- From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:29:35 -0700
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Cc: Stephen Band <stephband@cruncher.ch>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJK2wqV26qYOR19qGb5rufYhvLC5FtMrr9wTpLhhLt=XOPMFxw@mail.gmail.com>
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 investigate. 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> wrote: > 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