On Fri, 3 Apr 2015, Hermann Meyer wrote:
> Am 03.04.2015 um 19:59 schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
>> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 03:05:56AM +0000, Joël Krähemann wrote:
>>
>>> I don't want to do JACK, since it is believed to be somehow the Qt thing.
>> Where do you get that sort of nonsense ?
>>
> Fons, like ever, polite and friendly in his posts. :-)
>
> Maybe this impression results from, that Qjackctl is the most known interface
> to jack,
> but, Joël, jack itself is completely (GUI)toolkit independent.
I would also say that in my opinion as a novice coder, the jack MIDI
interface is easier to use. Any MIDI event has a known time of arival
based on sample number. All incoming MIDI events are presented to the
programer as complete events so you don't have to deal with running
status.
The only downside is longer sysex events. I think there is work underway
to deal with this as well, but of course a long sysex no longer would have
sample acurate timing (maybe the first part will be time stamped) or at
least would have added latency (ie. it would no longer be real time
anyway). But that is a problem rawmidi would have to deal with as well. I
do not know if there is a particular byte count limit to sysex events or
if it varies with jack latency (the length of the cycle). But if you
expect users to use this live, then it needs to work with reasonably low
latency.
-- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sat Apr 4 00:15:02 2015
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 04 2015 - 00:15:02 EEST