Re: soundflower vs audioreflector
Re: soundflower vs audioreflector
- Subject: Re: soundflower vs audioreflector
- From: Jeff Moore <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:37:25 -0700
The AudioReflectorDriver's main purpose in life is to be sample code illustrating how to write a kernel-based audio driver. So, if you are looking to start writing a driver, it is a fine choice for a starting point. It is probably less suited to other purposes.
That said, the code is supposed to do what it says it does and do it without glitching. So, it's probably worth filing a bug about any glitching you've had with it.
--
Jeff Moore
Core Audio
Apple
On Aug 3, 2010, at 11:09 PM, Iain McCowan wrote:
> Can anyone comment on the relative technical (not licensing) merits of using Soundflower or the Apple AudioReflectorDriver in a project, in terms of stability, latency, timing accuracy, etc?
>
> I expected Soundflower might be the better one as a more significant project, but then thought perhaps the AudioReflectorDriver sample would be simpler and be better with the latest SDKs as the Apple team updated it last year.
>
> I have done some tests myself and seem to periodically get some brief noises when using the ReflectorDriver, possibly related to timing issues. The build of Soundflower I have seems to sound cleaner than this over a long period, at least on my macbook running 10.6.4.
>
> But on the Soundflower Google Code project I note a few recent issues have been logged with not so much activity in response.
>
> Anyone have a strong opinion or advice regarding this?
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Coreaudio-api mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden