2 Oct
2007
2 Oct
'07
3:25 a.m.
Folks,
An hour ago, i wrote this:
I'm sure you've read this kind of thing a thousand times before. I'm new to
pro-audio cards so bear with me.
I just installed this card. I connected output 1 and 2 to my stereo amplifier.
I load up amarok and press play and start envy24control. Under the "Monitor
PCM" tab, "PCM Out 1" and "PCM 2" are jumping nicely with the
music that i
remember the last time i played the track i'm testing with. All of the
"Mute"
buttons are in the out position (un-muted) on all tabs. All of the sliders on
all tabs are half way on the "Monitor Inputs", "Monitor PCMs" and
"Analog
Volume". All of them have "L/R Gang" set to on. On the "Hardware
Settings"
tab "Rate State" is "Reset", "Volume Change Rate" is 0, Data
Mode is "Audio"
, Steam is "Stereophonic", Emphasis is "No emphasis", Category on the
Consumer tab is "PCM Encoder". On the Patchbay tab "PCM Out 1" and PCM
Out 2"
are selected, which are the defaults.
The instruction book uses a slightly different language then the Envy24Control
program. The book speaks of "WavOut" devices. What does that correspond to
in the envy24control program? In the book there are master volume sliders. I
see none. Nor are there pan controls or "solo" toggles
Still i get no sound. Yes, my amp is on.
I looked through the book that came with the card and it's a bunch of
pro-speak of which i do not know the lingo yet. I did note that it says on
page 22 regarding the Patchbay/Router Page "The default setting, 'Wavout 1/2'
connects ports OUT1 and OUT2 to your music software or Windows multimedia
appliet. In other words when music sodtware plays audio to the device named
WavOut 1/2 Delta-1010LT" it will be routed directly to the hardware" analog
outputs 1 &2 of your 1010LT" This seems like a key paragraph to me.
On the far left i can see "Digital Mixer" which is always still. Although PCM
Out 1" and "PCM Out 2" are jumping this control (which i'd bet is my
master
volume) is still as if mutes. All that is there to change is a button
labeled "Reset Peaks". Above it is "R-t-clk Menu >>" but
clicking around does
nothing.
Any ideas or success/guidance to share?
NOW:
I played with the Analog Volume controls and slid them up. When I slid DAC 1
and DAC2, i got beautiful sound. The best my audio system has ever given me,
and no hum!! Awesome!!. Then i saw the Master Clock settings and
thought "upsampling?". I hit "int 9600" and my sound went away and my
meters
froze . I put it back to 44100 and still no sound.
I've restarted alsa and rebooted and still no sound!!
Also, how do i activate the master volume?
I very very sad, now. I got a taste of paradise and then i screwed up!
Please help me not be so sad (and dumb),
2 Oct
2 Oct
6:27 a.m.
Hi!
You can take alsamixer or envy24control. From what I heard envy24control
looks much nicer and a bit more understandable, but I don't know it.
If you have roughly the same setup I have, you could try something like:
Push IEC598 and IEC598 1 to PCM OUT, raise the ADCs and DACs, then set the
DEEMPHESIS to off, push the HWs to PCM OUT, raise the multi items (I have them
at 0.00DB) and then set the clock items to the samplerate you like.
This setting should work for an anlog in analog out setting. Remeber that
you first two analog-ins (ADC) are for microphones and correspond to the XLR
jacks. But you can set those two to line-levels, via two jumpers on the card,
have a look at your manual for this.
Hope that helps.
Kindest regards
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
8:33 a.m.
New subject: difference between realtime-kernel and low-latency-kernel?
Hey list,
I've just read that there's a difference between a realtime-kernel and the
low-latency-kernel provided by ubuntustudio. The text in the german wiki on
ubuntuusers.de said, that a realtime-kernel is slightly better than the
lowlatencykernel (http://wiki.ubuntuusers.de/Echtzeitkernel) - then why isn't
it used in ubuntustudio? Or do I just mix something up?
Regards
Matthias
10:29 a.m.
New subject: difference between realtime-kernel and low-latency-kernel?
Afaik it was more or less experimental and you had to add it yourself
but it worked really well.
There is a realtime kernel by default in gutsy.
