On Monday 11 October 2010, you wrote: > On 2010-10-08 23:15, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote: > > Anyway, even if you use the same operating system, kernel version, priority > > settings, environment, processor, etc. a critical factor is the audio hardware > > device. Professional or good quality audio interfaces typically allow much > > smaller buffers, and lower latency as a consequence than cheap/low quality > > devices. If your laptop has an HDA sound hardware, it is probably the culprit. > > Do you know if there are any specific HDA controllers and/or codecs that > work better or worse in this regard? I'd be very interesting to know.
I also would like to know the complete list of HDA hardware implementations to avoid, but I can only say that my Asus laptop has one, and it is of the bad quality category. I've seen other laptops suffering from the same problems. FS+alsa needs 3x512 buffers, which is the minimum acceptable to avoid xruns. > My experience differs from yours - on my HDA here, I can run with > driver=alsa, 4 x 64 buffers quite stable (as in, if there are xruns, I > can't hear them). Something I consider OK, especially given the fact > that I don't run any special rt kernel (just Ubuntu's standard one, > called "generic"), and haven't done the limits.conf stuff either. My Mac Mini also has HDA, and the sound is very good with little latency. I've tested a few computers with mobo-integrated HDA, also with good results. The only rule seems to be that many things are called "Intel HDA", with a very wide range of quality, from quite good to very poor. Something like that also happened with AC'97 variants, but in general wasn't so terrible. Regards, Pedro _______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
