On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 07:27:11PM +0000, Ben Bell wrote: > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 02:46:11PM +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > > You could try zita-a2j instead of alsa-in. On my old 2G P4 machine > > adding 8 channels that way takes 10% CPU. Sound quality is vastly > > better than alsa-in. > > It's a vast improvement in terms of CPU usage. About 6% cpu vs about 24%. I *could* add a no-resample option, to be used only if the cards have the same sample clock... Would probably reduce CPU use to less than 1%. But normally in that case you don't need a2j or j2a, the ALSA layer should be able to handle it by merging the two cards, and without any added latency as not only the sample clocks but also the periods would be synchronized. I've no idea why this fails as you mentioned in the message that started this thread. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
