1 Feb
2016
1 Feb
'16
5:31 a.m.
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 11:07:25 +0000, John Rigg wrote:
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 08:53:05PM +1100, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
D-bus is unimportant for me too. I don't know if JACK1 nowadays provide
-Xalsarawmidi or if I still need it this day, but JACK2's -Xalsarawmidi
at least reduced MIDI jitter on my Linux machine, when I needed it,
that's why I used it to get "high performance". For my usage JACK2
isn't more user-friendly than JACK1 is. The reason to prefer JACK2 over
JACK1 could be to get better performance, JACK1 not necessarily is
the better choice for "high performance" and JACK2 not necessarily is
more user-friendly.
Regards,
Ralf
It seems that the differences between JACK1 and
JACK2 relate to the
intended target use case. JACK2 does a decent job of trying to
enable many consumer friendly tasks and take out some of the pain of
doing inter application audio production. JACK1 handles some heavy
lifting scenarios more effectively than JACK2.
Maybe that is a good direction to continue for the different
codebases?
JACK1 - Heavy lift mechanism for high performance Linux platforms
JACK2 - Flexible user friendly solution with cross platform support
I think that distinction is somewhat arbitrary. Some of us use JACK2
as a multi-core replacement for JACK1. My own use case typically
involves multiple jack clients, sometimes large numbers of them, and
JACK2 usually gives me better performance on SMP systems. D-bus is
actually irrelevant to me.