23 Apr
2011
23 Apr
'11
12:25 p.m.
I'm familiar with JACK but not at all with Pulse, but while doing a
little research to sum up various Linux audio APIs on a user group
list I keep seeing claims* that at first sight suggest Pulse is
capable of doing the audio routing with low latency that we know and
love JACK for doing.
Can someone sum up the differences between JACK and Pulse in this regard?
James.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_audio#Features
23 Apr
23 Apr
5:15 p.m.
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 6:25 AM, James Morris <jwm.art.net(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm familiar with JACK but not at all with Pulse,
but while doing a
little research to sum up various Linux audio APIs on a user group
list I keep seeing claims* that at first sight suggest Pulse is
capable of doing the audio routing with low latency that we know and
love JACK for doing.
these claims are wrong. lennart (Pulse's lead developer) would be the
first to admit this.
Can someone sum up the differences between JACK and
Pulse in this regard?
you might start with the JACK FAQ
the most important differences are that JACK is 100% synchronous and
Pulse is not. there are many other differences but this the core
difference. Pulse uses a "push" model in which clients deliver data to
the server. JACK uses a "pull" model to force clients to deliver data
on time, and in order.
8:04 p.m.
On 23 April 2011 16:15, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
Thanks, that is exactly what I was looking for.
Cheers,
James.
Can someone
sum up the differences between JACK and Pulse in this regard?
you might start with the JACK FAQ
the most important differences are that JACK is 100% synchronous and
Pulse is not. there are many other differences but this the core
difference. Pulse uses a "push" model in which clients deliver data to
the server. JACK uses a "pull" model to force clients to deliver data
on time, and in order.
4887
days inactive
4887
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
James Morris -
Paul Davis