buffers

[Gabriel Maldonado]

What soundcard did you use when you obtained 20 ms of latency under
Win98? I'm very interested in PD, even if I find it more difficult to
use than Csound for the moment... However I promise myself I will study
it in depth in the future.
Best regards
-- 
Gabriel Maldonado

http://web.tiscalinet.it/G-Maldonado


Miller Puckette wrote:
> 
> Hi Marius,
> 
> I thought W98 did much better for latency than you described, more
> like 20 msec.  It might be that you have to specify a "-audiobuf" to
> tune it.  My W98 machine died (and my W98 CD too) so I can't check it
> any more...
> 
> cheers
> Miller
> 
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 09:04:37AM +0100, smedge wrote:
> > hi list.
> > im really wondering, if others have the same buffering-times that i
> > have, or if there is a way to change things.
> > i work on win95, my cpu is a 400mhz. i use a event "gina" sound card
> > (2in, 8out), but have also testet awe 64gold and pci128 soundblaster. my
> > lowest buffertime (to run in, out, midi and 44.1 khz was about 200 msec
> > (with the pci128!). on all lower buffers windows is closing the audio
> > devices.
> > this weekend i watched msp on the mac, which was running on G3 350mhz,
> > which has a buffer of 256 samples (or even lower).
> > is windows unable to have the same performance??? (which results do you
> > get with NT or linux?)
> > or is it the soundcard the problem.
> > tricks? or treat...
> > marius.