[ardour-users] Re: [ardour-dev] Latency: AGP vs PCI video card and XFS journalling vs not
eviltwin69 at cableone.net
Mon Feb 23 11:10:13 PST 2004
The problem with monitoring with effects is that the effects eat up a
good bit of processing power. You could run the output of the card into
a mixer with either built-in effects or an effects processor hooked up.
On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 12:41, Eric wrote:
> I know I can do hardware monitoring and therefore set the sample size
> high, but I would like to be able to monitor with some effects. Has
> anyone ever been able to do this at reasonable latency?
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 07:30:22AM -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 03:10, Tommi Sakari Uimonen wrote:
> > >
> > > For recording purposes, "write as much as possible, as fast as possible",
> > > (so no reading other tracks at the same time, just writing) I found ext2
> > > to be fastest (ext3,reiserfs were included in the test), since it doesn't
> > > spend time journaling.
> > >
> > With a Delta 66 you don't need a small sample size which helps with the
> > first part. I have to disagree with the ext2 part. Check out Mark
> > Knecht's filesystem tests on my page
> > (http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/Arcana.html). He used Benno's
> > latency test for his comparison. I use Reiser and I get fewer xruns
> > than I did with ext2 or ext3.
> > Jan
> ardour-dev mailing list
> ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
More information about the Ardour-Users