Comment 12 for bug 1172299

Appreciate you comments, but, respectfully, I don't think you’re right about Jack being a "wrapper". I think you’re thinking of Jack as a traditional sound output API. It is very different from that, and could bring a lot of power to Mixxx if the devs decided to go that way. For example looks at JackEQ - http://djcj.org/jackeq/ - for something that Mixxx could be doing, although I realise that may not be in the goals that Mixxx has. As a user of Jack who (I think) has understood its revolutionary nature, I probably need to put something in a document for the Mixxx team to help clear up some of the confusion (?) here. Would that be a Blueprint or proposal of some kind ?