linuxaudio.org

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 03:16:50PM -0500, Jonathan E. Brickman wrote:
> I do understand how quality Jack interfacing could be a surpassingly

quoted text
> difficult challenge for a developer, most especially a group of

> developers, of an insular yet modular project like lmms.  I could

> imagine that it might require reworking of the audio output code for

> each module, given that the whole was never designed for jack in the

> first place; and there are a lot of modules.  Culturally speaking,

> within many FOSS developer groups, such changes are very difficult to

> enact short of a fork.  I have also heard tell that qt4 is unhelpful in

> general latency-wise, but this does not explain why ALSA output works well.

I suspect you missed the point. 
If LMMS works well, and with acceptable latency (whatever

that means) using ALSA then it should work equally well

and with exactly the same latency using Jack.
*  There is no essential difference except in the

*  way this this achieved.
The difference in practice is that an app can set up its

ALSA interface to provide lots of buffering (with the

associated latency), but it can't do the same with Jack.

Using Jack it has to provide the buffering itself. Since

LMMS, according to previous posts, has buffering between

its DSP modules and the Jack interface the only thing that

could be missing is to set up this buffering as it should

be set up. If this is done there is no need to modify any

modules.
Ciao,
--

FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.
_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-user mailing list

Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user