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:33:07 +0200
Matthias Schönborn <mbs1303(a)gmx.de> wrote:
Hey list,
I've just read that there's a difference between a realtime-kernel
and the low-latency-kernel provided by ubuntustudio. The text in the
german wiki on ubuntuusers.de said, that a realtime-kernel is
slightly better than the lowlatencykernel
(http://wiki.ubuntuusers.de/Echtzeitkernel) - then why isn't it used
in ubuntustudio? Or do I just mix something up?
Regards
Matthias
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
3 Oct
3 Oct
2:39 p.m.
New subject: difference between realtime-kernel and low-latency-kernel?
Hallo,
Matthias Schönborn hat gesagt: // Matthias Schönborn wrote:
I've just read that there's a difference
between a realtime-kernel and the
low-latency-kernel provided by ubuntustudio. The text in the german wiki on
ubuntuusers.de said, that a realtime-kernel is slightly better than the
lowlatencykernel (http://wiki.ubuntuusers.de/Echtzeitkernel) - then why isn't
it used in ubuntustudio? Or do I just mix something up?
I think, this wiki and maybe Ubuntustudio as well are using a very
confusing terminology.
Generally we have two kinds of kernels: The "vanilla" kernel as
downloadable on kernel.org and the same kernel, but patched with Ingo
Molnars RT-patches. The vanilla kernel, if configured properly with
CONFIG_PREEMPT etc., already gives very good performance in the low
latency department, enough for many users, even audio users. I run one
of these.
If you want more, then you can install a RT-patched kernel, as is
provided in the linux-rt or linux-realtime packages. I would call the
Ingo-Molnar-patched kernels Realtime-Kernels or Low-Latency-Kernels.
I would not call the vanilla kernel a "low latency" kernel. It's just
a vanilla kernel configured with CONFIG_PREEMPT, which happens to have
good low latency performance as well. But that alone shouldn't be
taken to give it a different name. It has good network performance,
too, but I still wouldn't call it a "network kernel" and it supports
USB keyboards, but still it's not a "USB keyboard kernel". That's a
bit silly. ;)
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
3:10 p.m.
New subject: difference between realtime-kernel and low-latency-kernel?
Okay, thanks for explaining the difference :-) ! Ill stick with the
vanilla-kernel then.
Matthias
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 18:39:53 Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Matthias Schönborn hat gesagt: // Matthias Schönborn wrote:
I've just read that there's a difference
between a realtime-kernel and
the low-latency-kernel provided by ubuntustudio. The text in the german
wiki on ubuntuusers.de said, that a realtime-kernel is slightly better
than the lowlatencykernel (http://wiki.ubuntuusers.de/Echtzeitkernel) -
then why isn't it used in ubuntustudio? Or do I just mix something up?
I think, this wiki and maybe Ubuntustudio as well are using a very
confusing terminology.
Generally we have two kinds of kernels: The "vanilla" kernel as
downloadable on kernel.org and the same kernel, but patched with Ingo
Molnars RT-patches. The vanilla kernel, if configured properly with
CONFIG_PREEMPT etc., already gives very good performance in the low
latency department, enough for many users, even audio users. I run one
of these.
If you want more, then you can install a RT-patched kernel, as is
provided in the linux-rt or linux-realtime packages. I would call the
Ingo-Molnar-patched kernels Realtime-Kernels or Low-Latency-Kernels.
I would not call the vanilla kernel a "low latency" kernel. It's just
a vanilla kernel configured with CONFIG_PREEMPT, which happens to have
good low latency performance as well. But that alone shouldn't be
taken to give it a different name. It has good network performance,
too, but I still wouldn't call it a "network kernel" and it supports
USB keyboards, but still it's not a "USB keyboard kernel". That's a
bit silly. ;)
Ciao 
6:46 p.m.
New subject: difference between realtime-kernel and low-latency-kernel?
On Wednesday 03 October 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Generally we have two kinds of kernels: The
"vanilla" kernel as
downloadable on kernel.org and the same kernel, but patched with Ingo
Molnars RT-patches. The vanilla kernel, if configured properly with
CONFIG_PREEMPT etc., already gives very good performance in the low
latency department, enough for many users, even audio users. I run one
of these.
Well, the vanilla kernel also has a CONFIG_HZ setting of i think 200hz per
default. This is too little timing resolution for processes that rely on the
system timer frequency being higher [some sequencers come to mind]..
The "lowlatency" kernel in ubuntu thus has CONFIG_HZ set to 1000 and
CONFIG_PREEMPT enabled.
This might be good enough for some people..
