Re: [LAU] Ardour3: monitoring

Le 13-04-2013 10:26, Len Ovens a écrit :

> On Sat, April 13, 2013 6:38 am, jonetsu@teksavvy.com wrote:

> Are you using the same jackd(bus) latency setting for both cases? Are
> you
> letting ardour start jack or are you using something else? In any
> case you
> will need jack to run at 128frames/period or less. (probably 64)
> Ardour
> starts jack at 1024 by default if I remember correctly... so does
> qjackctl
> for that matter.

Yes, it was set at 1024. A setting of 64 works great. Thanks !

> Direct no. The kernel will determine the lowest usable latency you
> can
> use, but the way jack is started determines what latency jack is
> (trying
> to be) using. If you can't get jack to run at the needed latency
> without
> xruns then a change in kernel may help. Other settings in bios and HW
> wise
> may help too.

And so the trigger to install a low-latency kernel would be getting too
many xruns. It sounds like a simple rule to observe.

> Finally, there is a matter of processing power. The more effects you
> use
> the higher the latency needs to be to support them. I have an older
> machine and so I try to track without internal eq/effects. I add
> effects
> for mixdown at a higher latency. I do have an external mixer (Mackie
> 1604)
> and some external reverbs and stuff I can use for monitoring, but I
> have
> been tracking dry so far. Effects for tracking monitoring do not have
> to
> be super quality, just good enough to keep the talent in the right
> frame
> of mind. Some talent needs it and some don't.

Interesting this concept of adding effects at mixdown when high latency
is available. So much to know about creative audio recording. For now
I'm leaning much more on the talent side that needs a good feedback of
what it'll sound like ;-)

Cheers.

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Sun Apr 14 00:15:04 2013