On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:24 PM, David McClanahan <[email protected]> wrote: > "KewlSynthOS" ?? No shit. What do you call all these audio distributions > floating around that basically claim "Plug us in and you'll have an instant > studio", "Look at our low latency" Blah Blah Blah. How many years has Linux > been out? And how many years has ALSA and OSS been coupled with it? Since > we're into "latency", I dare say I'd get less latency if I plugged in a > 1Mhz Commodore 64(with 64Kb) and played the SID chip than the latency I've > gotten from trying to get Linux to give me soft synth on a machine with > 200Mhz processor and 200+MB of memory. When this started this a dedicated > bootup synth what I suggested because quite frankly think its a bit much to > insure a machine will run reliably as a synth and do spreadsheets at the > same time. AND I think a lot people would gladly make the tradeoff to have > an inexpensive reliable instrument especially if they could resurrect an > older machine for such purposes. > > From where I stand, it looks like a LOT of effort has been expended on Linux > audio systems. It seems to me(forgetting my mission to acheive synth nirvana > on the Dell for the moment) that it would have been worthwhile to build the > audio on a hard realtime system since > > 1. Correct behavior is dependent upon time deadlines > 2. That's what hard realtime systems are specifically geared to do. > > Anyway, enough.
No, not enough. You still don't seem to grasp that (a) hard realtime is NOT required for systems doing pro-audio or synthesis (b) latency matters a lot, but not as much as some people think (c) doing hard realtime on a general purpose processor on a general purpose OS is asking for trouble (d) meeting deadlines these days has more to do with everything in the box *except* the processor --p _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