For a truly reliable system (where you can count on no audio period being
missed because you forgot to disable the damn updatedb cronjob) you need a
system patched with ingo's realtime preemption patches and have it properly
configured. E.g. situations where you record performances that are not
repeatable.. Or you cannot afford to have a click because your signal goes
over a 100000 Watt P.A. [Though i guess with vanilla jack you must not change
any connections during the task because this might cause lost buffers [due to
vanilla jackd doing some coarse grained locking], too - jackdmp might help]..
Regards,
Flo
--
Palimm Palimm!
http://tapas.affenbande.org
7:54 p.m.
New subject: difference between realtime-kernel and low-latency-kernel?
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 18:39 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Matthias Schönborn hat gesagt: // Matthias Schönborn wrote:
To further clarify (or confuse?) the issue, how "low latency" the kernel
is also depends on how you configure the kernel build options before or
after patching the kernel with Ingo's patch. For Ingo's patch
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is the best option in terms of latency but there are
others (CONFIG_PREEMPT_DESKTOP) that have a more conservative approach
but have (relatively speaking) higher latencies. So from worst to best
it would be something like:
vanilla linuz + CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE
vanilla + CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY (used by the stock Fedora kernel)
vanilla + Ingo + CONFIG_PREEMPT_DESKTOP
vanilla + Ingo + CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT (the one I use for Planet CCRMA)
(there's more granularity and options in the CONFIG_PREEMPT* world but
those are the ones that have the biggest impact as far as I can
remember)
-- Fernando
I've just read that there's a difference
between a realtime-kernel and the
low-latency-kernel provided by ubuntustudio. The text in the german wiki on
ubuntuusers.de said, that a realtime-kernel is slightly better than the
lowlatencykernel (http://wiki.ubuntuusers.de/Echtzeitkernel) - then why isn't
it used in ubuntustudio? Or do I just mix something up?
I think, this wiki and maybe Ubuntustudio as well are using a very
confusing terminology.
Generally we have two kinds of kernels: The "vanilla" kernel as
downloadable on kernel.org and the same kernel, but patched with Ingo
Molnars RT-patches. The vanilla kernel, if configured properly with
CONFIG_PREEMPT etc., already gives very good performance in the low
latency department, enough for many users, even audio users. I run one
of these.
If you want more, then you can install a RT-patched kernel, as is
provided in the linux-rt or linux-realtime packages. I would call the
Ingo-Molnar-patched kernels Realtime-Kernels or Low-Latency-Kernels. 
4 Oct
4 Oct
5:15 p.m.
New subject: difference between realtime-kernel and low-latency-kernel?
I can supply no quantifications for the 32 bit 2.6.20-16-realtime kernel in
ubuntustudio other than no xruns have been observed. With the low latency
kernel, xruns were observed. Jack is the only app that has a -20 priority
assigned. The general workstation has been running without fault. The general
Debian / Ubuntu philosophy tends towards system stability.
Tom
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 14:54:32 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 18:39 +0200, Frank Barknecht
wrote:
Hallo,
Matthias Schönborn hat gesagt: // Matthias Schönborn wrote:
To further clarify (or confuse?) the issue, how "low latency" the kernel
is also depends on how you configure the kernel build options before or
after patching the kernel with Ingo's patch. For Ingo's patch
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is the best option in terms of latency but there are
others (CONFIG_PREEMPT_DESKTOP) that have a more conservative approach
but have (relatively speaking) higher latencies. So from worst to best
it would be something like:
vanilla linuz + CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE
vanilla + CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY (used by the stock Fedora kernel)
vanilla + Ingo + CONFIG_PREEMPT_DESKTOP
vanilla + Ingo + CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT (the one I use for Planet CCRMA)
(there's more granularity and options in the CONFIG_PREEMPT* world but
those are the ones that have the biggest impact as far as I can
remember)
-- Fernando
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user I've just read that there's a difference
between a realtime-kernel and
the low-latency-kernel provided by ubuntustudio. The text in the german
wiki on ubuntuusers.de said, that a realtime-kernel is slightly better
than the lowlatencykernel (http://wiki.ubuntuusers.de/Echtzeitkernel) -
then why isn't it used in ubuntustudio? Or do I just mix something up?
I think, this wiki and maybe Ubuntustudio as well are using a very
confusing terminology.
