Thanx, I'll look at the solution.
Gerald
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 18:52 +0000, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:40 PM, gerald mwangi <gerald.mwangi@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > Hi, has someone looked at the code? I really need an answer to the question.
>
> Sorry, I didn't notice this earlier on LAD because the subject line
> ("Is TerminatorX development stalled?") bore no relationship to the
> substance of the query. No slight to TerminatorX intended, but I
> wouldn't normally look at messages on LAD about it!
>
> > I have a question to for the devs out there though: It seems to me that i
> > have to run process() a few times with a fixed blocksize before,
> > getRequiredSamples() returns something >0 in Realtime-mode. All other
> > options are default options. Is this true?
>
> You have to supply process() with a certain amount of data before
> anything becomes available at output, yes. If you are using a small
> fixed block size, then yes it is true that you will likely have to
> call process() several times. You might like to consider querying
> getLatency() first, after setting the initial ratios, and "priming"
> the stretcher with that number of zeroed samples before you start.
>
>
> Chris
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Thu Jan 14 00:15:03 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 14 2010 - 00:15:03 EET