From: Tim E. Real <termtech@ro...> - 2010-04-29 05:44:15
On April 28, 2010 11:41:51 pm you wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:45 PM, michael noble <looplog@...> wrote:
> > A/D -> Rakarrack -> Jackrack -> Ardour -> D/A
> this is not the diagram that people are referring to. latency is an issue
> when you have:
> A/D -> Ardour -> Rakarrack -> Ardour -> D/A
> i.e. Rakarrack as an insert for an ardour track or bus.
> would have no less than four multiples of the internal JACK latency. This
> > would quickly become unworkable in more complex JACK graphs (for example
> > asymmetrical graphs would have signal chains running with different
> > internal latencies). This would make having application interconnects a
> > pointless exercise in frustration for the most part. And actually, from
> > experience, this is not what seems to happen at all.
> its not a pointless exercise in frustration because this kind of
> connectivity (A feeds B which feeds A) is useful but not as common as the
> more simple (A feeds B feeds C).
> there have been some suggestions to allow/encourage applications to have
> multiple clients precisely to permit the A->B->A ("insert") processing to
> work with no extra latency.
I think I remember some of those discussions.
That was one of the benefits? Wow, gonna have to learn how to do it.
Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.