- From: Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:11:29 -0400
- To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Stephen Band <stephband@cruncher.ch>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <C46642EA-6A8A-4A7E-A4AF-A9459574EDEA@noteflight.com>
For what it’s worth, a contact in the pro audio software world assures me that two buffers’ worth of latency (= 256 samples at 44.1 = ~6 ms) is pretty much the standard for professional DAWs these days. There is always an assumption inside DAWs of the need to hop process boundaries: multithreading is a bigger win than further, imperceptible decreases in latency past two buffers’ worth. This probably excludes any latency in the low level audio I/O pipeline — it’s just intra-DAW latency. …Joe On Sep 2, 2014, at 4:29 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote: > 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/ > > > > > . . . . . ...Joe Joe Berkovitz President Noteflight LLC Boston, Mass. phone: +1 978 314 6271 www.noteflight.com "Your music, everywhere"
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 15:12:00 UTC