linuxaudio.org

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:29:10PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Jonathan E. Brickman

quoted text
>  wrote:

>

> > Well, it is clear that I have to do something different than pure

> > Jack/ALSA.  I'll try Pulse, although Pulse's reputation for low latency

> > isn't exactly stellar.

>

> the ALSA jack plugin has poor latency too. anything that has to

> intermediate between a "push" model API (where the app gets to decide

> when and how much data to read/write) and a "pull" mode (where

> something other than the app makes those decisions) has to have enough

> buffering to deal with the app's intentional and unintentional

> behaviour. it probably isn't as latency inducing as pulse's default,

> but its not a replacement for using JACK directly.

If ALSA gets its part right, the resulting latency will

just depend on how the app uses the ALSA interface, as it

does for a normal ALSA device. If the app does so in the

same way as e.g. Jack's backend, there should not be any

additional latency at all.
If ALSA can make a low-latency interface on top of an

interrupt routine or thread that runs every period and

is triggered by the soundcard, then (as a Jack client)

it should be able to provide the same low-latency

interface on top of the process callback which just

looks like a soundcard interrupt handler in user space.

There is no essential difference between the two. 
Ciao,
--

FA

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-user mailing list

Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

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