Re: [LAU] 96 kHz -- a bottleneck somewhere

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Saturday, April 26, 2014 - 7:33 pm

On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 05:23:07PM +0000, Jonathan E Brickman wrote:

> 1. At 96 kHz, schedtool definitely matters.

That means that the non-real-time part of your app is
somehow able to modify the scheduling of the real-time part.
In other words a design problem. If the interface between the
two parts is OK you should be able to completely block the
non-real-time part without any effect on the audio or xruns.

> 2. Some of my patches -- especially strings-related -- are

That again indicates a design problem, this time with the
synthesis algorithms.

> Not very surprising from a mathematical point of view of course.

You must be using some very weird mathematics then.

You can of course continue to claim things like this, and
that you get less latency using zita-ajbridge (which is
impossible), but you'll be jumping the shark quite soon.


A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

Linux-audio-user mailing list

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

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] 96 kHz -- a bottleneck somewhere, Jonathan E Brickman, (Sat Apr 26, 5:23 pm)
Re: [LAU] 96 kHz -- a bottleneck somewhere, Simon Wise, (Thu May 8, 12:23 pm)
Re: [LAU] 96 kHz -- a bottleneck somewhere, Jonathan E Brickman, (Thu May 8, 7:39 pm)
Re: [LAU] 96 kHz -- a bottleneck somewhere, Fons Adriaensen, (Sat Apr 26, 7:33 pm)