[ardour-users] Latency Trouble
philicorda at ntlworld.com
Wed Apr 7 13:57:10 PDT 2004
Christopher K. George wrote:
>I am running Ardour 0.11.2 on latest testing version of Debian using a low-
>latency patched kernel from Agnula. I compiled the latest versions of ALSA
>and JACK myself. I am running an Athlon 2600 with 500MB of RAM. I have a
>separate HD for recording audio that supports sustained data rates of 60MB/S
>according to hdparm -Tt. I am using an RME HDSP Multiface. I have assigned
>it IRQ 9 which is not shared with any other device. I have
>set /proc/sys/kernel/lowlatency to 1. I have disabled all services that I do
>not need. My week point may be running the latest testing version of X and
>I recently had to change mother boards. The old one had some issues plus I
>couldn't assign PCI IRQs. On the old system I had to use a frame size of
>8192 in order to avoid xruns. With this setting I was able to record eight
>tracks indefinetly. On the new MB I am able to function with a frame size of
>512. From the testing I have done so far, the system runs fine with that
>setting. I am starting jack as root with:
>jackd -R -d alsa -r 96000 -p 512.
>I can record all eight tracks with a frame size of 128 for a while, but then
>an xrun will happen.
>Any suggestions? I am getting along alright using hardware monitoring but
>would love to have some better latency.
>ardour-users-ardour.org mailing list
>ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
512 frames at 96k=5.3ms latency
128 frames at 96k=1.3ms latency
1.3ms is kinda pushing it. :) You could try xfce4 as a desktop, it's
quite lightweight compared to KDE. It also has a lot of features that
are lacking in a very minimal desktop like fluxbox/blackbox.
I suggest you try 256 frames as well, that should be low enough (2.6ms
or so latency at 96k) for monitoring.
More information about the Ardour-Users