking for a number of actions enable some kind of threading, using
several cores in parallel? And if so, does it sort them so
normalization happens after eq after concatenation, etc.?

Or should I just give the shell a number of SoXes piped together?
That's my first guess, but SoX seems so capable that one of the others
is very likely a better choice.

TIA.

--
Glenn English

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Jeremy Nicoll - ml sox users]

On 2017-10-24 20:00, Glenn English wrote:
> I'm writing a wrapper around SoX, and I've come to the point where a
> number of it's capabilities are required at the same time (eq,
> bandpassing, speech rate change, etc.) and I'm confused about the best
> way to get these all done.

I can't answer the question, but I think whoever does will need to know
more.  Are these multiple capabilities needed on different pieces of
audio, but all being processed at the same time?

  - which to me would suggest one sox command per audio stream,
    and surely they'd be likely to run on different cores

Or do you mean that for one audio source a whole sequence of things
are to be done to it?

  - which seems to me to be one sox command with various effects
    coded one afetr another

Or something else?



> There's talk of a 'chain' in the dox consisting of a number of args
> with ':' between them, but I'm not sure what this means. Does just
> asking for a number of actions enable some kind of threading, using
> several cores in parallel? And if so, does it sort them so
> normalization happens after eq after concatenation, etc.?


There two sorts of chain mentioned; one is the "chain of effects" which
is (I think) analogous to having a whole series of effects boxes wired
up so that sound after it is processed by the first box is cabled to
the next box which does something else, then that output is cabled to
the next one...   Anywhere you see a series of effects each with their
parameters specified, is that sort of chain.

Effects like normalisation, eq etc happen in the order you specify them,
except for the automatic processing implicit in various ways (say) of
combining input files.  (I think.)


The ones with ":" between them confuse me too.  Although I can sort of
see how the ones in the manual might work, I don't think I'm capable of
working out other ways to use ":".



-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Glenn English]

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Jeremy Nicoll - ml sox users
<jn.ml.sxu.88@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:

> I can't answer the question, but I think whoever does will need to know
> more.  Are these multiple capabilities needed on different pieces of
> audio, but all being processed at the same time?

No, just one hugish (1G++) flac file, processed in several different ways.

> Or do you mean that for one audio source a whole sequence of things
> are to be done to it?

Got it :-)

>  - which seems to me to be one sox command with various effects
>    coded one afetr another

That's another possibility, but it takes a very long time to cat a
billion little flacs into a single or mp3 it, so I assumed it'd take a
long time to eq or compress the huge flac, so I wanted to do several
things in parallel. That's not a deal killer because this program is
being designed to do the SoX part(s) of the job with no human
intervention. But I'd like to get its job done overnight.

> There two sorts of chain mentioned; one is the "chain of effects" which
> is (I think) analogous to having a whole series of effects boxes wired
> up so that sound after it is processed by the first box is cabled to
> the next box which does something else, then that output is cabled to
> the next one...   Anywhere you see a series of effects each with their
> parameters specified, is that sort of chain.
>
> Effects like normalisation, eq etc happen in the order you specify them,
> except for the automatic processing implicit in various ways (say) of
> combining input files.  (I think.)

That's what I was assuming (hoping) for. Self sorting of the order of
effects works for me.

> The ones with ":" between them confuse me too.  Although I can sort of
> see how the ones in the manual might work, I don't think I'm capable of
> working out other ways to use ":".

Maybe I'll play around with different ways of dealing with things in
hopes of finding out what works. Unless someone more knowledgeable
than you and me comes along and saves me a week of futzing.

