On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 23:33:16 +0100, Brent Busby <brent@email-addr-hidden>
wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, Kaj Ailomaa wrote:
>
>> As long as you are not doing software monitoring (i.e. listening to
>> what you are recording through Ardour, while recording it), you don't
>> need low latency at all, and might not need anything beyond
>> linux-generic.
>
> Is this true in all cases, even when using plugins and soft-samplers?
> What about if you're sending some of your audio outboard through a mixer
> for processing in the hardware world?
>
> The reason I ask is because I am doing monitoring in hardware on an RME
> Multiface II, but I'm also sending some channels out to a mixer and
> bringing them back. Also at the same time I'm using plugins. I've got
> my Jack latency setup to show up in QJackCtl as about 5ms, but it'd be
> nicer for the computer if I could use a bigger buffer and not worry
> about it.
>
As long as you are not doing anything live, using a higher buffer is
recommended as it gives your machine more time to perform the various
calculations needed for your plugins, etc.
If you pass audio out and in again, you will always get some latency, no
matter which buffer setting. I haven't tried it and can't speak for
timing, but if timing is off, you can always adjust that after you've
recorded.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Sun Mar 31 04:15:01 2013
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 31 2013 - 04:15:01 EEST