This repository was archived by the owner on Jun 13, 2025. It is now read-only.
-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 278
Use target latency in all send modes #927
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm late at the party, but why this latency has been lowered? In my setup I have to raise it to 0.2 since it really depend on everyone's setup, and especially for old-computers this value could cause a lot of late messages.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just to be sure, is your comment based on before or after the change to use Ableton Link for scheduling?
To avoid late messages, cProcessAhead can be adjusted. It's current value
3/10instructs Tidal to schedule events when they are 300ms away on the Link timeline.oLatency adjusts how much time SuperDirt needs for sound synthesis. A higher value will start the synthesis earlier. A higher oLatency requires a higher value for cProcessAhead if we want to avoid late messages.
It would be great to have a report from different people to learn what settings they use. That input could help us set better defaults. Since scheduling has changed significantly, I did not trust the old values and thus changed them to fit my setup. My thinking was that it's better to have values that have been tested with the new scheduling than to stick to the old values.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Before, didn't have the chance to try the new scheduler...
I always thought (and it always behave in the way...) that the
oLatencyvalue is added to the timestamp that's sent to superdirt to trigger the sounds, and when I set it under 0.2 late messages start to appear.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You are correct about the old behaviour @ndr-brt! I hope to make a technical writeup about the new behaviour in early fall as part of the documentation that needs to be added. cProcessAhead achieves the same effect but in a different way, while oLatency is now only useful for alignment on the Link timeline.