• I'm pretty confused how to route things in bees in relation to ins and outs. I'd like to have an intuitive understanding, but I'm having an impossible time based on the naming. Can someone do me a huge favor and provide some sort of english translation so I can memorize it? :)




  • check the new video i just put up in the tips thread :) it should help

    each adc is one of the four physical inputs (looking from front of aleph from left to right 0, 1, 2, 3 ) and like wise the dac are the outputs below them.
    You can route each input to each output, so if you wanted the first input to only go out of the 3rd output you'd set

    adc0_dac0 . inf
    adc0_dac1 . inf
    adc0_dac2 . 0.00000
    adc0_dac3 . inf

    if you wanted a stereo signal to go straight through (i.e. input 1 to output 1 and input 2 to output 2 you'd set

    adc0_dac0 0.0000
    adc0_dac1 inf
    adc0_dac2 inf
    adc0_dac3 inf

    adc1_dac0 inf
    adc1_dac1 0.00000
    adc1_dac2 inf
    adc1_dac3 inf

    does that help?

  • Yes that does help. Thanks! BTW great job on the tutorial videos. I'll check out the latest one.

    So this is my rosetta stone. What I need to remember:

    From a user perspective these names are problematic. I vaguely recall reading a thread or github comment about naming of these but not sure where. Anyway, is there a reason they are not named something more intuitive for the lay person?

    Something like?:

    in0_out0 . inf
    in0_out1 . inf
    in0_out2 . 0.00000
    in0_out3 . inf

    [^^well i suppose this naming doesn't specify audio..]

    a-in0_a-out0 . inf
    a-in0_a-out1 . inf
    a-in0_a-out2 . 0.00000
    a-in0_a-out3 . inf


    Ain0_Aout0 . inf
    Ain0_Aout1 . inf
    Ain0_Aout2 . 0.00000
    Ain0_Aout3 . inf



    i'm occasionally confused by bees nomenclature
    but ADC + DAC are pretty established abbreviations

    they should stay for the sake of simplicity

  • Thanks for the wiki entries. I am familiar with the terminology and concepts behind the technology, but my opinion remains.

    I'm considering myself an average user here and the last thing intuitive to me when approaching a device with inputs and outputs is to try and think about.."ok output is digital to analog conversion, and input is analog to digital conversion."

    Anyway, I've stating my opinion and that's fine and done. I'll survive and carry on. :)

  • I guess I thought because people are used to adc~ and dac~ in max/msp? They indicate pretty specifically hardware i/o channels. Not a big deal though

  • Ah, I see. In that case, then it is probably clear to most max/msp user here.

    I've only interfaced at the m4l level and the adc~, dac~ objects don't really come in to play.

  • just remember what the acronyms are.

    Analog>Digital Converter ADC send stuff in from the real world!

    Digital>Analog Converter DAC send unreal stuff outside!

  • hmm, i think it's hard to talk about the 'lay person' when you are talking about someone who wants to delve into settings in BEES, i think that's the person who wants to load up scenes made by others and get a useful list of (encoders = delay time and so on and so forth). For those digging deeper there will be a learning curve, for all of us in different areas.

    The notion of intuition is also a tough one, i would posit that almost everything we consider 'intuitive' in electronic audio is something we've learnt and made intuitive for ourselves.
    For me ADC/DAC was entirely intuitive, not because of max/msp but because I'm originally a sound engineer, and any studios/shops/manuals dealing with digital are full of ADC/DAC terminology. For a lot of people as @gli points out these are very standard terms. (domestic hi-fi CD players always used to boast about their DAC on the front of them, not that anyone then knew what it meant either :) )

    If you were someone who had never dealt with synthesis then 'attack' is a strange word if you think about it, as is 'resonance' if you've never thought about acoustics, but we learn all these things and they become part of us.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Aleph has lots of in/outs, so for me it makes sense with such limited screen space to label the audio ones with industry standard terminology rather than just an 'A_In' which could stand for anything (no pun intended)

  • yep exacto
    any other "in" or "out" could be "filter in," "osc out," who knows, not immediately clear
    max/msp seems a good reference point for what is comfortable w/ e.g. monome users

  • I can't remember, is audio over USB going to be implemented at some point? I think it was stated that the aleph wouldn't be able to handle it, is that right?

  • Yes, Yorke, that's what I remember reading, too.

  • It could handle it, bit would be ugly and not leave any control side processing, at most a static DSP program running on the stream . It's hard for me to see how the utility of this would justify the effort, both on aleph side (avr32 program to stream audio, spciealized bfin core loop ) and host side ("driver" to wrap the aleph's serial device in an audio device class... Icky)

    But strictly speaking it is within range of the hardware capabilities.