I'm not sure if what you're saying matters, since the buffer settings, etc. were the same between jack and alsa settings in the PianoTeq setup dialogs....unless I'm missing something, the /proc directory info you are asking me to compare with jackd settings verify that they were the same.
Best,
AKJ
P.S. Did you get my email ever about jackctl.py? Not the one in the jack source tree, but my CL utility of the same name that I wrote?
--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
you should check the latency that it is using with ALSA. Assuming you> Hi all--
> I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced this:
> I'm considering purchasing PianoTeq, but I wanted to try the demo. It seems
> to work better with just the alsa driver than it does with jack, a reversal
> of the usual situation.
> I tested this several times by playing fast glissandi on the default piano
> preset. Each time, my little EEE-PC netbook under jack choked with xruns and
> a brief silence while PianoTeq 'reset' itself, but Alsa alone chugged away
> with no xruns unless there was an extreme amount of load....
> I'm wondering if anyone can comment on this. It seems odd, especially since
> the jack developers claim jack adds no latency by itself to the picture in
> any situation---so, do we have a situation where the code is better written
> for the alsa driver than for jackd? It seems we do, in this case....
use the first audio device on the first sound card:
 cat /proc/asound/card0/pcm0p/sub0/hw_params
and then compare that with your JACK settings.
--p
--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
