On Tuesday 28 September 2010 16:21:48 Patrick Shirkey wrote: > I'm pretty sure that this is the reasoning behind going with the filter > option. The resources are available even on a eeepc as Ken has reported so > it is not really a big deal as jamin is intended for use post pro. I don't actually remember Ken saying that he runs jamin on his eeepc. True, he is running an awful lot of software on there, but I doubt that he is adding 10ms artificial delay from jamin to his live-setup... > If you want to have it running during production then you should probably > just get a very powerful machine or invest the time to correct the issues > as near as possible to source. Yes, a 1.8GHz turion64 running jack (3x1028@48kHz) and an ardour session with two stereo tracks, 4 plugins (SC4-compressor and an eq for each stereo) is to weak to also run jamin. Please get a grip! I am not using jamin on an under-spec machine. And I am not mis-using it during mixing/recording of a >48-channels session either. I even stopped dreaming about using jamin for live-foh usage (because of the delay introduced by the filter). All I am saying is that jamin takes up a good amount of resources for its processing. [*] And I combined Fons' argument that the filter used is not a good implementation and probably not needed anyway with my idea of a simpler but equally useful tool. Have fun, Arnold [*] It would be uber-cool if one could switch off that analyzer-view to save processing cycles.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
