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