Generally we have two kinds of kernels: The "vanilla" kernel as
downloadable on kernel.org and the same kernel, but patched with Ingo
Molnars RT-patches. The vanilla kernel, if configured properly with
CONFIG_PREEMPT etc., already gives very good performance in the low
latency department, enough for many users, even audio users. I run one
of these.
If you want more, then you can install a RT-patched kernel, as is
provided in the linux-rt or linux-realtime packages. I would call the
Ingo-Molnar-patched kernels Realtime-Kernels or Low-Latency-Kernels.
5 Oct
5 Oct
3:09 p.m.
New subject: difference between realtime-kernel and low-latency-kernel?
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 12:15 -0700, thomas fisher wrote:
I can supply no quantifications for the 32 bit
2.6.20-16-realtime kernel in
ubuntustudio other than no xruns have been observed. With the low latency
kernel, xruns were observed.
Do you remember by any chance which version of the rt patched kernel was
giving you trouble? There was a mainline kernel bug which created a lot
of problems from 2.6.18 onwards and was fixed in January 2007 (I could
not update to that one, or later versions till the problem was
fixed[*]).
Jack is the only app that has a -20 priority
assigned. The general workstation has been running without fault. The general
Debian / Ubuntu philosophy tends towards system stability.
If you found a setup that works by all means stick to it! The list below
is only indicative, I have found the rt patched kernel to be better but
I don't have the exact same setup you have. There are many things that
have to be just right for everything to work fine, and of course it also
depends on how low are the latencies used (I routinely work at 2x128 and
also 64x2 - the default Jack 1024x2 is less problematic of course).
-- Fernando
[*] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/5/291
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 14:54:32 Fernando
Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 18:39 +0200, Frank
Barknecht wrote:
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user Hallo,
Matthias Schönborn hat gesagt: // Matthias Schönborn wrote:
To further clarify (or confuse?) the issue, how "low latency" the kernel
is also depends on how you configure the kernel build options before or
after patching the kernel with Ingo's patch. For Ingo's patch
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is the best option in terms of latency but there are
others (CONFIG_PREEMPT_DESKTOP) that have a more conservative approach
but have (relatively speaking) higher latencies. So from worst to best
it would be something like:
vanilla linuz + CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE
vanilla + CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY (used by the stock Fedora kernel)
vanilla + Ingo + CONFIG_PREEMPT_DESKTOP
vanilla + Ingo + CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT (the one I use for Planet CCRMA)
(there's more granularity and options in the CONFIG_PREEMPT* world but
those are the ones that have the biggest impact as far as I can
remember)
-- Fernando
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user I've just read that there's a difference
between a realtime-kernel and
the low-latency-kernel provided by ubuntustudio. The text in the german
wiki on ubuntuusers.de said, that a realtime-kernel is slightly better
than the lowlatencykernel (http://wiki.ubuntuusers.de/Echtzeitkernel) -
then why isn't it used in ubuntustudio? Or do I just mix something up?
I think, this wiki and maybe Ubuntustudio as well are using a very
confusing terminology.
Generally we have two kinds of kernels: The "vanilla" kernel as
downloadable on kernel.org and the same kernel, but patched with Ingo
Molnars RT-patches. The vanilla kernel, if configured properly with
CONFIG_PREEMPT etc., already gives very good performance in the low
latency department, enough for many users, even audio users. I run one
of these.
If you want more, then you can install a RT-patched kernel, as is
provided in the linux-rt or linux-realtime packages. I would call the
Ingo-Molnar-patched kernels Realtime-Kernels or Low-Latency-Kernels. 
14 Oct
14 Oct
12:48 a.m.
New subject: difference between realtime-kernel and low-latency-kernel?
i have actually had no end of trouble with ubuntustudio's (and now ubuntu's)
rt kernel. on an amd 6000+ system with 1gig ram and a rme9652 soundcard i
can't get reliable performance under 40 or so ms. i even tried a vanilla
kernel with the rt patches and had the same trouble. the 64studio kernel
worked fine, however. i'm currently running at 5ms with it and have had no
problems. this is even with compiz fusion running and spinning the cube
whilst playing back audio from an 18 channel ardour project. what patches
would cause such a difference in performance? it isn't any options selected
in 'make menuconfig' - i loaded the 64studio's ones in and used them. still
no luck. i can only assume they have added more patches to do with realtime
performance than just the -rt patchset. any ideas?
porl
On 05/10/2007, thomas fisher <studio1(a)commspeed.net> wrote:
I can supply no quantifications for the 32 bit 2.6.20-16-realtimekernel in
ubuntustudio other than no xruns have been observed. With the low latency
kernel, xruns were observed. Jack is the only app that has a -20 priority
assigned. The general workstation has been running without fault. The
general
Debian / Ubuntu philosophy tends towards system stability.
