35 lines
1.6 KiB
HTML
35 lines
1.6 KiB
HTML
|
|
<p>There are three basic ways to approach monitoring: </p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>External Monitoring</h3>
|
|
<img class="right"
|
|
src="/images/external-monitoring.png" />
|
|
<p>When using <dfn>external monitoring</dfn>, Ardour plays no role in
|
|
monitoring at all. Perhaps the recording set-up has an external mixer which
|
|
can be used to set up monitor mixes, or perhaps the sound-card being used
|
|
has a "listen to the input" feature. This approach yields zero or near-zero
|
|
latency. On the other hand it requires external hardware, and the monitoring
|
|
settings are less flexible and not saved with the session.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>JACK-Based Hardware Monitoring</h3>
|
|
<img class="right" src="/images/jack-monitoring.png" />
|
|
<p>Some sound cards have the ability
|
|
to mix signals from their inputs to their outputs with very low or even zero
|
|
latency, a feature called <dfn>hardware monitoring</dfn>.
|
|
Furthermore, on some cards this function can be controlled by JACK. This is a nice arrangement,
|
|
if the sound card supports it, as it combines the convenience of having the
|
|
monitoring controlled by Ardour with the low latency operation of doing it
|
|
externally.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Software Monitoring</h3>
|
|
<img class="right" src="/images/ardour-monitoring.png" />
|
|
<p>With the <dfn>software monitoring</dfn> approach, all monitoring is
|
|
performed by Ardour—it makes track inputs available at track
|
|
outputs, governed by various controls. This approach will almost always have
|
|
more routing flexibility than JACK-based monitoring. The disadvantage is
|
|
that there will be some latency between the input and the output, which
|
|
depends for the most part on the JACK buffer size that is being used.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|