[ardour-dev] Two jack servers? (One internal to Ardour)
Russell Hanaghan
hanaghan at starband.net
Sun Dec 12 02:09:30 PST 2004
Mark Knecht wrote:
>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.
>
>
Perhaps a tiered or categorized set of windows for client, app and jack
connects? I agree with Mark; although the fuctionality of qjackconnect
and Qjackctl are awesome, once one starts adding lots of connections,
they do get very cluttered.
R~
>Hope you're having a nice Sunday,
>Mark
>_______________________________________________
>ardour-dev mailing list
>ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
>http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour.org
>
>
>
More information about the Ardour-Dev
mailing list