Tom
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 14:54:32 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 18:39 +0200, Frank
Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> Matthias Schönborn hat gesagt: // Matthias Schönborn wrote:
> > I've just read that there's a difference between a realtime-kernel
and
> > the low-latency-kernel provided by
ubuntustudio. The text in the
german
> > wiki on ubuntuusers.de said, that a
realtime-kernel is slightly
better
> > than the lowlatencykernel
(http://wiki.ubuntuusers.de/Echtzeitkernel)
-
> > then why isn't it used in
ubuntustudio? Or do I just mix something
up?
I think, this wiki and maybe Ubuntustudio as well are using a very
confusing terminology.
Generally we have two kinds of kernels: The "vanilla" kernel as
downloadable on kernel.org and the same kernel, but patched with Ingo
Molnars RT-patches. The vanilla kernel, if configured properly with
CONFIG_PREEMPT etc., already gives very good performance in the low
latency department, enough for many users, even audio users. I run one
of these.
If you want more, then you can install a RT-patched kernel, as is
provided in the linux-rt or linux-realtime packages. I would call the
Ingo-Molnar-patched kernels Realtime-Kernels or Low-Latency-Kernels.
To further clarify (or confuse?) the issue, how "low latency" the kernel
is also depends on how you configure the kernel build options before or
after patching the kernel with Ingo's patch. For Ingo's patch
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is the best option in terms of latency but there are
others (CONFIG_PREEMPT_DESKTOP) that have a more conservative approach
but have (relatively speaking) higher latencies. So from worst to best
it would be something like:
vanilla linuz + CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE
vanilla + CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY (used by the stock Fedora kernel)
vanilla + Ingo + CONFIG_PREEMPT_DESKTOP
vanilla + Ingo + CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT (the one I use for Planet CCRMA)
(there's more granularity and options in the CONFIG_PREEMPT* world but
those are the ones that have the biggest impact as far as I can
remember)
-- Fernando
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user 
1:01 a.m.
New subject: difference between realtime-kernel and low-latency-kernel?
a distribution is an entire environment; just changing a kernel isn't the
answer. you'd be better off going for a RT based 'system' like
planet-CCRMA,Musix or 64 Studio. Lot's of isssues with Ubuntu for RT it seems
judging from the number of posts about it. They only have a preemptive kernel
atm. change distro
g.
5:45 a.m.
New subject: difference between realtime-kernel and low-latency-kernel?
On Sunday 14 October 2007, porl sheean wrote:
i have actually had no end of trouble with
ubuntustudio's (and now
ubuntu's) rt kernel. on an amd 6000+ system with 1gig ram and a rme9652
soundcard i can't get reliable performance under 40 or so ms. i even tried
a vanilla kernel with the rt patches and had the same trouble. the 64studio
kernel worked fine, however. i'm currently running at 5ms with it and have
had no problems. this is even with compiz fusion running and spinning the
cube whilst playing back audio from an 18 channel ardour project. what
patches would cause such a difference in performance? it isn't any options
selected in 'make menuconfig' - i loaded the 64studio's ones in and used
them. still no luck. i can only assume they have added more patches to do
with realtime performance than just the -rt patchset. any ideas?
Hi,
let us see the output of this script on your ubuntu RT box with jackd running:
http://tapas.affenbande.org/rt-setup-report.sh
Thanks,
Flo
--
Palimm Palimm!
http://tapas.affenbande.org
15 Oct
15 Oct
12:25 p.m.
New subject: difference between realtime-kernel and low-latency-kernel?
i'm not able to access that pc at the moment, but i will when i get a
chance.
thanks
porl
On 14/10/2007, Florian Schmidt <mista.tapas(a)gmx.net> wrote:
On Sunday 14 October 2007, porl sheean wrote:
i have actually had no end of trouble with
ubuntustudio's (and now
ubuntu's) rt kernel. on an amd 6000+ system with 1gig ram and a rme9652
soundcard i can't get reliable performance under 40 or so ms. i even
tried
a vanilla kernel with the rt patches and had the
same trouble. the
64studio
kernel worked fine, however. i'm currently
running at 5ms with it and
have
had no problems. this is even with compiz fusion
running and spinning
the
cube whilst playing back audio from an 18 channel
ardour project. what
patches would cause such a difference in performance? it isn't any
options
selected in 'make menuconfig' - i loaded
the 64studio's ones in and used
them. still no luck. i can only assume they have added more patches to
do
with realtime performance than just the -rt
patchset. any ideas?
