<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'><br><br><div>To: linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org<br>From: chris@chrisarndt.de<br>Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:23:09 +0200<br>Subject: Re: [LAU] killling zombie jack<br><br><pre>Am 22.10.2015 um 12:58 schrieb Kaza Kore:<br>> This page has differences between jack1 and jack2 and very very lightly<br>> touches on dbus.<br>> <br>> <a href="https://github.com/jackaudio/jackaudio.github.com/wiki/Q_difference_jack1_jack2" target="_blank">https://github.com/jackaudio/jackaudio.github.com/wiki/Q_difference_jack1_jack2</a><br> <br> <br>Indeed, that wiki gives answers to most of the questions about jack<br>raised in this thread.<br> <br>The table of jack 1/2 differences leaves me with one question, though:<br> <br>What is meant by "Has builtin integration with Linux MIDI"?<br> <br>Does that mean that with jack 2 I have to use a2j or a similar tool to<br>have access to ALSA MIDI clients via jack MIDI, but not with jack 1?<br> <br> <br>Chris<br> <br></pre><br><br><br>The thing that surprised me the most was seeing the note at the very bottom about Jack2 using a default, fixed larger MIDI buffer size whereas Jack1's is smaller by default and configurable. I had thought from previous conversations on this list (I think mainly investigations done by Ralph??) that MIDI buffer/delay/jitter appeared to be affected by Jack's audio buffer size. No idea if tests were done with Jack1 or Jack2 or how conclusive they were though. Also didn't want to take the subject too far way from the original point of conversation...<br><br>Dale.<br></div> </div></body>
</html>