19 May
2005
19 May
'05
1:12 p.m.
From: Benno Senoner <sbenno(a)gardena.net>
Since we cannot increase the speed at which the sound travels and even
DACs add some latency (1msec or so)
I see any effort to reduce latency below 2-3msec quite useless.
Lucasfilm's sound processor at 1983 had fixed 1.5 ms latency.
But did they have as lousy DACs as we have today? Don't know.
Did they mean the DSP effect processing latency only? Not sure.
I dislike that the Jack buffersize must be turned up for all
clients when one client does not perform well. It well could
be that I would like to use the buffersize 32 for
A/D --> EQ --> M --> D/A
and the buffersize 256 for
Zyn --> M --> D/A (the part M --> D/A is the same as above)
where M is a magic processing node which mixes the audios
having different buffersizes. M would be quite simple, actually.
Juhana
--
http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-graphics-dev
for developers of open source graphics software
19 May
19 May
1:31 p.m.
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 06:12:56PM +0300, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
I dislike that the Jack buffersize must be turned up
for all
clients when one client does not perform well. It well could
be that I would like to use the buffersize 32 for
A/D --> EQ --> M --> D/A
and the buffersize 256 for
Zyn --> M --> D/A (the part M --> D/A is the same as above)
where M is a magic processing node which mixes the audios
having different buffersizes. M would be quite simple, actually.
IFF JACK could be modified to allow this then probably you wouldn't
need M, its function would be taken care of by jackd.
The problem with such a scheme could be that the load is not spread
evenly, so it would be necessary to give those clients that use
longer buffers a lower priority. There may be other troule hidden
somewhere...
--
FA
1:34 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 18:12 +0300, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
>From: Benno Senoner <sbenno(a)gardena.net>
>
>Since we cannot increase the speed at which the sound travels and even
>DACs add some latency (1msec or so)
>I see any effort to reduce latency below 2-3msec quite useless.
1:36 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 18:12 +0300, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
Probably much worse.
Lee
From: Benno
Senoner <sbenno(a)gardena.net>
Since we cannot increase the speed at which the sound travels and even
DACs add some latency (1msec or so)
I see any effort to reduce latency below 2-3msec quite useless.
Lucasfilm's sound processor at 1983 had fixed 1.5 ms latency.
But did they have as lousy DACs as we have today? 
1:48 p.m.
Lucasfilm's sound processor at 1983 had fixed 1.5
ms latency.
they probably had h/w that processed stuff sample-by-sample, rather
than using block-oriented processing the way that general purpose
computers do it.
if you want to match a sample-by-sample design for day, ProTools TDM
h/w has a 1-3 sample delay, no matter what the DSP load.
--p
7187
days inactive
7187
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Alfons Adriaensen -
Juhana Sadeharju -
Lee Revell -
Paul Davis