26 Jan
2011
26 Jan
'11
1:29 p.m.
2011/1/26 Jörn Nettingsmeier <nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de>de>:
since it's based on zita-convolver: did you also use the multi-threaded
partitioned convolution approach from jconvolver?
Hi Jörn,
I'm not sure about the mentioned approach, since I'm not familiar with
the jconvolver source, only zita-convolver (and only from a user
p.o.v; haven't modified it). So I don't know that this multi-threaded
approach you mention is something jconvolver actually does, or is it
just the usual workings of zita-convolver (which I use in a really
simple manner).
I will look at the jconvolver source to educate myself about said
approach when I have a bit of free time.
if so, how does IR behave in freewheeling mode?
As usual: it works for me 10 out of 10 times (at least for what I do
and how I work), but YMMV. I must admit that I don't use freewheeling
that much, but some test passes with various projects (some simple and
some big) on two machines, one older single processor and one fairly
recent quad core (both 64 bit), indicated no problems. Of course this
means nothing at all in this case.
i'm asking because jconvolver is known to have problems with the timing of
its non-jack helper threads in freewheeling mode, which has finally bitten
me a few days ago (haven't had problems with it before). jconvolver is nice
enough to halt the entire graph (at least with tschack), so it's always
obvious there was a problem.
i just want to make sure that *if* IR fails in freewheeling, it will fail in
some obvious way.
That would be definitely nice but currently missing. I would say that
if there is a problem with jconvolver, IR most probably also has this
problem.
I tend to listen to what I commit, though, so I bounce in realtime.
Tom