Re: [LMMS-devel] 5.8 milliseconds audiobuffer

2014-01-27 Thread Vesa
On 01/27/2014 01:25 PM, Paul Wayper wrote: > On 27/01/14 15:46, Vesa wrote: > [lots of good stuff, finishing with] > > Listen, you probably mean well, but it's just not a good idea. We > > shouldn't waste limited resources on implementing something that only > > gives us a less efficient solution t

Re: [LMMS-devel] 5.8 milliseconds audiobuffer

2014-01-27 Thread Paul Wayper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 27/01/14 15:46, Vesa wrote: [lots of good stuff, finishing with] > Listen, you probably mean well, but it's just not a good idea. We > shouldn't waste limited resources on implementing something that only > gives us a less efficient solution than

Re: [LMMS-devel] 5.8 milliseconds audiobuffer

2014-01-26 Thread Vesa
On 01/27/2014 04:09 AM, Paul Wayper wrote: > On 26/01/14 18:26, Vesa wrote: > > > PulseAudio is horrible for latency, yes. You also have to do a special > > trick in order to enable direct ALSA playback, because PulseAudio is > kind > > of a dick and it will intercept your ALSA output otherwise, so

Re: [LMMS-devel] 5.8 milliseconds audiobuffer

2014-01-26 Thread Paul Wayper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 26/01/14 18:26, Vesa wrote: > > PulseAudio is horrible for latency, yes. You also have to do a special > trick in order to enable direct ALSA playback, because PulseAudio is kind > of a dick and it will intercept your ALSA output otherwise, so tha

Re: [LMMS-devel] 5.8 milliseconds audiobuffer

2014-01-25 Thread Vesa
On 01/26/2014 12:14 AM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote: > > Does XFCE use PulseAudio? Does Ubuntu Studio use PulseAudio? I don't > know much about what contributes to audio latency, but I wasn't under > the impression that a heavy/lightweight Desktop Manager had that much > of an influence. > > Most arti

Re: [LMMS-devel] 5.8 milliseconds audiobuffer

2014-01-25 Thread Israel
Wont the low-latency kernel also effect that? I have never really noticed much difference on the environments I use. I have used Xfce and LXDE and Unity on the same machine and have not noticed a difference. The kernel I use definitely changes things. Ubuntu Studio uses the low-latency kerne

Re: [LMMS-devel] 5.8 milliseconds audiobuffer

2014-01-25 Thread Tobiasz Karoń
Tres, Ubuntu Studio now uses Pulse Audio and JACK. I route PA to JACK. 2014-01-25 Tres Finocchiaro > Does XFCE use PulseAudio? Does Ubuntu Studio use PulseAudio? I don't > know much about what contributes to audio latency, but I wasn't under the > impression that a heavy/lightweight Desktop M

Re: [LMMS-devel] 5.8 milliseconds audiobuffer

2014-01-25 Thread Tres Finocchiaro
Does XFCE use PulseAudio? Does Ubuntu Studio use PulseAudio? I don't know much about what contributes to audio latency, but I wasn't under the impression that a heavy/lightweight Desktop Manager had that much of an influence. Most articles Ive read suggest PulseAudio causes terrible latency. Mo

Re: [LMMS-devel] 5.8 milliseconds audiobuffer

2014-01-25 Thread Tobiasz Karoń
Now I see why I have XFCE in Ubuntu Studio. 2014-01-25 Vesa > On 01/25/2014 02:13 PM, nsk wrote: > > Hi, everyone. > > Anyone know that LMMS in Xubuntu works well with a delay of 5.8 > > milliseconds? > > In Ubuntu it is just impossible. At least, without do upon. > > This is expected, as XFCE

Re: [LMMS-devel] 5.8 milliseconds audiobuffer

2014-01-25 Thread Vesa
On 01/25/2014 02:13 PM, nsk wrote: > Hi, everyone. > Anyone know that LMMS in Xubuntu works well with a delay of 5.8 > milliseconds? > In Ubuntu it is just impossible. At least, without do upon. This is expected, as XFCE is currently the desktop with the smallest overhead.

[LMMS-devel] 5.8 milliseconds audiobuffer

2014-01-25 Thread nsk
Hi, everyone. Anyone know that LMMS in Xubuntu works well with a delay of 5.8 milliseconds? In Ubuntu it is just impossible. At least, without do upon. -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn