On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 06:03:58 +0100, Martijn Sipkema wrote: > [...] > > > Perhaps you would reconsider having JACK use constant (frames) > > > callbacks? > > > > I think a better solution might be to buffer up enough samples so that > > jackd can provide a constant number of frames. > > I don't think that is a better solution. JACK should be close to the > hardware and deliver what the hardware is capable of. If a client needs > constant (frames) period, it can do the buffering itself.
Not without making the cpu load unpredictable. I think its a bad idea to life hard for (some) clients because of a few bad hardware designs. - Steve