On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:55:10 +0100
David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
<some snippage>
>Question: is there a reason that you are going with buffer sizes of
>3*2^n rather than 2^n? I've not actually tried what Jamulus does in
>that situation (but will do) but it seems a bit strange to me. Does it
>have some inherent advantage?
This puzzled me too. I was under the impression that the reason for using powers
of 2 was that buffering code was more efficient. Presumably that would give the
best latency figures.
-- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-userReceived on Tue Nov 24 04:15:02 2020
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 24 2020 - 04:15:02 EET