Subject: [ecasound] Re: [ardour-dev] Re: [Jackit-devel] some maybe good news about timeouts
From: Jeremy Hall (jhall_AT_uu.net)
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 03:49:42 EEST
In the new year, Paul Davis wrote:
> 1) use zero latency monitoring and add the prerecorded material
From what I understand, this is not possible currently. To make it
possible, I would need to replace my hardware with Hammerfall DSP's and
allow the card to perform the mixing. Is that correct?
> 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.
yes, and if I understand correctly, the other currently-recording
musicians will be late as well, because each person is hearing him early,
the rest late.
> 2) will cause there to be a delay between signal generation by the talent
> and it being audible in the monitor mix.
that is what we currently have in ksi_ardour. Like I said before, 128
seems to work ok there, 256 makes the person think there's an echo,
> 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).
yes but is each client made to play fair or does jack have leniency?
> ardour-dev mailing list
-- 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 : Wed Apr 10 2002 - 03:36:49 EEST