Is there any good source of information when it comes to choosing a
low-latency patch for a 2.4 kernel? Some of the low-latency patches I have
tested does not work very well (perhaps my SMP machine is the problem?), so I
just wonder, perhaps someone knows which ones to use?
/Anders Torger
software synchronisation good enough to get 48 kHz
sample alignment?
Is there a solution to my problem? Either synchronise a few RME9652, or
find some other sound card with more channels.
/Anders Torger
?
I'm considering a redesign of I/O handling in BruteFIR to add Jack
support (I/O is currently select()-based), but since it is processes in
blocks, perhaps it is not feasible?
/Anders Torger
, but only for clocked devices (that is sound
cards), since I thought for transfers to files or between applications
these first null samples would be seen as junk and should rather not be
there... but I suppose it is the price one has to pay.
/Anders Torger
On Wednesday 14 August 2002 15.51, you wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 03:13:12 +0200, Anders Torger wrote:
I'm considering a redesign of I/O handling in BruteFIR to add Jack
support (I/O is currently select()-based), but since it is
processes in blocks, perhaps it is not feasible
with only this scarce information,
however, if anyone know about general performance problems caused by
loading dynamic stuff into the software with dlopen(), and how they
should be avoided, I'd be glad to know.
Oh, I use a 2.4.17 kernel, low-latency patched.
/Anders Torger
On Saturday 05 October 2002 10.51, you wrote:
On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 09:12:31 +0200, Anders Torger wrote:
Although I have disabled the use of the dlopen()'d modules (for
debugging this problem), running the init code in the beginning
causes the convolution loop to take 109ms instead
On Saturday 05 October 2002 11.01, you wrote:
On Saturday 05 October 2002 10.51, you wrote:
On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 09:12:31 +0200, Anders Torger wrote:
Although I have disabled the use of the dlopen()'d modules (for
debugging this problem), running the init code in the beginning
in to the computer for
debug purposes, but it is not strictly necessary.
/Anders Torger
back I looked
into it so things may have changed (or I did something wrong in the
first place).
/Anders Torger
-player (stand alone product) of some sort.
S-video output or RGB or whatever the best is...
/Anders Torger
On Friday 07 March 2003 10.04, Nick Bailey wrote:
Just at thought, but the best place to insert the delay would surely
be the MPEG data stream. Unfortunately, I don't know of any DVD
players which have MPEG out on the back, presumably because of the
Movie maffia being afraid you can take
has been added, I may have broken some stuff. But since I'm lazy,
I just release and hope for the best to happen, and if anyone stumbles
over a bug, let me know and I'll fix it promptly.
http://www.ludd.luth.se/~torger/brutefir.html
/Anders Torger
in the
commercials where they compare DSD and PCM, which is one reason why
there are so many myths about DSD vs PCM around.
/Anders Torger
On Monday 28 July 2003 10.58, Denis Sbragion wrote:
Hello Michael,
At 10.13 28/07/2003 +0200, you wrote:
...
A 22050 Hz sine could be really accurate (one
On Monday 28 July 2003 14.59, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 02:00:41PM +0200, Anders Torger wrote:
It becomes even more interesting when you bring in dither. Then you
can represent signals whose amplitude is less than one bit, and you
can increase time resolution
convolution algorithm will cause any more trouble.
It would be interesting to know what Lake thinks about this. If Microsoft has
patented it, they probably use it, and then Lake might want them to pay
royalty, or else
/Anders Torger
Is there any work done for transporting digital audio over ethernet? For
example a library, an open standard or something?
/Anders Torger
On Tuesday 13 April 2004 19.17, Anders Torger wrote:
Is there any work done for transporting digital audio over ethernet?
For example a library, an open standard or something?
/Anders Torger
Thanks for the replies. However, I should have specified in more detail
what I am after, I mean
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 11.11, David Olofson wrote:
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 09.47, Anders Torger wrote:
[...]
Thus, I think it is necessary to implement something operating on
the ethernet level to get best performance in terms of throughput
and latency.
Sounds like you'll need
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 18.08, Francois Dechelle wrote:
IIUC, you don't need some kind of load balancing between the
machines, i.e. the applications will be assigned statically on the
different nodes without any dynamic job creation/deletion?
The convolvers on the nodes must be set up once
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 22.27, John Lazzaro wrote:
If what you mean by operating at the ethernet level means
no Cobra-like hardware to help, but putting data directly
into Etherframes w/o IP/RTP headers, then its unclear to me that
working at the RTP/IP level is going to hurt you much. The
/portability error
fixes and stuff.
/Anders Torger
fidelity systems such as:
- Ambiophonics
- Ambisonics
- Auralisation/binaural/Ambisonics hybrid systems
- ITU 5.1 or other discrete multi-channel arrangements
Further information can be found at:
http://www.ludd.luth.se/~torger/almusvcu.html
/Anders Torger
Does anyone know of a tool especially useful for visualizing room
impulse response measurements? Magnitude responses, waterfall plots and
such.
I'd prefer something more efficient and quicker to work with than octave
and gnuplot.
/Anders Torger
24 matches
Mail list logo