Hi,
let us see the output of this script on your ubuntu RT box with jackd
running:
http://tapas.affenbande.org/rt-setup-report.sh
Thanks,
Flo
--
Palimm Palimm!
http://tapas.affenbande.org
5:26 p.m.
New subject: difference between realtime-kernel and low-latency-kernel?
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 12:48 +1000, porl sheean wrote:
i have actually had no end of trouble with
ubuntustudio's (and now
ubuntu's) rt kernel. on an amd 6000+ system with 1gig ram and a
rme9652 soundcard i can't get reliable performance under 40 or so ms.
i even tried a vanilla kernel with the rt patches and had the same
trouble. the 64studio kernel worked fine, however. i'm currently
running at 5ms with it and have had no problems. this is even with
compiz fusion running and spinning the cube whilst playing back audio
from an 18 channel ardour project. what patches would cause such a
difference in performance? it isn't any options selected in 'make
menuconfig' - i loaded the 64studio's ones in and used them. still no
luck. i can only assume they have added more patches to do with
realtime performance than just the -rt patchset.
From what I gather ubuntustudio does not have an rt
patched kernel (ie:
patched with Ingo Molnar's realtime preemption patch). See
observations
below:
On 05/10/2007, thomas fisher
<studio1(a)commspeed.net> wrote:
I can supply no quantifications for the 32 bit 2.6.20-16-realtime
kernel in ubuntustudio other than no xruns have been observed.
So, Ubuntu Studio has a kernel named realtime and they have observed no
xruns (which is not your case, and not the case of other posters).
Obviously it depends on how they test (hardware used, size of buffers,
load on the machine under test, etc, etc) and there's no info on that
post about that.
With the low latency kernel, xruns were observed.
This implies they don't have the low latency patches applied and that,
in their experience, the low latency patch was worse than the mainline
kernel.
If you have access to that kernel and you can check its build
configuration you could grep for "PREEMPT" there and post the results.
That will definitely tell us which options were used for building it (I
suspect you will find just "PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY" there).
In my experience, a mainline kernel will lead to xruns at low latencies
(there's always an exception, of course).
Jack is the only app that has a -20 priority assigned.
This implies they are not using SCHED_FIFO for running Jack. Apparently
they are boosting the normal scheduler ring priority of Jack to -20. I
have not experimented with this so I can't comment, except to say that
everyone else (that I know of) is using SCHED_FIFO for running Jack -
SCHED_FIFO is a higher priority scheduling method that can't be
preempted by regular linux tasks, and while it is more risky as a badly
designed application can hang the machine, the tradeoff is of course
much better realtime performance.
The general workstation has been running without
fault. The general
Debian / Ubuntu philosophy tends towards system stability.
The realtime preemption patch is certainly less stable than the mainline
kernel. But if you hardware runs it fine then it is more effective than
mainline for achieving low latencies.
-- Fernando
Tom
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 14:54:32 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 18:39 +0200, Frank
Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> Matthias Schönborn hat gesagt: // Matthias Schönborn
wrote:
> > I've just read that there's a
difference between a
realtime-kernel and
> > the low-latency-kernel provided by
ubuntustudio. The
text in the german
> > wiki on ubuntuusers.de said, that a
realtime-kernel is
slightly better
> > than the lowlatencykernel
( http://wiki.ubuntuusers.de/Echtzeitkernel) -
> > then why isn't it used in
ubuntustudio? Or do I just mix
something up?
>
> I think, this wiki and maybe Ubuntustudio as well are
using a very
> confusing terminology.
>
> Generally we have two kinds of kernels: The "vanilla"
kernel as
> downloadable on kernel.org and the same
kernel, but
patched with Ingo
> Molnars RT-patches. The vanilla kernel, if
configured
properly with
> CONFIG_PREEMPT etc., already gives very good
performance
in the low
> latency department, enough for many users,
even audio
users. I run one
> of these.
