Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] ANNOUNCE: Rosegarden-4 0.9.9 released - now officially in beta!
From: Chris Cannam (cannam_AT_all-day-breakfast.com)
Date: Sat Jul 31 2004 - 14:09:53 EEST
[cc'ing rg-user -- consider directing followups there only]
On Friday 30 Jul 2004 19:20, Rick Henry wrote:
> What happened to the buffer sliders? They were useful. I lose WAY more
> audio now with 0.9.9 than with 0.9.8.
Can you tell me what settings you use for the buffer sliders in 0.9.8? And
also whether you have the Low-latency/Buffered option in the 0.9.9 "Record &
Mix" config page set to Low-latency or Buffered -- and whether it makes any
difference for you? (0.9.8 always behaves as if in Buffered mode, but the
default in 0.9.9 is Low-latency.)
The buffer sliders were removed for a number of reasons: they didn't always do
quite what they appeared to, they were a cause of quite a lot of
configuration confusion (even for me), and with the introduction of the
low-lat/buffered option, we would have needed two separate sets of values.
My hope was (and is) that once we had a bit of experience with the best
settings for a number of systems, we could get rid of most of the controls in
favour of good defaults and a smaller number of special settings with more
meaningful names if necessary.
> The other problem I had was with liblo. The app won't even start if I
> configure/compile with that option enabled.
What happens on startup -- do you get any error message?
> If I compile without liblo,
> the app will run, but disappears (dies) often.
If you can identify points at which it crashes, bug reports would be very
useful. 0.9.9 is not expected to be stable at all times (that's why it's not
1.0), but because we now have a feature freeze we should be in a good
position to address bugs without confusing matters by introducing new
features all over the place at the same time.
> I'm running Suse 9.1 on an AMD XP 2400+/1Gig RAM. 0.9.8 performs
> BEAUTIFULLY on this configuration. 0.9.9 doesn't - I wish it did.
FWIW I have two test systems, a dual-Athlon/1Gig with SuSE 9.0 (not 9.1), and
a Celeron 800/256MB with RH9/CCRMA, and I get better results for audio with
0.9.9 than 0.9.8 on both of them. So there should be some hope!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Jul 31 2004 - 13:25:43 EEST