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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: michael noble <looplog@...>
Cc: linux-audio-user <linux-audio-user@...>, Jonathan E. Brickman <jeb@...>
Date: Thursday, April 17, 2014 - 9:16 am

--089e0122f2ce043bf004f7397d9b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 4:23 AM, michael noble wrote:

>

-A SB is full duplex. the final test was done with just zita-j2a which is
just for playback. so not entirely fair. the correct test with jack1 would
be to use

-I SoundBlaster:zalsa_out/-dhw:SB

which will use the internal zita bridge client for playback only.

--089e0122f2ce043bf004f7397d9b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 4:23 AM, michael noble &l=
t;looplog@gmail.com<=
/a>> wrote:
On Thu, A=
pr 17, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Paul Davis <
paul@linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:

so in those tests using -=
A SB, the bridge follows the server configuration and adds no latency.
Ah, reading the 0.124.0 release notes it also seems that -A=
SB is full-duplex, so perhaps a fair comparison after all?

-A SB is full duple=
x. the final test was done with just zita-j2a which is just for playback. s=
o not entirely fair. the correct test with jack1 would be to use
-I SoundBlaster:zalsa_out/-dhw:SBwhich will use the =
internal zita bridge client for playback only.

--089e0122f2ce043bf004f7397d9b--

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..., Jonathan E. Brickman, (Thu Apr 17, 12:36 pm)
Re: [LAU] jack2 vs. jack1/zita vs. jack2+zita-a2j, performan..., Paul Davis, (Thu Apr 17, 9:16 am)