[LAD] Fw: Re: Some questions about the Jack callback

Paul Davis paul at linuxaudiosystems.com
Sun Sep 21 16:29:10 UTC 2014

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Len Ovens <len at ovenwerks.net> wrote:

> is netbook because internal sound can't go lower (jack won't even start at
> 64/2).
> <dream helmet on>
> I think the MOD is in many ways the wave of the future. I see off-loading
> more of the sound processing to the audio interface as the general computer
> interfaces become more throughput oriented and less lowlatency capable.

in other words, the precise opposite of what has happened over the last 10
years, in which we've ended up with audio interface chipsets that can't
even do multiple sample rates. though to be fair, there is a pro-/pro-sumer
category where "builtin FX" does seem to have some appeal.

> Having an audio interface that is kind of a secialty computer, but with OS
> access for the user just makes sense. Many AIs already have quite a lot of
> processing inside, but are not open. The cost is not that high for this
> added processing (end cost of $50?) and I would think having the ability to
> add processing power with cards the size of the mini/micro PCIe wireless
> cards should not be difficult. If Jack is run with very low latency, then
> using a netjack like interface between cores could easily allow the use of
> 16 or more cores/threads and still have an acceptable latency. What if a
> second (open) video card was used for audio processing?

video cards have very bad latency characteristics at present. CUDA etc. are
all about bandwidth, not latency.

anyway, none of this matters. if the application runs on the CPU, and is
responsive, then the CPU and its own infrastructure have to be able to meet
the latency requirements.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/attachments/20140921/f0c1663b/attachment.html>

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list