On Thu, 19 Mar 2015, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:07:34 -0700 (PDT), Len Ovens wrote:
So I have to ask myself if what you are hearing is just the
effects of a slow standard MIDI transport before the info even gets to
the computer.
You can do an experiment, assumed you still own old computers and tapes.
Tape synced to the Computer by SMPTE (Atari) or by Click (C64). Record
a MIDI synth and after that record the same synth on another tape track.
This will double the synth sound, all you get is a phasing, that
doesn't move.
Do the same with a Linux or Windows PC. Record a track with Qtractor or
Cubase and after that record the same external synth on another
Qtractor or Cubase track. Sounds do not start at the same time, there's
always audible shift, comparable to slow early reflections and the
phasing is moving.
That is the first explanation of this that makes sense to me. Thank you. I
do not know if it is possible to fix this in Linux or at least in the
sequencing SW we have. In a machine that only deals with MIDI (Atari or
C64), each midi event has it's own time stamp or possition based on the OS
clock (whatever the sequencing program is using for a time base). In a
machine that deals with audio, that time base is an audio buffer length
which may contain more than one midi event, but may not contain all midi
events that are meant to be together. Not only that, but when the same
midi goes in a cycle, there is no guarentee that the events that were
within one buffer length with again remain within the same buffer length
and this may go in and out of sync as midi and it's time signature may
form a beat with the audio media clock. This would be the moving phase you
hear.
Perhaps setting jack up for 16/3 at 48k would solve that. 16 samples seems
to be close to one MIDI byte and most events are three bytes... though
with a chord running status would take 9 bytes and make seven or even
possibly 6 (I don't remember if active sensing resets running status). In
any case each midi byte should be aligned with the number of samples that
best fits that one byte. I don't know is 16/2 would be better or not (read
I don't wish to spend the brain power thinking about it).
It's not a limitation of MIDI.
It is some of both. A faster MIDI would not solve things unless Linux
audio was done differently. Assuming time stamping had to be done at each
byte would fix this. Using media clock still seems like the right thing to
do because in general, the media clock goes with a project from computer
to computer. Basically, you are telling me that an audio buffer of 128
samples is too long for good MIDI sync. This can be fixed in two ways: Use
a short audio buffer or decouple midi from the audio buffer completely and
run midi processing and time stamping separately. The first can be done by
anyone who has a machine that can run at 16/2 or 16/3 (maybe even 32/2
would be ok) xrun free. The second would require redoing the sequencer SW
and possibly the ALSA midi drivers (I don't know enough about them to
say).
However, I wont discuss this again, I just want to know if RTC is
needed in the rtirq config for audio (ALSA/jackd), assumed jackd
doens't start with "--clocksource OR -c h(pet)". And should rtirq
config include an entry for HRTIMER/HPET? Is it possible to add
HRTIMER/HPET to the rtirq config (e.g. in addition to RTC) and what is
the name of such an entry?
I can't answer if RTC is needed. HRTIMER is probably snd_hrtimer, but I
don't know if elevating the priority of that alone would help because of
all we discused above. Also the priority of snd_mpu401_uart and the
snd_seq* group of modules may suffer as well... But none of that matters
if the midi read/write clock/timestamp is related to the audio buffer
which is how any jack connected application would do things. Jack does
allow a midi port to set which sample a midi event belongs to, but does
that timing make it past jack? Do sequencers use this possibility or just
send all the midi stuff right now for each graph knowing there are lots of
delays in there anyway?
Maybe those fussy people who decided aes67 should support at least 1ms
latency are right.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
