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

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Will Godfrey wrote: My first comment is that there would be slight differences. The question is really if those differences are more or less pleasing to listen to. What would be happening is not a replacenet for the same sound, but rather a new sound that happened to be similar and would have to have it's own merrits. In this case it is always first generation. No matter what your first generation is, lossy encoding will give differences to the final sound. Although, a sound that started out using compression techniques might sound less different than other sounds. Sound is king. Lossless encoding is best. The start of the thread was based on the present hardware and lowering cpu load... Faster Hardware, more cores, etc. may not be possible for everyone... particularely someone who is using a small R-pi like board as a head-less stage box. I have seen effects boxes done this way, but not sound generators yet (though the MOD could possibly be used this way). As a musician, I am quite willing to use 500watts for an amp delivering 50watts of sound if it just happens to be "that sound". I did not feel ranted at. It is hard to know how much time or sound matter to the person using the SW. For example with the note on instance noted earlier, The sound module could at note start, choose to do only half of it's setup in the first period and finish in the second, only starting to make sound at that point. (using silence as was suggested in the first period) However, that note start delay may not be acceptable to the artist. They may be quite willing to have faster HW or even use two HW boxes for more layers rather than have that small delay. The latency you originally used as an example was to my mind higher than I would like to use for a guitar effect, though I have with this 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. 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? -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net