<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Jamie Bullock <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jamie@postlude.co.uk">jamie@postlude.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
OK, just tried my Edirol FA-66 firewire interface. CPU does indeed drop to 12%.<br></div>
<br>
Still that's a ridiculous overhead for simply talking to the audio hardware.<br>
<div><br></div></blockquote><div><br>A profile would show that the DSP functions are no longer taking CPU time. The remaining 10% is the blocking.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"> Does that mean that Mathieu was wrong earlier about the PABLIO interface not causing any significant overhead?<br></div></blockquote><div><br>I don't know much about PortAudio and PABLIO. The blocking call probably does come from how Pd uses PA.<br>
</div><font color="#888888"><br></font></div>