Mixxx

Bug #1172299
Comment #13

Comment 13 for bug 1172299

Revision history for this message

RJ Skerry-Ryan (rryan) wrote on 2013-04-28: Re: [Bug 1172299] Re: Jack Audio Connection Kit Implementation Does not Follow Normal Behaviour

#13

Hey DJ_Barney

Sorry if it seems like were ignoring your input :). A lot of us know JACK
quite well and do appreciate that it's a great paradigm to deal with audio
routing. I have used the JACK API a lot in other projects. We're just
trying to figure out what makes the most sense for mixxx architecturally
and project-wise.

Unfortunately we must figure out a nice way to deal with audio routing for
all of our users on windows mac and Linux. So whatever solution we come up
with will basically require cramming two different paradigms into one
backend and one UI. (I know JACK is cross platform but I have never heard
from a single user on windows or Mac that use it). Mixxx has to be "full
stack" so that anyone can just install it and get going with nothing else.

I have to agree with you Daniel that portaudio is not likely to want to put
in the effort. That said, before we go and do this work we should start a
discussion with Ross about it. I don't want to do it only to learn they
would have been happy to accommodate us. Code is a liability and I am just
trying to minimize our SLOC count because that is the easiest way to have
fewer bugs ;).

For example, pulseaudio support in portaudio is a much better place for it
than to make a pulseaudio sound device in Mixxx.
On Apr 28, 2013 8:30 AM, "DJ_Barney" <email address hidden> wrote:

> 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 ?
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mixxx
> Development Team, which is subscribed to Mixxx.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1172299
>
> Title:
> Jack Audio Connection Kit Implementation Does not Follow Normal
> Behaviour
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/mixxx/+bug/1172299/+subscriptions
>

Hey DJ_Barney

Sorry if it seems like were ignoring your input :). A lot of us know JACK
quite well and do appreciate that it's a great paradigm to deal with audio
routing. I have used the JACK API a lot in other projects. We're just
trying to figure out what makes the most sense for mixxx architecturally
and project-wise.

Unfortunately we must figure out a nice way to deal with audio routing for
all of our users on windows mac and Linux. So whatever solution we come up
with will basically require cramming two different paradigms into one
backend and one UI. (I know JACK is cross platform but I have never heard
from a single user on windows or Mac that use it). Mixxx has to be "full
stack" so that anyone can just install it and get going with nothing else.

I have to agree with you Daniel that portaudio is not likely to want to put
in the effort. That said, before we go and do this work we should start a
discussion with Ross about it. I don't want to do it only to learn they
would have been happy to accommodate us. Code is a liability and I am just
trying to minimize our SLOC count because that is the easiest way to have
fewer bugs ;).

For example, pulseaudio support in portaudio is a much better place for it
than to make a pulseaudio sound device in Mixxx.
On Apr 28, 2013 8:30 AM, "DJ_Barney" <1172299@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:

> 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 ?
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mixxx
> Development Team, which is subscribed to Mixxx.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1172299
>
> Title:
>   Jack Audio Connection Kit Implementation Does not Follow Normal
>   Behaviour
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/mixxx/+bug/1172299/+subscriptions
>