> --
> Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own

Thank you for your opinions :-)

--
Glenn English

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Jeremy Nicoll - ml sox users]

On 2017-10-25 01:29, Glenn English wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Jeremy Nicoll - ml sox users
> <jn.ml.sxu.88@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>> I can't answer the question, but I think whoever does will need to 
>> know
>> more.  Are these multiple capabilities needed on different pieces of
>> audio, but all being processed at the same time?
> 
> No, just one hugish (1G++) flac file, processed in several different 
> ways.
> 
>> Or do you mean that for one audio source a whole sequence of things
>> are to be done to it?
> 
> Got it :-)
> 
>>  - which seems to me to be one sox command with various effects
>>    coded one afetr another
> 
> That's another possibility, but it takes a very long time to cat a
> billion little flacs into a single or mp3 it, so I assumed it'd take a
> long time to eq or compress the huge flac, so I wanted to do several
> things in parallel. That's not a deal killer because this program is
> being designed to do the SoX part(s) of the job with no human
> intervention. But I'd like to get its job done overnight.

It's either one huge file, or it's not.

I have no idea whether for the effects you wish to use it'd make any
difference whether you apply them to all the small files first, then
concatenate the results, or whether some/all will only work properly
if applied to the huge file.

On Windows, if a script issues

   start sox ...

(though such a command tends to look rather more like

  start /b "atitle" "c:\x\y\z\sox.exe" arg1 arg2 arg3...  )

then that started sox runs in a different process from the one that
the script is running under, and therefore a script could issue a
series of "start sox..." commands at a time.  However if, say, it
issued 7 of these (if one had a 4 cpu ie 8 core machine) there'd be
no easy way to find out when each sox command stopped so it was a
good time to start another one.

On the other hand if you divided your umpteen files into, say, 7
lists of files you could have your master script start 7 subsidiary
scripts with "start .. whatever's needed to start that script" and
then each one could issue a sox command, then when that's complete
issue the next one and so on.  You might find that 7 sets of sox
commands was too many on an 8 core machine; it depends what else
has to run at the same time.

If I were doing that I would have the subsidiary script create when
it starts a flag file unique to it, then check that file exists each
time it's about to issue another sox command.  If not, stop.  That
way you can easily stop one set of commands by deleting its flag file.
Scripts I have that do that also delete the unique flagfile when they
stop naturally.



-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Jan Stary]

On Oct 24 19:00:55, ghe2001@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm writing a wrapper around SoX, and I've come to the point where a
> number of it's capabilities are required at the same time (eq,
> bandpassing, speech rate change, etc.) and I'm confused about the best
> way to get these all done.

$ sox input output effect1 effect2 effect3 ...

> I'm running on a multi-core CPU, so I turned on mult-threaded but it
> doesn't seem to use more than one -- it seems to hop around from one
> to another, but always running on just a single core at a time.

A single SoX process will run on a single CPU.

> There's talk of a 'chain' in the dox consisting of a number of args
> with ':' between them, but I'm not sure what this means. Does just
> asking for a number of actions enable some kind of threading, using
> several cores in parallel?

I don't think so.

> And if so, does it sort them so
> normalization happens after eq after concatenation, etc.?

The effects are applied in the order you specify them.

On Oct 25 00:29:34, ghe2001@gmail.com wrote:
> > I can't answer the question, but I think whoever does will need to know
> > more.  Are these multiple capabilities needed on different pieces of
> > audio, but all being processed at the same time?
> 
> No, just one hugish (1G++) flac file, processed in several different ways.
> 
> >  - which seems to me to be one sox command with various effects
> >    coded one afetr another
> 
> That's another possibility, but it takes a very long time to cat a
> billion little flacs into a single or mp3 it,

But you don't have a billion little flacs, you have one huge flac.
(BTW, why? Is this the complete Nibelungs?)

> so I assumed it'd take a
> long time to eq or compress the huge flac,

It sure will.

> so I wanted to do several things in parallel.

A single instance of SoX will perform the effects in sequence.
You can try running a pipeline of many SoX instances instead:
$ sox input - effect1 | sox - - effect2 | ... | sox - output effectN
Then your operating system could assign each SoX process to a separate CPU.

> That's not a deal killer because this program is
> being designed to do the SoX part(s) of the job with no human
> intervention. But I'd like to get its job done overnight.

It would be simpler if you isolated your SoX problem to just that.
The rest of your program has nothing to do with this.

