Re: [LAU] Use of 96 kHz sample rate to lower latency

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Bill Gribble <grib@...>
Cc: Linux Audio User <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Thursday, January 2, 2014 - 12:27 pm

--001a11c39e22ac90b304eefbe8e0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Bill Gribble wrote:

changing nothing else, will improve the lowest reliable latency of a system?

The question here isn't really about lowest reliable latency, but reducing
latency by changing samplerate. Reliable latency is a totally different
question which indeed involves system tuning, RT kernels, IRQ threading &
priority etc.

You'll know this but for completeness, a simple example:
Keeping the "number of buffers" and "frames per buffer" constant,
increasing the samplerate will reduce latency purely because the number of
sames represents less time at the higher sample rate.

64 x 2 @ 48kHz = 2.67msec
64 x 2 @ 96kHz = 1.33msec
=> Doubling the samplerate halves the latency

Cheers, -Harry

--001a11c39e22ac90b304eefbe8e0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Bill Gribble <grib@billgribble.com> wrote:> How is there any way at all that increasing the sampling rate, and ch=
anging nothing else, will improve the lowest reliable latency of a system?<=
br>
The question here isn't really about lowest reliable latency,=
but reducing latency by changing samplerate. Reliable latency is a totally=
different question which indeed involves system tuning, RT kernels, IRQ th=
reading & priority etc.
You'll know this but for completeness, a simple example:Ke=
eping the "number of buffers" and "frames per buffer" c=
onstant, increasing the samplerate will reduce latency purely because the n=
umber of sames represents less time at the higher sample rate.
64 x 2 @ 48kHz =3D 2.67msec64 x 2 @ 96kHz =3D 1.33msec=3D> D=
oubling the samplerate halves the latencyCheers, -Harry

--001a11c39e22ac90b304eefbe8e0--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] Use of 96 kHz sample rate to lower latency, Joel Roth, (Wed Jan 1, 1:21 pm)
Re: [LAU] Use of 96 kHz sample rate to lower latency, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Jan 1, 7:48 pm)
Re: [LAU] Use of 96 kHz sample rate to lower latency, Harry van Haaren, (Wed Jan 1, 9:33 pm)
Re: [LAU] Use of 96 kHz sample rate to lower latency, Harry van Haaren, (Wed Jan 1, 1:56 pm)
Re: [LAU] Use of 96 kHz sample rate to lower latency, Bill Gribble, (Thu Jan 2, 11:50 am)
Re: [LAU] Use of 96 kHz sample rate to lower latency, Harry van Haaren, (Thu Jan 2, 12:27 pm)
Re: [LAU] Use of 96 kHz sample rate to lower latency, Bill Gribble, (Thu Jan 2, 1:31 pm)
Re: [LAU] Use of 96 kHz sample rate to lower latency, Ralf Mardorf, (Wed Jan 1, 5:18 pm)