Subject: Re: [ecasound] Re: ecasound latency (fwd)
From: Jeremy Hall (jhall@UU.NET )
Date: Thu Jan 20 2000 - 16:51:23 EET
so this is an improvement on ecasound5?
In the new year, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Jeremy Hall wrote:
> >> too much. For my own realtime processing needs, I usually use -b:64
> >> (~1.5ms) or -b:128 (~2.9ms). These are almost inaudible.
> > but 2.9 multiplied by 8 or 16 yields 23.2 or 46.44. This is NOT
> > acceptable when you're trying to run 8 or 16 tracks.
> In this case, number of tracks doesn't affect latency. Basicly,
> ecasound engine ask for buffersize samples from every input, processes
> this data (tracks * buffersize samples) and then writes to all outputs.
> Realtime devices are active all the time, so ecasound has to be able
> to complete the whole processing loop (input - process - output)
> during (bsize/sample_rate*1000) msecs. If it doesn't, underruns will
> occur on inputs, and overruns on outputs. But latency won't be
> Kai Vehmanen <email@example.com> -------- CS, University of Turku, Finland
> . http://www.wakkanet.fi/ecasound/ - linux multitrack audio processing
> . http://www.wakkanet.fi/sculpscape/ - ambient-idm-rock-... mp3/ra/wav
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu Jan 20 2000 - 16:52:00 EET