Re: [ecasound] Bug report: etm consumes too much CPU

From: S. Massy <lists@email-addr-hidden>
Date: Sat May 26 2012 - 22:59:52 EEST

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 02:41:44PM +0300, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
> OTOH, I think both "-etd" and "-etm" are a bit too complicated and
> special-purpose for simple delay compenstation use. I did a quick
> benchmark of a few LADSPA delay lines, and many are much faster. I'd
> suggest using e.g. "delay_n" (from swh-plugins) or "delay_5s" (from
> ladspa-sdk). These are faster than any ecasound delay op, and are
> installed on most people's machines.
Thanks for pointing these plugins out: I had missed them, somehow, when
looking for a suitable delay. They are indeed faster by an order of
magnitude. Note that delay_5s isn't suitable because it truncates the
delay parameter to the first digit or IOW, it only takes an integer
number of seconds to delay by. You'll also be pleased to know that the
LV2 version of delay_n works just as well as the ladspa one.


Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
Ecasound-list mailing list
Received on Sun May 27 00:15:08 2012

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 27 2012 - 00:15:08 EEST