Re: [LAU] rtirq

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015, Len Ovens wrote:

> latency was constant. That is rather than playing imediately because it is
> late, it could delay by however much the event came in after the cycle it did
> come in on. I don't know if this is common practice though. Jack could impose
> this by making all event time stamps fit within the current cycle (use
> delayed time stamps). Because the jackmidi programming I was doing was

In fact this is what it does. (on rereading what Paul said)

> control surface and I was not too worried about timing, all of my events were
> passed on the first sample of a cycle and incoming events where cycled
> through and read as if they should be processed then too. So i didn't pay as
> much attention to time stamping as I should/could have. I don't know if it is
> even possible for an application to send an event that should be played in
> the next cycle.

All events fall within the current cycle. If there is jitter then, it is
because the developer is doing what I was doing, treating all midi events
as if they were start of cycle. A developer who was doing a softsynth
would already be dealing with sample numbers within the cycle in sound
generation and _should_ find it natural to use the same practice when
dealing with MIDI. It would be "wrong" not to.

--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user