Re: Lowest latency: JACK, or ALSA directly?

[asbjs@stud.ntnu.no (Asbjørn Sæbø)]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 10:34:08AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> [JACK]
> it doesn't *add* any latency at all. what it might conceivably do is
> to prevent a given application from reaching the lowest possible
> latency, because of the extra context switching involved in JACK. so
> far, however, this doesn't appear to be the case - people have JACK
> running at the same latency settings as they could get with ALSA. so
> the effect is marginal if its measurable at all.

That sounds very good.
 
> >Although I so far barely have gotten into ALSA programming, it does seem
> >to be manageable in difficulty. (Don't laugh, I am an aconcy austican, not a=20
> >programmer.)  How is programming against JACK in comparison?
> 
> JACK is *massively* simpler.

That also sounds very good.  It looks like I am in for a switch to JACK.
(Although I may miss the opportunity to dig myself into a hole digesting 
the ALSA API. ;-)


Thanks!

Asbjørn


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idU88&alloc_id\x12065&op=click