[Jack-Devel] How does --hwmon work?

[David Kastrup]

Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net> writes:

> On Sat, 06 May 2017 10:41:53 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>A separated mixing console takes a whole lot more space than a
>>nanoKontrol if you are trying to get to a conference by train.  
>
> A harp takes less space than a drum kit. Use the luggage check-in
> instead of handluggage or simply use a van. IOW you need to do what's
> appropriate for you business. It also might be possible to not to take
> the drum kit or mixing console with you, but to borrow one at the
> location where you need it. If you fly from Germany to the USA, you
> usually don't take your car with you, you usually would borrow one
> from rent-a-car.

Sure, and professionals don't use Ardour or GNU/Linux (or Windows 10)
either but custom hardware and systems.

But this is "jack-devel" so it does not matter what "professionals" do
but rather what users of Jack do.

> On Sat, 06 May 2017 10:41:53 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>All I hear is "that is silly", "that is absurd", "that's not the right
>>way to do things".  But no actual argument why.  
>
> You ignore the arguments.

I'd use the term "disspell" instead of "ignore".

> 1. Different audio interfaces provide completely different routing
> capabilities, so what you want to get isn't that easy to do, if at
> all.

Sorry, but that's just handwaving.  An audio interface will either be
able to route some input to some output with a given volume or not.  The
API to jack (or something doing that kind of job for the connection
management on its behalf) would just request the connection and would
not need to know how it was going to be established.  Many many
soundcards already provide amixer controls that can be used for this
functionality if you know how, and the "if you know how" part can be
described in a database.

As the database grows, more cards will transparently support hardware
monitoring.

It most definitely _is_ easy to do since the hard work is in the ALSA
controls of individual drivers (or even other kinds of command line
utilities used for accessing mixers) and those are already there for a
whole lot of cards.

> 2. Not a lot of people have the same needs as you have got.

And because different people have different needs, flexibility is a bad
idea?

I don't buy it.

> Note! If you mix the DAW's software mixer with the audio interfaces
> mixer, you get a hybrid, you could add effects to the mix, but not to
> the monitor mix.

Not without the system reverting back to software.  So?  If you were
recording from a Firewire card to a Firewire hard disk, in old times the
data did not even touch your computer (Firewire interfaces are a
security nightmare because of that) if the software was smart enough to
notice that it did not actually need to access the data.

That kind of "let the hardware do the job on its own whenever it can"
mind frame was what made Firewire the choice for professional work for a
really long time.

So the user notices that monitoring with effects leads to larger time
lag and larger CPU load and higher likelihood of dropouts.  He has a
choice then.  He can switch off the effects.

> The only way to get a real all in one solution is just using the audio
> interfaces I/Os and to do the complete mix using a mixing console.

I repeat: analog consoles are dying out.  People use digital
controllers.

It's just frustrating that all the _actual_ work is already done but
there is no way to plug the pieces together except for making up your
own makeshift solution that will benefit noone else.

-- 
David Kastrup