On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:11 AM, michael noble <looplog@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Paul Davis <paul@email-addr-hiddenwrote:
>
>> I really don't understand the goal here.
>
>
> I'm guessing the goal is to see if better performance in driving
> softsynths can be obtained by using zita-j2a to handle output rather than
> using jack directly interfacing with Alsa. I don't think it was intended to
> be a jack1/jack2 match off. To me it seems like an interesting experiment,
> and I hope Jonathan keeps up the tests, despite the so far only negative
> feedback.
>
> One of the fun things about being an ignorant user is to sometimes try
> stuff out just for the heck of it and find things even the original creator
> of something didn't intend. If people only followed rules, entire genres of
> music wouldn't likely exist, so I say bring on the experimentation.
>
absolutely agreed.
>
> Which is not to say the tests can't be improved. Apart from criticisms
> already raised, from my limited knowledge it seems to essentially be
> comparing full-duplex performance of the jack alsa backend with single
> duplex performance of zita-j2a, which hardly seems fair. Another question I
> have is to whether zita is adding latency in addition to that reported by
> jack, which the tests don't seem to indicate.
>
the zita internal client in jack1 can be configured to any latency
settings, but the default (and optimal) setting matches those of the
server. so in those tests using -A SB, the bridge follows the server
configuration and adds no latency.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Thu Apr 17 12:15:02 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 17 2014 - 12:15:02 EEST