17 Dec
2009
17 Dec
'09
12:40 p.m.
2009/12/16 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>om>:
I didn't say I thought 64msec was fine, but that
it works and I was just
wondering what value going lower would be.
Yes of course - no problem.
2009/12/16 Arnold Krille <arnold(a)arnoldarts.de>de>:
On Tuesday 15 December 2009 22:37:53 Dan S wrote:
2009/12/16 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>om>:
If you think 64ms is fine then you're
probably not doing live
beatboxing processing ;). For percussive sounds especially, the
latency is immediately obvious to a live musician - for many
performers a high latency also manifests in a tendency to slow your
tempo down (lagging your performance to keep in sync with the lagged
output)...
So if you know your sound has a (constant) delay before its heard, why don't
you anticipate for that and just make your sound earlier?
It works, for centuries organists have done so. When performing live, *when* I hear a sound is much
more important than
when it originated. I think a musician's brain/neural processing quickly
picks up the various latencies (distance between the different
musicians) and adjusts quite well.
Yes, I've performed in latent environments too and I know how it feels
to adjust to the latency and play the music in time. But it can
interfere with the flow especially of fast-and-improvised music in my
experience (personally and observing other beatboxers). So that's why,
for my kind of music performance, I find low latency to be important.
The more general point I made was that latencies tend to cause
performers to slow down. ``Chafe et al. measured the effect on
ensemble tempo for a simple rhythmic task when performers were
separated by various latencies (as in wide-area networking); they
found significant deterioration around 20 ms one-way latency (Chafe,
et al. 2004)'' (quote is from Wright 2004)
Dan