> > There two sorts of chain mentioned; one is the "chain of effects" which
> > is (I think) analogous to having a whole series of effects boxes wired
> > up so that sound after it is processed by the first box is cabled to
> > the next box which does something else, then that output is cabled to
> > the next one...   Anywhere you see a series of effects each with their
> > parameters specified, is that sort of chain.
> >
> > Effects like normalisation, eq etc happen in the order you specify them,
> > except for the automatic processing implicit in various ways (say) of
> > combining input files.  (I think.)
> 
> That's what I was assuming (hoping) for. Self sorting of the order of
> effects works for me.

I'm not sure you udnerstand: there is no "self sorting".
The sequence of effects (or the orrder of the pipeline)
is determined by your SoX command.

> Maybe I'll play around with different ways of dealing with things in
> hopes of finding out what works. Unless someone more knowledgeable
> than you and me comes along and saves me a week of futzing.

You still haven't told us what exactly
you want to do with the single input file.

	Jan


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Jan Stary]

On Oct 25 20:07:36, hans@stare.cz wrote:
> $ sox input output effect1 effect2 effect3 ...
> A single SoX process will run on a single CPU.
> The effects are applied in the order you specify them.
> 
> > so I wanted to do several things in parallel.
> 
> A single instance of SoX will perform the effects in sequence.
> You can try running a pipeline of many SoX instances instead:
> $ sox input - effect1 | sox - - effect2 | ... | sox - output effectN
> Then your operating system could assign each SoX process to a separate CPU.

To get an idea of how much there is to gain, here is a naive experiment.

$ f='-t raw -c 1 -r 48000 -b 16 -e signed' 
$ sox $f -n input.raw synth noise gain -6 trim 0 02:00:00

That's two hours of white noise. Now run three effects on it,
first as an effect-chain of a single sox process,
then as a pipeline of three sox processes.

$ time sox $f input.raw $f output.raw lowpass 8k equalizer 4k 1o +3 gain -n   
$ time sox $f input.raw $f - lowpass 8k \
     | sox $f - $f - equalizer 4k 1o +3 \
     | sox $f - $f output.raw gain -n

(Run it several times to be sure the second one
does not have the benefit of filesystem caching).

On my machine, both take about 52 seconds.
With two hours of a sine wave, the result is almost the same.

Naively, this makes me think you will not gain much by making sox run
on different CPUs. Just run the sequence of effects you need to do.

	Jan


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Glenn English]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Jan Stary <hans@stare.cz> wrote:

> $ sox input output effect1 effect2 effect3 ...

Thanks

> A single SoX process will run on a single CPU.

Thanks again.

> The effects are applied in the order you specify them.

And again.

> But you don't have a billion little flacs, you have one huge flac.
> (BTW, why? Is this the complete Nibelungs?)

No. But it's The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest and the like. It
comes in a billion little wavs that get converted to a billion little
flacs and them cat'ed into one huge flac (SoX, BTW, has no trouble
with a command line with 250+ params). They all have to be cat'ed for
the effects  to be consistent throughout.

> A single instance of SoX will perform the effects in sequence.
> You can try running a pipeline of many SoX instances instead:
> $ sox input - effect1 | sox - - effect2 | ... | sox - output effectN
> Then your operating system could assign each SoX process to a separate CPU.

That's kinda what I thought -- pipes.

> It would be simpler if you isolated your SoX problem to just that.
> The rest of your program has nothing to do with this.

I'm having no problem at all (well, just a bit at first) with SoX.
It's a delightful piece of software.

Back in the analog days, I once spent all fall editing and splicing up
a project that took all summer to record (Homer's Iliad). Easily a
left arm for the likes of SoX/Python back then :-)

> I'm not sure you understand: there is no "self sorting".

There is if I need to specify the effects in a rational order. EQ
before compression before normalize, for example.

> The sequence of effects (or the order of the pipeline)
> is determined by your SoX command.

That assumes a little sorting or the command line by me. A mortal.

> You still haven't told us what exactly
> you want to do with the single input file.

I don't know yet. There are a lot of decisions to be made, probably
different for every file/user. I want to prepare a sort of menu for
the user of various options of some of SoX' effects, then give the
list of desired effects to SoX to do, probably overnight.

