6 Jul
2004
6 Jul
'04
8:50 a.m.
Hello,
I am preparing some slides about Linux audio, and while comparing Linux
with Windows, I have been wondering how the ASIO drivers manage to
obtain low latency on MS Windows, an operating system that does not seem
capable of low latency in any other way. So what tricks did Steinberg
come up with to get around that? I'd like to be able to say why the Linux
approach is better/cleaner.
Maarten
6 Jul
6 Jul
9:09 a.m.
Michael tippach (sp?) wrote a neat ASIO program called ASIO4all (Am I
being naive? is that what everyone uses?). It was written in pure
assembler.
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 13:38, Maarten de Boer wrote:
Hello,
I am preparing some slides about Linux audio, and while comparing Linux
with Windows, I have been wondering how the ASIO drivers manage to
obtain low latency on MS Windows, an operating system that does not seem
capable of low latency in any other way. So what tricks did Steinberg
come up with to get around that? I'd like to be able to say why the Linux
approach is better/cleaner.
Maarten
--
Michael Tewner <tewner(a)jct.ac.il>
The Jerusalem College of Technology
11:14 a.m.
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 12:38:27PM +0200, Maarten de Boer wrote:
Hello,
I am preparing some slides about Linux audio, and while comparing Linux
with Windows, I have been wondering how the ASIO drivers manage to
obtain low latency on MS Windows, an operating system that does not seem
capable of low latency in any other way. So what tricks did Steinberg
come up with to get around that? I'd like to be able to say why the Linux
approach is better/cleaner.
asio is doing some magic to call the process callback directly from the
soundcard interrupt.
i believe that the scheduler is not involved in this stuff.
Maarten
--
torben Hohn
http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language
7242
days inactive
7242
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Maarten de Boer -
Michael Tewner -
torbenh＠gmx.de