2 Nov
2003
2 Nov
'03
10:23 a.m.
Ivica Bukvic wrote:
The Keyboards magazine talked about 44.1kHz so my assumptions do seem
correct.
Of course if you increase the sample frequency the latency decreases
accordingly but
My question was whether or not Keyboards used the correct terminology.
Anyway I think they are probably fooled by RME itself because on their site
when they talk about latency they mean per-fragment latency while
probably people reading
the pages assume they talk about the total latency.
I think RME should be more specific on their pages in order to avoid
confusion.
Of course 1.5msec latency has a bigger marketing impact than 3msec, but
if afterwards
users figure out that the latency is twice the one they thought they
will not be that happy.
A simple "3msec total latency" or "3msec per fragment latency" would
clear up any doubts
and probably avoid the spreading of misinformation by keyboard magazines
journalists too.
If the RME's HDSP control does not correct the latency values when you
increase the sampling rate
I simply consider it a bug, users should report that to RME.
refering to "the best achievable latency" is crap and totally
unscientific and should be fixed
in the Windows GUI.
BTW: Is there a linux GUI too ? (I seem to remember that Paul D. once wrote
one for the old Hammerfall that looked like the Windows counterpart).
I hope that the Linux GUI displays the correct values.
Benno
http://www.linuxsampler.org
But the sample
rate *was* specified to 44.1 kHz in this case, wasn't
it...?
Well if you wanna get *technical* about it, the hdsp tools (which was in
the screenshot) on Windows reflects the same latency values regardless
of what sampling rate you use (they do not change their ms rating in
order to adjust to the changes in sampling rate -- see
http://meowing.ccm.uc.edu/~ico/hdsp.jpg), and the original question,
even though pointing at that particular screenshot did not necessarily
refer only to the 44.1kHz sampling rate, but rather to the best
achievable latency. In his case the original poster was right in both
assumptions: 128 bits x 2 could be either 1.5ms or 3ms depending upon
the sampling rate...
