From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: asbjs@stud.ntnu.no (Asbjørn Sæbø) Subject: Re: Lowest latency: JACK, or ALSA directly? Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:11:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20041112091135.GB3167@stud.ntnu.no> References: <20041111144152.GA12443@stud.ntnu.no> <200411111534.iABFY8UK012314@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200411111534.iABFY8UK012314@localhost.localdomain> Sender: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Paul Davis Cc: alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org 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. =20 > >Although I so far barely have gotten into ALSA programming, it does se= em > >to be manageable in difficulty. (Don't laugh, I am an aconcy austican,= not a=3D20 > >programmer.) How is programming against JACK in comparison? >=20 > 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=20 the ALSA API. ;-) Thanks! Asbj=F8rn ------------------------------------------------------- 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_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click