[LAU] Basic question about use of a lowlatency kernel

[david]

On 02/19/2013 09:25 AM, Jeff Sandys wrote:
>> From: jonetsu at teksavvy.com
>>
>> If a better response time from the kernel is something that's Good, why
>> isn't lowlatency kernels a default in Linux distros (well, at least in
>> Linux Mint and Fedora)  If it is So Good, what are the arguments for not
>> having a lowlatency kernel by default ?  Any drawbacks ?  I presume the
>> Audio-oriented Linux distros do have lowlatency kernels by default, do
>> they ?
>>
>
> The Fedora Musicians Guide has a good topic on Real-Time and Low-Latency:
>
> http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/Musicians_Guide/chap-Musicians_Guide-Real_Time_and_Low_Latency.html
>
> My understanding:
> * A Real-Time kernel will give you more consistent, reliable latency.
>     - But not necessarily lower latency
> * Useful, proven, RT features migrate into the main kernel.
>     - So use the RT patches to test and prove them.
> * Current main kernels give reasonable performance for most musicians.
>     - Your mileage may vary, if you get some annoying x-runs use the RT patch.
>     - Sound travels ~1 foot per millisecond, 8 feet from the speaker =
> 8ms latency

So what's the latency for headphones?

-- 
David
gnome at hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/