On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 01:15 -0800, Kevin Cosgrove wrote:
> On 20 February 2006 at 4:07, Lee Revell <rlrevell@email-addr-hidden-job.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 00:49 -0800, Kevin Cosgrove wrote:
> > > One person commented that with their 64-X2
> > > machine, that a larger period size, 256 versus 128, seems better.
> > > This is generally true for avoiding xruns.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering, is an even larger period size 1K or 2K going
> > > to make a 64-X2 machine usable.
> >
> > What exactly is the problem that you're having?
>
> Indecision. I'm wondering if it's worth it to tear my Celeron
> system out of my studio and install my 64-X2 system in its place.
> I haven't actually used the X2 box for anything but sound file
> editing yet. I've been predicting problems based on some of the
> postings I've seen about those Athlon 64-X2 CPUs. I can always
> put the Celeron system back into music service if the X2 doesn't
> work. But, I'd rather avoid that whole ordeal, if the reality is
> that it just won't work yet.
>
> Thanks....
Umm... the solution is trivial, all you have to do is install the
clockfix branch of JACK from CVS.
Lee
Received on Sun Feb 26 20:16:40 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 26 2006 - 20:16:40 EET