--
Glenn English

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Jeremy Nicoll - ml sox users]

On 2017-10-25 21:25, Glenn English wrote:

> No. But it's The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest and the like. It
> comes in a billion little wavs

Why?  I'm assuming there's some exaggeration there, but even if you
only mean a thousand, or a few hundred... why so many bits?

Have you found some way to extract tiny snippets of audio from some
copyrighted source, where you can trap a buffer-full (or something)
before lack of full access stops the rest of the acquisition?

-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Glenn English]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Jeremy Nicoll - ml sox users
<jn.ml.sxu.88@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:

> Have you found some way to extract tiny snippets of audio from some
> copyrighted source, where you can trap a buffer-full (or something)
> before lack of full access stops the rest of the acquisition?

No, not doing anything untoward (I don't think).

I'm trying to move audiobooks (that have been paid for) from the CDs
to something I can listen to without having to walk across the room to
change the disks every so often, and to get distracting announcements
(like which disk we're on) out of the story.

Or to get podcast readings of books in several mp3s into one piece,
again with fewer irrelevant announcements. And with less retelling of
stuff from last week's podcast.

Cdparanoia rips the CDs into a bunch of wav files (often vast numbers
of tiny ones), and the mp3s just need a little un-processing. Both
formats are in many files when sox gets them. No snippets or buffers
or lack of acquisition; it's all there on the disk.

I know that what I'm making could be used for pirating copyrighted
material, but that's not the objective here. I just want the readings
I listen to back in one uninterrupted piece, like they were before
they were chopped up. Like the recordings I made back in my misspent
youth as an audio engineer.

--
Glenn English

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Jeremy Nicoll - ml sox users]

On 2017-10-26 03:35, Glenn English wrote:

> Cdparanoia rips the CDs into a bunch of wav files (often vast numbers
> of tiny ones), and the mp3s just need a little un-processing. Both
> formats are in many files when sox gets them.

Does "vast numbers" equal the number of tracks on each CD?  And might
that be high so that listeners can easily find one of many points to
start listening?

Or are there vastly more than the number of tracks?


Why not use a ripper that produces a single track, eg (according to
Google) 'abcde', used as eg

  abcde -1 -a default,cue -o wav


Or (if I read an online man page correctly)the cdparanoia command:

   cdparanoia 1- -w output.wav

(note that "1-" means from track 1 to the end of the disc).


-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Jan Stary]

> Cdparanoia rips the CDs into a bunch of wav files (often vast numbers
> of tiny ones),

What "vast numbers"? The most I have seen in an audio book was,
say, twelve CDs of 10 chapters each. What numbers do you see?

> and the mp3s just need a little un-processing.

What MP3s? cdparanoia rips into WAV or AIFF or RAW.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Glenn English]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Jan Stary <hans@stare.cz> wrote:

> What "vast numbers"? The most I have seen in an audio book was,
> say, twelve CDs of 10 chapters each. What numbers do you see?

Those CDs can (and often do) have a hundred little 60 second wavs on them.

> What MP3s? cdparanoia rips into WAV or AIFF or RAW.

The mp3s are from the podcasts.

--
Glenn English

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Jan Stary]

On Oct 26 14:41:38, ghe2001@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Jan Stary <hans@stare.cz> wrote:
> 
> > What "vast numbers"? The most I have seen in an audio book was,
> > say, twelve CDs of 10 chapters each. What numbers do you see?
> 
> Those CDs can (and often do) have a hundred little 60 second wavs on them.

You mean someone recorded an audio book
cut into one-minute pieces?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Glenn English]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Jan Stary <hans@stare.cz> wrote:

> You mean someone recorded an audio book
> cut into one-minute pieces?

Well, I didn't time them, but one I've seen has 99 tracks on several
of the CDs. (99 seems to be a limit of some sort.)

