[LAU] Value of low-latency in audio?

[Folderol]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:24:22 -0500
Dave Phillips <dlphillips at woh.rr.com> wrote:

> Scott Ecker wrote:
> > david wrote:
> >   
> >> ...
> >>
> >> I see people on the list running much lower latencies than 64msec, and 
> >> seemingly trying to get even lower ...
> >>     
> >
> > You can't punch-in at 64ms and expect it to sound good.  At 4ms it's
> > seamless, literally.
> >
> >   
> Indeed. I think the ll issue is of real importance when recording. At 64 
> ms multitrack recording/playback is a not very satisfying experience.
> 
> Best,
> 
> dp

Having said that a cathedral organist has to cope with horrendous
'latency'. Partly due to the organ mechanics, but also due to the
variable 'response time' of the choir!

-- 
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.