29 Apr
2010
29 Apr
'10
12:41 p.m.
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:44:02 +0400, Louigi Verona
<louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Well, from what Paul said it appears it is not
Qtractor, it is the same
with
Ardour and basically just any loop connections setup.
Or am I getting it incorrectly? Let's wait for what Paul has to say %)
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>wrote;wrote:
> Louigi Verona wrote:
>
>> My version is 0.44, I think. pretty late one, I compiled ot from git
in
>> February or January.
>> I can try another version or another app for that matter. But let Paul
>> tell us if it makes sense at all.
>>
>
> I guess Rui programmed buggy for Qtractor, it wasn't a fault for JACK1
or
> JACK2. Perhaps 4.4.5+ is needed.
>
the zero-copy issue was indeed a sloppy bug in older qtractor versions.
the issue at hand (OP) is that there bouncing, recording or feeding back
outputs to own inputs, which is quite equivalent to returns from sends on
inserts, adds at least one buffer or period cycle latency to the
bounced/return signal
bounce-recording:
qtractor-out -> rackarrak -> qtractor-in
as insert to track or bus:
qtractor-send -> rackarrak -> qtractor-return
you can swap qtractor for ardour, or anything else for that matter and the
latency will be exactly the same systematic. a client can only process the
results of its own outputs or sends in the _next_ process cycle.
cheers
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org