[LAU] latency and hardware monitoring

Jesse Chappell jesse at essej.net
Sat Aug 15 21:52:40 EDT 2009

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Brent Busby<brent at keycorner.org> wrote:

> ...does latency even matter?  Is there any reason I need to shoot for
> low latency at all if the card is providing its own monitoring functions
> in hardware?  Is there any other benefit in Ardour, Linuxsampler, or
> anywhere else really, to having <5ms latency in Jack?  Just
> wondering...I've been seeing a lot of posts online implying that it's
> just a matter of making laying down new tracks over existing material
> seem less lagged.

If you are recording software instruments played live, or you need to
hear any in-line software effects on your live playing while
monitoring, those are the kinds of situations where running with small
buffers (low-latency) is really needed.  So if you are playing
LinuxSampler live from a keyboard when recording, you will probably
start feeling uncomfortable with high latency, but it all depends on
the instrument, style and person where the breaking point is.

If you're recording from mics, hardware instruments, etc, then by all
means lighten the CPU load by cranking up your buffer sizes.  Most
good recording software (including Ardour) does proper latency
compensation to get your tracks lined up correctly regardless of your
buffer sizes.  You can even get away with using SW reverb added to the
monitoring mix since latency isn't as big deal for such an effect
(with the proper settings).


More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list