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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> 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. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
