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 - 2:06 pm

--089e016348ceefb03e04eefd4d1a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Bill Gribble wrote:

> Wait a minute. This discussion is making my head spin! How is there any

Fons' point, which I believe started this, was that the latency caused by
A/D and D/A converters is reduced (or can be reduced) when using a higher
SR. Nothing more. When you're already using very small buffer sizes at the
CPU level, reducing these additional delays in the analog conversion
process can be signficant.

There is an additional point that some devices cannot be configured to use
a buffer size below a given value, and so even if you system could handle
the lower latency setting, the only way to get there is to double the SR.

--089e016348ceefb03e04eefd4d1a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Bill Gribble <=
grib@billgribble.=
com
> wrote:
Wait a minute. =A0This discussion is making =
my head spin! =A0How is there any way at all that increasing the sampling r=
ate, and changing nothing else, will improve the lowest reliable latency of=
a system?
Fons' point, which I believe started t=
his, was that the latency caused by A/D and D/A converters is reduced (or c=
an be reduced) when using a higher SR. Nothing more. When you're alread=
y using very small buffer sizes at the CPU level, reducing these additional=
delays in the analog conversion process can be signficant.
There is an additional point that some devices cannot be con=
figured to use a buffer size below a given value, and so even if you system=
could handle the lower latency setting, the only way to get there is to do=
uble the SR.

--089e016348ceefb03e04eefd4d1a--

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, Paul Davis, (Thu Jan 2, 2:06 pm)
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)