On Wed, 06 Jun 2001, Paul Davis wrote: > >But the experience with my lowlatency testing stuff tells me that it will be > >almost impossible to get 3msec latencies in an enviroment where multiple > >processere are involved. > > Unfortunately Benno, your (and my) intuition is wrong, as shown by the > testing that Abramo and Steve did about 3 weeks ago. In the extreme > cases, a requirement for in-process is the right thing to do. Interesting ... did they produce some simulations / stats / graphs / testing tools which are publicy available ? (if someone has links to mailarchives / sites handy please post them) I'm kinda lost in the huge pile of mails I had to catchup in my inbox, so excuse me if at times I'm missing some things when it comes to discuss latest advances in the audio API filed. > > However, we need to support out-of-process too since it will work even > for <3msec latencies in almost every case. Thats why the audioengine > API I am in the midst of proposing is independent of whether or not > the "client/plugin" is in-process or out-of-process, though I have to > admit to a bias toward out-of-process right now, since it solves many > problems without introducing many new ones. Yes this independence is good since it allows one to choose the model that suits best for his needs. I'm still a bit sceptical about the out-of-process and 3msec latencies, but if it turns out to be true, fine then. cheers, Benno.
