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