16 Sep
2010
16 Sep
'10
11:04 a.m.
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 02:58 -0400, David Santamauro wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:08:33 -0400
Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
I have no complaints about pulse's stability. On my card you can't get
as low latencies with pulse+jack as you can with jack alone, though,
even in real-time mode for both. Lennart on the PA ML has mentioned
before that 'real-time' aims for Pulse are much more relaxed than what
Jack aims for, due to their different focus.
Its terrific that Pulse automatically gives up the device to jack2
though. So much for the naysayers who see them as competing systems.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Jonathan E.
Brickman
<jeb(a)ponderworthy.com> wrote:
I agree... alsa_in is much more stable than pulse+jack for my
dual-card setup.
David Anyone using Pulse in realtime or high-priority
modes?
Experiences, anyone? I have a nice stable system in which Pulse
sends all to Jack which then sends to ALSA, and am wondering if I
should perhaps just use Pulse to take external inputs. Or is there
a straightforward way to get one Jackd patchbay to handle input
from two or three different whole audio devices?
JACK itself handles only a max of 2 devices, 1 for input 1 for output.
For additional (ALSA-accessible) devices, use the alsa_in client.
Combining Pulse & JACK is likely to be a misstep, even if it works.