Re: [LAU] jack2 vs. jack1/zita vs. jack2+zita-a2j, performance differences

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Paul Davis <paul@...>
Cc: linux-audio-user <linux-audio-user@...>, Jonathan E. Brickman <jeb@...>
Date: Thursday, April 17, 2014 - 7:11 am

--047d7bb03f9cf5411804f737bdff
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Paul Davis wrote:

> I really don't understand the goal here.

I'm guessing the goal is to see if better performance in driving softsynths
can be obtained by using zita-j2a to handle output rather than using jack
directly interfacing with Alsa. I don't think it was intended to be a
jack1/jack2 match off. To me it seems like an interesting experiment, and I
hope Jonathan keeps up the tests, despite the so far only negative
feedback.

One of the fun things about being an ignorant user is to sometimes try
stuff out just for the heck of it and find things even the original creator
of something didn't intend. If people only followed rules, entire genres of
music wouldn't likely exist, so I say bring on the experimentation.

Which is not to say the tests can't be improved. Apart from criticisms
already raised, from my limited knowledge it seems to essentially be
comparing full-duplex performance of the jack alsa backend with single
duplex performance of zita-j2a, which hardly seems fair. Another question I
have is to whether zita is adding latency in addition to that reported by
jack, which the tests don't seem to indicate.

--047d7bb03f9cf5411804f737bdff
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Paul Davis <paul@linuxaudiosys=
tems.com
> wrote:
I really don't understand the goal here.=
I'm guessing the goal is to see if better perfor=
mance in driving softsynths can be obtained by using zita-j2a to handle out=
put rather than using jack directly interfacing with Alsa. I don't thin=
k it was intended to be a jack1/jack2 match off. To me it seems like an int=
eresting experiment, and I hope Jonathan keeps up the tests, despite the so=
far only negative feedback.=C2=A0
One of the =
fun things about being an ignorant user is to sometimes try stuff out just =
for the heck of it and find things even the original creator of something d=
idn't intend. If people only followed rules, entire genres of music wou=
ldn't likely exist, so I say bring on the experimentation.=C2=A0
Which is no=
t to say the tests can't be improved. Apart from criticisms already rai=
sed, from my limited knowledge it seems to essentially be comparing full-du=
plex performance of the jack alsa backend with single duplex performance of=
zita-j2a, which hardly seems fair. Another question I have is to whether z=
ita is adding latency in addition to that reported by jack, which the tests=
don't seem to indicate.=C2=A0

--047d7bb03f9cf5411804f737bdff--

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

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] jack2 vs. jack1/zita vs. jack2+zita-a2j, performance d..., Jonathan E. Brickman, (Thu Apr 17, 1:54 am)
Re: [LAU] jack2 vs. jack1/zita vs. jack2+zita-a2j, performan..., michael noble, (Thu Apr 17, 7:11 am)
Re: [LAU] jack2 vs. jack1/zita vs. jack2+zita-a2j, performan..., Jonathan E. Brickman, (Thu Apr 17, 12:36 pm)