Subject: [ecasound] Re: [Jackit-devel] some maybe good news about timeouts
From: Paul Davis (pbd_AT_op.net)
Date: Tue Apr 09 2002 - 16:57:22 EEST
>um please excuse my ignorance, but I'd like to understand this a little
>better. In the case where 0-latency is provided by the card, you're
>really monitoring the rec-enabled tracks and on the friend output channels
>for those tracks.
>I would like to understand from a musician's point of view how listening
>to his vocal track, and only his vocal track, actually benefits him. If
>others are singing, he won't hear them, if other tracks are playing, he
>won't hear them, I just don't get it.
there are 2 possible ways to provide a monitor mix:
1) use zero latency monitoring and add the prerecorded material
2) collect the input signal and mix with the prerecorded material
1) will cause there to be a delay between the direct monitored signal
and the existing material, even though the recording itself will be
perfectly in sync.
2) will cause there to be a delay between signal generation by the talent
and it being audible in the monitor mix.
In both cases, we'd like the delay to be as small as possible. So i
basically retract what I said about it not really mattering. OK?
>as an aside, do _ALL_ jack clients need to run within the frames_per_cycle
Yes. We have frames-per-interrupt to process all the data associated
with a given interrupt. Every client has to be finished by the time
the deadline is reached, and they do not run in parallel (left as an
exercise for the overzealous jack-dev member).
-- To unsubscribe send message 'unsubscribe' in the body of the message to <ecasound-list-request_AT_wakkanet.fi>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 16:45:30 EEST