>
> If you want more, then you can install a RT-patched
kernel, as is
> provided in the linux-rt or linux-realtime
packages. I
would call the
> Ingo-Molnar-patched kernels Realtime-Kernels
or
Low-Latency-Kernels.
To further clarify (or confuse?) the issue, how "low
latency"
the kernel
is also depends on how you configure the kernel
build
options before or
after patching the kernel with Ingo's patch.
For Ingo's
patch
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is the best option in terms of
latency but
there are
others (CONFIG_PREEMPT_DESKTOP) that have a more
conservative approach
but have (relatively speaking) higher latencies.
So from
worst to best
it would be something like:
vanilla linuz + CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE
vanilla + CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY (used by the stock
Fedora kernel)
vanilla + Ingo + CONFIG_PREEMPT_DESKTOP
vanilla + Ingo + CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT (the one I use for
Planet CCRMA)
(there's more granularity and options in the CONFIG_PREEMPT*
world
but
those are the ones that have the biggest impact
as far as I
can
remember)
-- Fernando
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
3 Oct
3 Oct
12:21 a.m.
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 in an email titled "Re: [LAU] Just got an M-Audio
1010LT and for a moment i had awesome sound, then i hit something." Julien
Claassen wrote:
Hi!
You can take alsamixer or envy24control. From what I heard envy24control
looks much nicer and a bit more understandable, but I don't know it.
If you have roughly the same setup I have, you could try something like:
Push IEC598 and IEC598 1 to PCM OUT, raise the ADCs and DACs, then set the
DEEMPHESIS to off, push the HWs to PCM OUT, raise the multi items (I have
them at 0.00DB) and then set the clock items to the samplerate you like.
This setting should work for an anlog in analog out setting. Remeber that
you first two analog-ins (ADC) are for microphones and correspond to the
XLR jacks. But you can set those two to line-levels, via two jumpers on the
card, have a look at your manual for this.
Hope that helps.
Kindest regards
Julien
Julien,
Cool! Putting the PCM OUTs to 0, makes the "Digital Meter" jump in
envy24control. However, i note that meter is going into the red sometimes. Is
that ok? Does that indicate clipping?
Now, what i need next is a Master volume control of some sort, so i can point
kmix at it and my over-all volume will change on all DACs (to use the labels
that Alsa gives.
For what its worth it seems that:
alsa Multi controls == Envy24Control Monitor PCM Outs
alsa ADC controls == Envy24Control ADC
alsa DAC controls == Envy24Control DAC
The DAC and ADC controls on the envy24control panel are only on the "Analog
Volume" tab. In alsa these controls are repeated on both the input and output
tabs. Moving DAC0 in the envy24control moves the DAC0 control on *both* the
input and output tabs. Why?
Bearcat M. Sandor
1:32 a.m.
Hi!
Envy24control ADC and DAC move elements in both input and output tab? I
think it's because they are really the same in alsamixer. Don't ask me why,
perhaps I even got it wrong.
If your meter moves in the "red zone", this may indicate clipping later. It
remains to be seen. Take a listen to sounds played from disk, which you know
are normalised and record some sound and view it in some software, ardour
should do. If everything is OK, then it may just be some standard assumption
of clipping, which should't bother you.
Kindest regards
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
1:37 a.m.
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 in an email titled "Re: [LAU] Just got an M-Audio
1010LT and for a moment i had awesome sound, then i hit something." Julien
Claassen wrote:
Hi!
Envy24control ADC and DAC move elements in both input and output tab? I
think it's because they are really the same in alsamixer. Don't ask me why,
perhaps I even got it wrong.
If your meter moves in the "red zone", this may indicate clipping later.
It remains to be seen. Take a listen to sounds played from disk, which you
know are normalised and record some sound and view it in some software,
ardour should do. If everything is OK, then it may just be some standard
assumption of clipping, which should't bother you.
Kindest regards
Julien
Well, actually i don't have anything like that set up. I'm using this card
as
a *very* good 8 channel pre-amp.
I'm still not sure how i'm gonna get the stereo output from my Dishnetwork box
into this card in a way that will make Mythtv happy.
Bearcat M. Sandor
6278
days inactive
6291
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
17 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Bearcat M. Sandor -
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano -
Florian Schmidt -
Frank Barknecht -
Geoff Beasley -
Julien Claassen -
Matthias Schönborn -
Philipp Überbacher -
porl sheean -
thomas fisher