Re: [linux-audio-dev] Reborn

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Reborn
From: Peter Hanappe (phml_AT_csl.sony.fr)
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 15:02:11 EEST


Steve Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 12:23:28 +0200, günter geiger wrote:
>
>>Actually I think for output only applications you could get off without a
>>redesign. Just write your data to a buffer and wait until the process()
>>fetches it. This will introduce a buffer copy, but the overhead is minimal
>>and you can happily play into your favourite soundeditor. (Which is what
>>we want).
>
>
> True, but I think this is not ideal. The jack (ASIO, CoreAudio etc.) model
> has some advantages in app design, so I think it is better to change the
> model where possible. Plus, as you said, there is an additional copy.

If I understand Paul Davis' arguments correctly, the main motivation
for the Jack design instead of the read/write approach is improved
latency.
I think there's a tradeoff to be made, though: latency vs. efficiency.
Many algorithms can be written more efficiently in a vector form with
fixed vector sizes (cfr. fft). However, as Paul has made clear, this
buffering introduces inherent latency.

Peter

> - Steve
>


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Aug 14 2002 - 15:04:11 EEST