W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Round Trip Latency test

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:29:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqV26qYOR19qGb5rufYhvLC5FtMrr9wTpLhhLt=XOPMFxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Cc: Stephen Band <stephband@cruncher.ch>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
Hey Stephen,
do you have an un-minimized version of your code?  I can't understand how
you're accounting for the inherent ScriptProcessor latency.  I also didn't
see a clear 2x drop when I doubled my sample rate, which I wanted to

The design of the Web Audio API was intended to provide low-latency in
audio; realistically, <10ms is hard to do without an optimized audio path
*and* a high sample rate.  (A single 128-sample block at 44.1kHz is just
under 3ms.  If you're hopping process boundaries, and you usually are,
you'll need to double-buffer.  That's 6ms.  The input has the same
buffering - so you're up to 12ms.  And that's an idealized path...)  This
is why even pro audio hardware frequently has a "direct pass-through"... :)

On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>

> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Stephen Band <stephband@cruncher.ch>
> wrote:
>> It's nothing to do with the UI really.
> I understand that this wasn't in any way a test of UI, but in terms of the
> goal of reducing latency, I'd have assumed that being able to match UI
> closely (in response to input, e.g.) would be a goal and impls are some
> distance of that (although we also have bad delay in touch inputs for
> various reasons that are boring).
>> You're doing well if you get less than 40ms out of a standard sound card,
>> but if you use a good external audio interface you could see as low as 5ms.
>> Above 15-20ms is when the ear starts to hear two distinct sounds,
>> although it can be uncomfortable to sing and monitor with a latency of
>> >10ms.
> Thanks for the context.
>> So I would say a good latency would be <10ms. But good luck getting there
>> :)
> Looks like we're gonna need it = )
>>  On 30 Aug 2014 21:21, "Alex Russell" <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote:
>>> What's a "good" number for this? I'm assuming less than a UI frame
>>> (16ms) is preferred? I'm seeing ~50ms on Chrome Dev/OS X/MBP and FF doesn't
>>> seem to detect all of the signals in my view.
>>> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Stephen Band <stephband@cruncher.ch>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In case someone should find it useful, here's a round-trip latency
>>>> tester:
>>>> https://sound.io/latency/
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 20:30:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:14 UTC