[ardour-dev] Two jack servers? (One internal to Ardour)

[Mark Knecht]

On 12 Dec 2004 14:10:34 -0600, Jack O'Quin <joq at io.com> wrote:
> Mark Knecht <markknecht at gmail.com> writes:
> 
> 
> 
> >    I started wondering if it wouldn't be possible to have two separate
> > Jack servers? The first jack server would sync to the sound card and
> > Ardour would hook up stuff that actually goes outside of Ardour. I
> > think this is what most people would want to look at most of the time.
> >
> >    The second Jack server would be for all the internal stuff -
> > tracks, sends, masters, etc. This one would be private to Ardour so
> > that the other remained cleaner and more user friendly.
> >
> >    Is this even technically possible? (Although maybe not today...)
> > Even if it worked would it somehow have to increase latency? If so we
> > don't want it.
> 
> With current JACK CVS (soon to be released) it *is* possible to run
> two separate JACK servers.  *But*, that does not do at all what you
> want.  The two servers each use different, unsynchronized clock
> sources, so they would be totally useless for the purpose you
> describe.

This is what I thought. Even if it did work the way I was sort of
outlining, I wouldn't want to have an extra latency delay  as the
internal server handed data off to an external server wasting a cycle.

> 
> I hasten to set the record straight, because I fully expect many
> people to have unrealistic expectations for what multiple JACK servers
> can do.

Yep.

> 
> 
> 
> >    An alternative idea would be some way of marking Ardour's internal
> > connections in such a way that tools like QJC do not display them.
> > From my POV connections internal to Ardour should not be meddled with
> > in QJC, but I'm make so many connections in Ardour that QJC's
> > connections page is becoming a frustration instead of the tool it
> > usually is.
> >
> >    Again, just thinking aloud about how to make the tools and
> > environment more friendly.
> 
> Good idea.  Maybe Rui could give QJC an option to ignore connections
> from a client to itself.

I copied Rui on the first message thinking that this would be the
simplest solution. I'm not sure what the right answer is. Maybe there
are some internal connections you want to see, but I think most you
don't want. Maybe some button to display/hide connections from an app
to itself would give people the most flexibility.

Hope you're having a nice Sunday,
Mark