3 ms·
I am not sure if ALSA playback should go through an audio daemon. Some audio applications (for example audio workstations that you have mentioned) want to have
by codedokode 5y ago
I am not sure if ALSA playback should go through an audio daemon. Some audio applications (for example audio workstations that you have mentioned) want to have exclusive access to an audio card with minimum latency, without any sample conversions, any volume adjustment and ALSA (as I understand) was supposed to provide such access. Audio daemon prevents them from getting it. Passing data through a daemon adds latency.
Wouldn't it be better if daemons like PulseAudio or PipeWire gave control of an audio card to an application that wants exclusive access?
For example, Windows API can provide exclusive access to an audio card.
- keithwinstein 5y agoYes, PulseAudio and JACK do this as well -- there is a DBus API that makes them give up an ALSA device to an application that wants direct access. http://git.0pointer.net/reserve.git/tree/reserve.txt http://git.0pointer.net/reserve.git/tree/reserve.txt
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago> Passing data through a daemon adds latency This is not necessarily true. Using JACK adds no latency, for example.
- jcelerier 5y agowasn't there something with jack2's async mode (which is the default) adding an additional safety buffer though ? edit: https://github.com/jackaudio/jackaudio.github.com/issues/138 https://github.com/jackaudio/jackaudio.github.com/issues/138
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoYes, JACK2 in async mode will add 1 buffer's worth of latency. But that's only for async mode; sync mode or JACK1 adds zero latency.