Re: [LAU] Ardour3: monitoring

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: <jonetsu@...>
To: <len@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Saturday, April 13, 2013 - 9:43 pm

Le 13-04-2013 10:26, Len Ovens a écrit :

> On Sat, April 13, 2013 6:38 am, jonetsu@teksavvy.com wrote:

> Are you using the same jackd(bus) latency setting for both cases? Are

Yes, it was set at 1024. A setting of 64 works great. Thanks !

> Direct no. The kernel will determine the lowest usable latency you

And so the trigger to install a low-latency kernel would be getting too
many xruns. It sounds like a simple rule to observe.

> Finally, there is a matter of processing power. The more effects you

Interesting this concept of adding effects at mixdown when high latency
is available. So much to know about creative audio recording. For now
I'm leaning much more on the talent side that needs a good feedback of
what it'll sound like ;-)

Cheers.

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] Ardour3: monitoring, , (Sat Apr 13, 1:38 pm)
Re: [LAU] Ardour3: monitoring, Len Ovens, (Sat Apr 13, 2:26 pm)
Re: [LAU] Ardour3: monitoring, , (Sat Apr 13, 9:43 pm)
Re: [LAU] Ardour3: monitoring, , (Sat Apr 13, 9:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] Ardour3: monitoring, , (Sun Apr 14, 1:06 pm)