Re: [Jack-Devel] Can't bring F/P below 128
On 12/31/2011 06:43 PM, Adrian Knoth wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 01:51:31PM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
>>>> It's about the on-board sound chip being quite lame latency-wise, while
>>>> a cheap-ass, ancient PCI card I have lying around unexpectedly turns out
>>>> to be quite the low-latency monster.
>>> Are you really surprised by that?
>
> I would. There are rumors some (onboard) HDAs can do eight samples per
> buffer. I have no idea if this is true, but I can confirm 2x32 on a
> couple of motherboards I have around. That's 0.7ms at 48kHz.
> [...]
> I still wonder if there's anything wrong with your setup, because I've
> been playing synthesizers at 12ms for years, including fast rock'n'roll
> piano repetitions.
I just discovered something that is probably worth mentioning. In LMMS,
there's an additional setting that affects latency: "Buffer size". I
wrongly thought that this settings only affects the ALSA backend. It
was set to 512 frames (11.6ms). I assumed this was a setting that told
LMMS how to open the ALSA device (hw:0) and that it had no effect when
using the JACK backend.
I assumed wrong. It's weird that I didn't figure this out a lot sooner
(I remember playing around with this setting.) But this *does* have an
effect even when using JACK. So I was adding 11.6ms to my total latency
and didn't even know it :-P So I turned that down to its minimum
setting (64 frames, 1.5ms) and now I indeed can't tell the difference
between 2.67ms and 5.33ms (or even 10.7ms) in JACK.
That was quite stupid of me. Fortunately, getting the new soundcard
wasn't a total waste of money; it's better in video games than the
onboard sound (Dolby Headphone actually works :-P) (It's also
*supposed* to have better sound quality, but I don't know about that;
never bothered to ABX it.)
1326228739.22308_0.ltw:2,a <jei8d3$lpo$1 at dough dot gmane dot org>