On 2002.03.10 00:09 David Olofson wrote: <snap> > I totally agree. >
Ok, it's certainly true that it makes development very easy and in case I can use normal ALSA drivers, I might as well use ecasound or ardour for the mixing and than I only have to build the knobs. (and have hd recording for free :) ) > If you have extreme latency requirements enough that Linux/lowlatency > doesn't cut it (that is, you need < 3 ms input -> output digital > latency), I have news for you; > Well, I need latency below 3ms,preferrably that's inclusive A/D D/A. (ok, it might not be possible, but I try to get as close as possible to it) <I don't like bad news, so I snap it away> > Good news: > Good news 2: > Ok, I'll use a multichannel card of course, might be more than one in the future. If I can afford 24 bit/96 kHz I'll buy it. But how do I know what cards uses a single dma stream for all channels? > > As to latencies and not using an OS - indeed, there's no reason not > to use an OS. Taking it to the extrem, RTLinux and RTAI commonly > deliver worst case latencies below 10 �s on P-III and Celeron > systems, and even better on PPC systems. (PPC has much better IRQ > handling than x86 - mostly because it's not dragging around that > badly designed legacy garbage that is the "PC chipset".) > > If you need to cut latency below that point, please tell me where you > found your AD/DA chips! ;-) > If RTLinux is even faster than the converters, I'll stick to linux and use ALSA. One problem what of the many LL patches should I use? > So get a real OS, and hack away - no hairy cross-compiling setups > need! :-) Of course if I'm going to use linux, I'll start development with my current PC and soundcard (SB Live). I suppose ecasound and ardour and such already try to get latencies down to the limit, so at the time I'm going to buy a multi channel card, I don't have to change the software to get the most out of the card? Thanks in advance, Remco Poelstra