--
Glenn English

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Jeremy Nicoll - ml sox users]

On 2017-10-26 20:17, Glenn English wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Jan Stary <hans@stare.cz> wrote:
> 
>> You mean someone recorded an audio book
>> cut into one-minute pieces?
> 
> Well, I didn't time them, but one I've seen has 99 tracks on several
> of the CDs. (99 seems to be a limit of some sort.)

These are surely index points though?  So a listener can return to
more or less where they'd got to if they listen to part of a book
then turn off the player then come back to it?

Do the 'abcde' and/or cdparanoia commands I suggested in another
post not produce one larger file per CD?

-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Glenn English]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Jeremy Nicoll - ml sox users
<jn.ml.sxu.88@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:

> These are surely index points though?  So a listener can return to
> more or less where they'd got to if they listen to part of a book
> then turn off the player then come back to it?

Yup. That's what it says on the box. But I'll trade that convenience
for no extraneous chat. Besides, when I'm playing the big file in VLC,
I can just hit the space bar to stop it, and it'll remember where I
am.

> Do the 'abcde' and/or cdparanoia commands I suggested in another
> post not produce one larger file per CD?

I'm not sure, I haven't read all the documentation. I don't think they
do -- cdparanoia does a wonderful job of ripping the CDs. And sox has
no trouble converting them to a flac then sticking them together into
a big file. Sox takes about a second per tiny wav file. And the output
is just fine. I doubt another program could do a better/faster job.

--
Glenn English

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Jan Stary]

On Oct 25 20:25:10, ghe2001@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm not sure you understand: there is no "self sorting".
> 
> There is if I need to specify the effects in a rational order. EQ
> before compression before normalize, for example.

I probably misunderstood: I thought you meant that SoX itself
figures out some inteligent sequence of the effects (it does not).
If by self-sorting you mean that _you_ have to figure it out, then yes.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Glenn English]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Jan Stary <hans@stare.cz> wrote:

> I probably misunderstood: I thought you meant that SoX itself
> figures out some inteligent sequence of the effects (it does not).
> If by self-sorting you mean that _you_ have to figure it out, then yes.

Sox is pretty smart, and so are the developers. If they can keep away
from 0xffff when equalizing, they could figure out the best order of
processing pretty easily.

That's what I was thinking sox might do on its own. But assuming I'm
smart enough to do that saves a few bytes in sox...

--
Glenn English

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Jan Stary]

On Oct 25 20:25:10, ghe2001@gmail.com wrote:
> > But you don't have a billion little flacs, you have one huge flac.
> > (BTW, why? Is this the complete Nibelungs?)
> 
> No. But it's The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest and the like.

(Ah, it's you.)

> It comes in a billion little wavs that get converted
> to a billion little flacs

Surely not a billion. I would says tens or at most hundreds,
being a reading of a book ...

> and them cat'ed into one huge flac (SoX, BTW, has no trouble
> with a command line with 250+ params).

OK, hundreds then.

> They all have to be cat'ed for
> the effects  to be consistent throughout.

I understand that you need to e.g. normalize the whole thing,
as opposed to normalizing each piece first and then concating.
But that assumes the individual pieces are well mastered,
e.g. the relative volume of each is what it is supposed to be.

> > You still haven't told us what exactly
> > you want to do with the single input file.
> 
> I don't know yet. There are a lot of decisions to be made, probably
> different for every file/user.

That's the opposite of what you said before: you have one huge file,
so what "every file" do you mean? And if you want to process each
of the pieces differently, why do you have the one huge file?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users

Re: multitasking

[Glenn English]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Jan Stary <hans@stare.cz> wrote:

> I understand that you need to e.g. normalize the whole thing,
> as opposed to normalizing each piece first and then concating.
> But that assumes the individual pieces are well mastered,
> e.g. the relative volume of each is what it is supposed to be.

I'm assuming it might *not* have been well mastered, and helping them out a bit.

> That's the opposite of what you said before: you have one huge file,
> so what "every file" do you mean?

It means the big file after the cat'ing, not the little ones I start with.

> And if you want to process each
> of the pieces differently

I don't.

> why do you have the one huge file?

That's the output of the whole process.

--
Glenn English

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users