+ There are three basic ways to approach monitoring:
-
+ When using external monitoring, 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.
+ 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. + +
+
Some sound cards have the ability - to mix signals from their inputs to their outputs with very low or even zero + to mix signals from their inputs to their outputs with very low or even zero latency, a feature called hardware monitoring. - Furthermore, on some cards this function can be controlled by JACK. This is a nice arrangement, + Furthermore, on some cards this function can be controlled by Ardour. 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. -
+ + +
+
With the software monitoring approach, all monitoring is - performed by Ardour — it makes track inputs available at track + 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. -
- -{% children %} + depends for the most part on the buffer size that is being used. +