Hi All,

In regards to the general issues with PortAudio all around, I'm curious
why we're using v19 versus v18-patch (I've forgotten why now).  

Thanks,
steven

On Thu, 13 May 2004, stevenyi wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> In regards to the general issues with PortAudio all around, I'm curious
> why we're using v19 versus v18-patch (I've forgotten why now).  
> 
> Thanks, steven

I think it was because we understood that v19 was the future and it was 
not worth the time to design/build for what would be an out-of-date API by 
the time we were done.  Against that I did have a "working" PAv18 system, 
but it was not very nice, and I never tried to push it hard.

I still think that v19 is the correct decision; it is takig longer than I 
hoped, but I still believe in it.

==John ff

I have been wondering about this myself.  v19 has had very poor (or
non-existent) support for several platforms/audio drivers, so far.
(Although this may be improving ?)

I haven't tried either v18 or v19 primarily because Csound5 is supposed to
use v19 and that version does not work on MacOS (9) yet.  So I don't pretend
to speak authoritatively, but it is beginning to look to me that unless we
decide to complete PortAudio v19 ourselves, Csound5 will likely be delayed
for some platforms.  (Or at least real-time support will be).

Can anyone here who watches the PortAudio mailing list gauge how quickly
progress is being made?
 
Anthony Kozar
anthony.kozar@utoledo.edu


On 5/14/04 1:34 AM, John ffitch etched in stone:

> On Thu, 13 May 2004, stevenyi wrote:
> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> In regards to the general issues with PortAudio all around, I'm curious
>> why we're using v19 versus v18-patch (I've forgotten why now).
>> 
>> Thanks, steven
> 
> I think it was because we understood that v19 was the future and it was
> not worth the time to design/build for what would be an out-of-date API by
> the time we were done.  Against that I did have a "working" PAv18 system,
> but it was not very nice, and I never tried to push it hard.
> 
> I still think that v19 is the correct decision; it is takig longer than I
> hoped, but I still believe in it.
> 
> ==John ff
> 

The crucial advance in v19 is the ability to support more than one driver model 
within an application, e.g. both ASIO and DirectSound, or both ASIO and 
CoreAudio/HAL on OS X. Not all these platforms are at equal stages of support, 
but I do get the impression they are all progressing.

If we stayed with v18 we would have to build separate versions of Csound for 
ASIO, DirectSound and CoreAUdio, etc.

The more contributors there are to PortAudio v19, the sooner it will be 
complete. Ross Bencina (authot of AudioMulch) makes the point that much of the 
stuff that remains to be done is "vey simple"; but the primary developers on 
each platform are very "time limited".


Richard Dobson

Anthony Kozar wrote:
> I have been wondering about this myself.  v19 has had very poor (or
> non-existent) support for several platforms/audio drivers, so far.
> (Although this may be improving ?)
> 
> I haven't tried either v18 or v19 primarily because Csound5 is supposed to
> use v19 and that version does not work on MacOS (9) yet.  So I don't pretend
> to speak authoritatively, but it is beginning to look to me that unless we
> decide to complete PortAudio v19 ourselves, Csound5 will likely be delayed
> for some platforms.  (Or at least real-time support will be).
> 
> Can anyone here who watches the PortAudio mailing list gauge how quickly
> progress is being made?
>  
> Anthony Kozar
> anthony.kozar@utoledo.edu
> 
>