> > [...] > > > > 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.
Is that so? And why is it that JACK can and a client cannot? > I think its a bad idea to life hard for (some) clients because of a few > bad hardware designs. Hardly a few. And not even necessarily bad. --ms