Maker Pro
Maker Pro

One mouse click, 2 PC's

G

Greg Hanson

Jan 1, 1970
0
This sort of thing is my field of expertise. I assume you are using
Windows since you mentioned Cool Edit.

Yes, XP Pro and CoolEDit Pro. The only thing not "Pro" is obviously me
:)
1/ Are these WAV/MP3 files or does a signal need to be captured
in real time?

These are files (test signals) produced in CoolEdit's audio tone
generator, saved as MP3's and then played back, also from CoolEdit.
2/ What version of Windows are you using?

Please see above.
3/ How old is your computer? Do you know if the sound card is 5.1
channel compatible?

We have a number of PC's. The ones in use for this are matching IBM
S51 Celerons, about 6-7 years old. But I have access to newer models.

The soundcards I bought for this purpose are Creative Audigy 2's with
_5.1 outputs_. However, I can not find how to make CoolEdit feed out
anything but 2 channel stereo.

If possible, I assume it involves cutting and pasting signals from the
editor to the 4 channel multi-track window, but I see no way to assign
each of these to a different 5.1 channel of the soundcard.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Greg Hanson
 
M

Mike Warren

Jan 1, 1970
0
Greg said:
The soundcards I bought for this purpose are Creative Audigy 2's with
_5.1 outputs_. However, I can not find how to make CoolEdit feed out
anything but 2 channel stereo.

If possible, I assume it involves cutting and pasting signals from the
editor to the 4 channel multi-track window, but I see no way to assign
each of these to a different 5.1 channel of the soundcard.

The Audigy 2 should be suitable, but will not show up as separate devices,
which is what Cool Edit needs for multi-channel outputs. Most audio programs
do not offer the capability of splitting signals to various channels on a
single soundcard. You would need a proper multi-device sound card such as
a M-Audio Delta 1010LT or similar, or 2 cards. I don't think it is possible
to get 2 Audigy cards to work in one computer.

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Delta1010LT.html

It would take me about an hour or 2 to throw a simple program together
that will play a couple of audio files and split the signal using an
open source DirectShow matrix filter to send signals to the various
outputs on the Audigy.

I'd be happy do do this for a bit of fun as long as you can wait a few
days until I can find some spare time. Email me if you are interested

miwa (at) csas (dot) net (dot) au
 
S

Sylvia Else

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Ken,



What do you consider "exactly" to mean?

What do you consider that "sequence" to be?

Eminently reasonable questions, which got no answers. Indeed, the OP
hasn't posted again.

I suspect a troll.

Sylvia.
 
U

Uncle Ben

Jan 1, 1970
0
Greegor:
Eminently reasonable questions, which got no answers. Indeed, the OP
hasn't posted again.

I suspect a troll.

Sylvia.
Is there any practical way that would enable me to use a single mouse
click in order to start a sequence at exactly the same time on two
separate PC's (identical units)?

I suppose this means hacking into the mouse lead itself, but how to
find the relevant wires?

Ken Ingram

203.219.5.12
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA TPG INTERNET PTY LTD
[/QUOTE]

IT IS ACUTALLY VERY SIMPLE PHIL
JUST WIRE THE MOUSE BUTTON OVER THE MAINS,
AND BOTH PCS WIL DO A POWER DOWN AT THE SAME TIME.

OSAMA
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eminently reasonable questions, which got no answers. Indeed, the OP
hasn't posted again.

I suspect a troll.

Sylvia.

The degree of precision of the start event WAS discussed, liar.

The sequence that gets started is of no consequence and is therefore
NOT a 'reasonable question', it is an unrelated question.

Your capacity to assess a Usenet post hovers somewhere very close to
nil.
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
203.219.5.12
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA TPG INTERNET PTY LTD

Netkkkop wanna be dumbfucks should be in EVERYONE's kill file.

You epitomize someone that should be ignored.

Good job of getting the IP address of his ISP. Any fucking monkey
could have farted and scratched his balls and gotten that done.

You are too stupid to know that what you resolved does not identify
him.
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
It could possibly be a CRT deflection coil.

You could possibly be autistic, but I doubt it. More likely just plain
dumb.
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
Greegor:

IT IS ACUTALLY VERY SIMPLE PHIL
JUST WIRE THE MOUSE BUTTON OVER THE MAINS,
AND BOTH PCS WIL DO A POWER DOWN AT THE SAME TIME.

OSAMA

Yet one more reason to filter all posts from aoie retards.
 
S

Sylvia Else

Jan 1, 1970
0
The degree of precision of the start event WAS discussed,

Not by the OP it wasn't, and since the OP is the only one who knows the
requirement (if one actually exists), the OP's question cannot be
answered in a concrete way without that information.

You know, going round calling people liars is a particular low approach
to debate. It's the kind of thing politicians get up to (though in
Australia and the UK, at least, they're not meant to do it in parliament).
The sequence that gets started is of no consequence and is therefore
NOT a 'reasonable question', it is an unrelated question.

The OP made no statement to the effect that the sequence that gets
stared is of no consequence.
Your capacity to assess a Usenet post hovers somewhere very close to
nil.

What has that to do with the question at hand?

Sylvia.
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
Not by the OP it wasn't, and since the OP is the only one who knows the
requirement (if one actually exists), the OP's question cannot be
answered in a concrete way without that information.


