18 Jan
2018
18 Jan
'18
11:44 p.m.
Thanks Paul. That's something like what I was hoping was the case.
I can now continue to quietly feel a little smug when the 'others' are
enthusing about being able to work *even* with a buffer size of 64, while I've
been using a period size of 32 for most stuff :)
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 19:05:40 -0500
Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
a JACK or ALSA "period" is what almost
everything on windows and MacOS
calls a "buffer".
they do not have a term for what ALSA calls "a buffer" (the entire memory
space available for audio i/o, typically mmapped into the using process'
address space)
just about all modern audio interfaces use a double-buffer design. while
the application writes/reads to one buffer, the hardware reads/writes from
the other.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:58 PM, Will Godfrey <willgodfrey(a)musically.me.uk>
wrote:
> I'm getting a little confused when comparing our (Jack) buffer sizes with
> those
> discussed on Windows, Mac and general music groups.
>
> These latter never mention periods at all, and it's always frames per
> buffer,
> so when trying to make comparisons should I take buffers as 1:1 or should
> I be
> comparing their buffers to our periods?
>
> --
> Will J Godfrey
> http://www.musically.me.uk
> Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
> Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
> https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.