> Am 08.02.2016 um 20:05 schrieb Garth Hjelte <[email protected]>: > > >> Is creating a large ring buffer is always a good thing - is there any limit? > > To confirm: my client reports that when we set the ring buffer to a higher > number the audio stream does not open.
Does not open? Error codes? > Since your ring buffer AFAIK isn't part of PortAudio itself and a MBS > creation, I don't think PortAudio couldn't provide the stream but MBS is > rejecting trying to make the ring buffer too big. The ring buffer implementation is from one of the port audio examples. > Like I said the client is doing 96k recording and 32 channels worth, so > there's a lot of data to get in a short period of time. But if I set the ring > buffer to this: > > audiostream = New PortAudioStreamRecorderMBS(SampleRate * 4 * numChannels) 12 MB size. Could work. But the size for current plugin must be a power of 2, so please use 16 MB here. (next plugin will auto adjust). > Does the PortAudio MBS implementation use callbacks or does it use the > "read/write" audio method? PortAudioStreamRecorderMBS uses a ring buffer with callback to fill it. > As far as I can tell, using a ring buffer at least gives the possibility of > missing data. But if you can use the R/W method, then you don't have to use > the ring buffer and no data can be lost. My app - in this case - isn't so > dependant on realtime accuracy. I'm just recording incoming sound. Well, I could of course add a new subclass for PAStream which uses Read/Write. Sincerely Christian -- Read our blog about news on our plugins: http://www.mbsplugins.de/ _______________________________________________ Mbsplugins_monkeybreadsoftware.info mailing list [email protected] https://ml01.ispgateway.de/mailman/listinfo/mbsplugins_monkeybreadsoftware.info