You know, going round calling people liars is a particular low approach
to debate. It's the kind of thing politicians get up to (though in
Australia and the UK, at least, they're not meant to do it in parliament).

YOU SAID "which got no answers". Plenty of folks addressed that aspect
of it.
The OP made no statement to the effect that the sequence that gets
stared is of no consequence.

Sure he did.

He mentioned wanting to start the TO at the same time. He made NO
mention of what the sequence was, NOR does he need to, since it has
NOTHING to do with getting a single mouse event to enact two machine
events simultaneously.

SO again, NO, it does NOT have a goddamned thing to do with it. Use
some common sense.

What has that to do with the question at hand?

Learn to read the goddamned entire thread instead of the half assed
approach.

That and the "I suspect a troll" was another pretty immature,
unnecessary move.
 
S

Sylvia Else

Jan 1, 1970
0
YOU SAID "which got no answers". Plenty of folks addressed that aspect
of it.

Said folk could only have views on the ramifications of different
meanings of "exactly". Only the OP could know which particular meaning
he or she had in mind, and there was no answer forthcoming from the OP
about which meaning was intended.
Sure he did.

He mentioned wanting to start the TO at the same time. He made NO
mention of what the sequence was, NOR does he need to, since it has
NOTHING to do with getting a single mouse event to enact two machine
events simultaneously.

He mentioned a sequence, but provided no indication of its nature.
Sequences of different kinds occur at various levels in a computer
system, from the sequence of read/writes to memory at one end, to the
sequence in which programs are invoked at the other. So to answer the
OP's question one needs to know what he or she meant by sequence.
SO again, NO, it does NOT have a goddamned thing to do with it. Use
some common sense.

Common sense has often been found wanting. Where possible it's best to
get definitive information rather than trying to divine it by common sense.
Learn to read the goddamned entire thread instead of the half assed
approach.

I don't have to read an entire thread to determine that the OP has not
answered specific questions. I only need to read the OP's subsequence
postings. In this case, there were none.
That and the "I suspect a troll" was another pretty immature,
unnecessary move.

It was a true statement about my state of mind. Where's the problem?

Sylvia.
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
He mentioned a sequence, but provided no indication of its nature.


Wrong! He stated that it was AFTER the mouse start event, which is why
it is of ZERO significance.

Learn to read, the learn about what you read.
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
Common sense has often been found wanting.

Especially your brand of it.
Where possible it's best to
get definitive information rather than trying to divine it by common sense.

Yes, and where it does not even make a bit of fucking difference, it is
to be ignored. That is what you get, and for the same reason.
 
S

Sylvia Else

Jan 1, 1970
0
Wrong! He stated that it was AFTER the mouse start event, which is why
it is of ZERO significance.

It would be surprising if it was before.

But as to its significance, of course it's significant. Starting a
particular sequence of memory reads and writes would be well nigh
impossible. Starting a particular sequence of program executions would
be quite easy.

Sylvia.
 
S

Sylvia Else

Jan 1, 1970
0
Especially your brand of it.

At the I wrote the statment, I wondered whether you'd be able to resist
posting the obvious insult.

But, of course, you couldn't, which doesn't really surprise me.

Sylvia.
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
It would be surprising if it was before.

That inkling of logic was missing in your previous craptography.
But as to its significance, of course it's significant.

Absolutely not. All the OP wants is the start event to be at exactly
the same time. Without anything regarding subsequent actions or events,
you should be able to answer the question without ANY further info
related to any subsequent toggles.
Starting a
particular sequence of memory reads and writes would be well nigh
impossible.

You do not know that, and have you ever heard of reflective memory?
Do you know how it gets written or how it gets passed from the machine
the memory is on to the machine the reflective memory is on, despite the
distance between them?

Starting a particular sequence of program executions would
be quite easy.

I cannot even be sure that you are even aware of that.
 
S

Sylvia Else

Jan 1, 1970
0
That inkling of logic was missing in your previous craptography.

It seemed unecessary to state that an effect will follow its cause. No
counter-examples have ever been observed.
Absolutely not. All the OP wants is the start event to be at exactly
the same time.

And what does "exactly the same time" mean? The events received by the
two computers will be at differet locations in space. The resulting
separation may be time like or spacelike. If they're time-like, they
won't even have a defined order. Exactly the same time is a problematic
concept. The OP needs to qualify "exactly the same time" for his
question even to have a meaning.


Without anything regarding subsequent actions or events,
you should be able to answer the question without ANY further info
related to any subsequent toggles.


You do not know that, and have you ever heard of reflective memory?
Do you know how it gets written or how it gets passed from the machine
the memory is on to the machine the reflective memory is on, despite the
distance between them?

They are PCs. They can, in the absence of statements to the contrary, be
assumed to have ordinary memory.
I cannot even be sure that you are even aware of that.

I've stated it - why wouldn't I be unaware of it?

Sylvia.
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
They are PCs. They can, in the absence of statements to the contrary, be
assumed to have ordinary memory.

"Nigh impossible" is not "only in ordinary memory", AND my observation
involves machines separated, so the problem should be worse, according to
you. It is not, however.

I think your logic is flawed.
 
Top