31 Jan
2016
31 Jan
'16
7:07 a.m.
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 08:44:42 -0500
Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Kjetil Matheussen
<k.s.matheussen(a)gmail.com
I'll comment as somewhat of a heretic using reaper in wine together
with wineasio/jack. I have a monolithic environment in that reaper is
the daw, and my plugins are vsts hosted by reaper either in it's own
process or in separate processes (for bridging/sandboxing). I also
enjoy all the benefits in using jack, being able to record/output
from/to pulseaudio and alsa (mostly using the alsa loopback device in
combination with zita-a2jbridge as it seems to be the best solution).
In addition I can use zita-n2jbridge to distribute audio over my lan,
and even use zita-a2jbridge to connect additional soundcards. Mostly
features I don't use very often, but very handy to just change output
in reaper and hear my mix on the laptop or tv speakers (with very
low latency)...
When I start reaper, wineasio creates the jack client, the server
autostarts (if not running) and wineasio auto connects the reaper
outputs to the main soundcard outputs.
When rewriting the wineasio client, it was very handy having the jack
api and I suspect that it would have been a lot harder to do if I
had to program using the alsa api instead.
What can I say, I really love the environment and think JACK is working
fantastically well. Having the plugins hosted in my daw is clearly
superior (imo), but the routing flexibilty of jack and the ease of
programming to the jack api makes jack a great asset in my setup.
As always YMMW.
--
Joakim
wrote:
I don't think Jack is the wrong solution for a DAW either. But Jack
never got finished.
It has a wonderful API, but it shouldn't be a struggle for a
program to create a jack client
if a jack server isn't running. (there were a lot of talk about this
around 10 years ago,
but the end result never became as good as it should I think).
i am not sure what the problem is here. if the client doesn't specify
anything, then the server will start automatically with the same
parameters as it did last time. this has worked for years. no?
I think the first program trying to create a client also should
start the server. Not
just fork off a process, but actually run the server.
And if another program wants to create a jack client, it connects
to the first client process,
which is the one running the server.
this seems a bit odd to me. if the first client is really just a
client, why would it become the server? what happens when the user
closes it (or otherwise resets it)?
that's the whole point of using a control application that exists
before (and almost certainly after) all other clients.
Furthermore, GUI should be built into libjack, so that you can call
jack_open_audio_driver_configuration_gui(),
jack_open_audio_connection_configuration_gui(),
etc. inside your client.
I know there is something called libjackserver, but how many uses
it?
libjackserver isn't what you think it is. you're thinking of the
server API, used to start, stop and otherwise control a JACK server.
it is the basis of jack2's dbus support, so basically everything
using jack2 is using it. it is also present in jack1, and is also
used internally there.
libjackserver is also used *all* the time.
Does it do
all these things? How stable is it? In my
opinion, there shouldn't
be any libjackserver, or jackd program, or qjackctl, only libjack.
this would simply lead *back* to jackd, since lots of people would
want a program they could start in order to start jack, that would
run before and after other clients. someone would write it, link it
to libjack and it would become "jackd".
Another problem with Jack is that it never attempted to do consumer
audio, and then we got pulseaudio in addition to Jack. There should
only be Jack, IMO.
here we sort of agree.