> | From Leland <
leland@...>
> | Sun, 06 Jul 2008 05:25:06 -0500
> | Subject: [Audacity-devel] How about trying DTMF Tones?
>> Gale Andrews wrote:
>>> | From Leland <
leland@...>
>>> | Sun, 06 Jul 2008 02:46:03 -0500
>>> | Subject: [Audacity-devel] How about trying DTMF Tones?
>>>> Try generating DTMF tones using 15 hours...you might get the impression
>>>> that Audacity is hung. Progress dialog isn't taking all processing into
>>>> account.
>>> We have a general note about all Tone Generators in "Release Checklist
>>> not aiming for 1.4" :
>>>
>>> "Long tone generations (e.g. 20 minutes) can crash Audacity from time to
>>> time. i.e. the tone has not still not been generated after 30 minutes or more
>>> and Audacity is no longer responding. Consider if the theoretical 99
>>> hours, 59 minutes, 59.999 seconds generation allowed should be
>>> restricted."
>>>
>>> I observed the crashing on my older XP machine. On this more recent one
>>> I've been generating a 15 hour tone for five minutes in which time the
>>> "remaining time" has gone up from 20 to 45 minutes and CPU is
>>> about 15 -20 %. This isn't really useful. Should we escalate to main
>>> checklist with the intention of doing something about it e.g. generate
>>> a short tone and essentially repeat it (job done instantly)?
>>>
>>> Generate Tone works fine here.
>>> It's the DTMF fella that isn't including all of its processing
>>> within the ProgressDialog updates.
>> I don't know about the other issue that you mention, but I'm starting to
>> suspect that we are still running into sample count overflows somewhere.
>
> If I generate 1 hour DTMF and normal Sine tone, I can see that DTMF only
> updates elapsed time every 10 seconds, Tone every second. I also found
> it very difficult to cancel DTMF, it took 30 seconds and several attempts
> to do so, but Tone cancelled almost at once.
>
> Both generators suggest 1 minute ETA at start, but end up taking 3
> minutes, and I don't like the amount of CPU this is taking either.
>
> So when you say "Generate Tone works fine", how long does it take to
> produce a 15 hour tone? Is anyone going to wait an hour to do that?
> And not everyone has fast machines, I honestly believe long tone
> generation could crash slower machines.
>
> And now I tried to generate (at 44100 Hz) a 14 hour silence, I *do* see
> what you do, an empty track, but not generating a 12 hour silence, where
> I get the zero samples. I get the same result generating at 96000 Hz.
> So it seems we are up against the same type of limit you have been
> seeing with Zac's issue, but it is not related to number of samples?
>
>
> Gale (Win XP)
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
> Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
> along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
> and boredom. Vote Now at
http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08> _______________________________________________
> audacity-devel mailing list
>
audacity-devel@...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel>
