Hi Louis, --- Louis Lam <lshoujun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Ron, > > Thanks for the reply... > > --- R Parker <rtp405@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > If the card is capable and assuming you're not > using > > an external hardware mixer, you need Hardware > monitor; > > Options, Misc, Hardware monitor. > > I'm not sure whether my card supports this or not, > is there a way to find out? But I was able to > start jack with HW monitoring and I can also hear > what I play on the line in even when I'm not > recording. I think what's required is called "full duplexing." The card is capable of simultaneous input and output. I use a hardware mixer so I'm not real on the ball about this. In a sense, what you want to do with an audio card and what I do with the mixer are identical. I achieve zero latency monitoring by routing the hardware mixer inputs to aux1,2. You accomplish this by returning an input to its counterpart output at the audio card. So I think the only difference is that I can route the input in a mixer but you can't in a pci audio card. Or maybe you can route the signals which would be very useful. Hmmm, it only makes sense that you can route input signals with cards that have hardware mixers. This is something that you should study up on. If pci card hardware mixers follow mixing consol paradigms then you might be able to create scenarios where you route input N to the equivalent of an Aux bus. If this paradigm is followed, you might be able to configure a port's send source as post or pre fader. If that's the case, then you can run multiple monitoring mixes; control room, head phone, etc. This is interesting because the drummer needs a very loud click track but you (control room) don't want that loud click. My audio card has one to one mapings for inputs and outputs and doesn't have a hardware mixer. I imagine cards like the newer RME HDSP that have hardware mixers can do the things I'm describing. It's hard for me to imagine that they can't but I have no experience with hardware card mixers. > I tried to set Options->Misc->HW monitor in Ardour > too... but didn't notice any difference. > Still i see "late driver wakeups" and such. I guess > running it with n=4 and p=128 is quite I've never understood why the same option exists in both Ardour and Jackd. And I've never cared. Because you're not monitoring the Ardour track outputs, you should be able to record enable and mute them but still monitor a signal. I suppose that's a little test. > > Normal, I don't know. Common, is another story. > The > > key is that you have monitoring options that > eliminate > > the need for low latency. Make sense? > > Kind of... but how about actual recording itself > from the capture? Please correct me if my concept > is wrong. I'm quite new to this computer recording > stuff. HW Monitoring makes the line input > audible on the output. Yes, it routes the hardware audio card input to its output. What you monitor has never reached Ardour. Capture puts the recorded > samples to the application buffer then to the > disk. I agree with the "monitoring" latency but how > about the "recording" latency? Ardour recieves an incoming audio signal, builds a playlist that says start position equals N, volume N, pan X/Y, etc. Within Ardour, there's nothing we can do to adjust latency of recording. That isn't the users problem. Besides, any latency within the Ardour record realm will be relative across all tracks. Am I understanding your concern? ron > Thanks, > Louis > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" > your friends today! Download Messenger Now > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
