Le Lundi, 28 Décembre 2009 22:06:47 +0100, Guido Scholz <guido.scholz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > Am Mon, 28. Dec 2009 um 15:24:02 -0500 schrieb lanas: > > > Not really. And I forgot to mention jackmix which looks like > > another quick hack. > > Hm, yes that sounds pretty persuading. Well, one or both (jackmix, QARecord) are doing it. Now, I think it is clear, without looking at the code, that there's more effort put in Ardour than jackmix, not on the amount of features obviously, but on making it well-behaved in the context of Linux audio/jack apps. I'm not certain, but I think the author of jackd is also author of Ardour. Do not quote me on that. >> This is because it was not much of an experiment to start with but >> rather an observation derived from finding a way to record the song >> without so many xruns. > I am aware of that and chose this wording to encourage you to discover > the real root cause. Currently we suffer from hypotheses (at least I > do). If, when I start my little project, I face the same number of xruns, then I'll take a look. if not, my purpose is not to debug jackmix and/or QARecord. I simply made an orbservation. > > As such, the observation was quite clear: kernel real-time > > capabilities, although they might play a role somewhere, had nothing > > to do in producing xruns since switching applications resolved the > > problem. From that observation then a question arose: there must > > be a bad way and a good way of writing a Linux audio/jack > > application: what is it ? > > So did you get the answer? Yes. See the first two replies in ths thread, by David and Dominic. As I added, treating jack callbacks as bottom part ISRs could certainly improve performance and who knows (not I so far, do you ?) avoid a good deal of xruns ? > > > For mathematical reasons I would like to get your result from this > > > alternative setup (also giving better access to a root cause): > > > > > > 3) noise -> jackmix -> Ardour -> wav-file > > > Indeed. That's the possibility I haven't explored since I think the > > result of the observation was to see that there's a bad and good > > way of writing such applications. > > I see, so you are more interested from a philosophical (or moral?) > point of view. I always tend to approach projects with a high-level overview before delving into the details. As such I get a first round on how to define objects, data paths, responsibilities, etc... Of course these will get refined when details come in. That's how I do it. > > Now, that the bad way lies with jackmix > > and/or Qarecord is a second point that has more to do with technical > > performance in the context of writing such an audio/jack > > application. Which is not the case at the moment. > > Hm sorry, I didn't get that. In other words, this is not about debugging jackmix and/or QARecord. are you the author of QARecord by any chance ? > > > Some other interesting information would be, what program versions > > > (jackmix, QARecord) are you using? > > Hmmm.. I'd disagree with this insofar as debugging these apps is > > certainly not the matter. > So yes well, but are you sure, you understood my question? Yes. Program versions do not matter in that observation. Tschüß. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
