Re: [Jack-Devel] Can't bring F/P below 128

On 12/31/2011 05:59 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Nikos Chantziaras<[hidden]>  wrote:
>
>> I do not record anything with the sound card.  I produce using software
>> synthesizers and samples that are recorded elsewhere.  This whole process
>> doesn't even touch the sound card, since it's rendered directly from the
>> software to a WAV file.  So quality isn't affected by the sound card at all.
>>   Only thing I need is fast response for my MIDI keyboard (software synths
>> also add quite a bit of latency, which is why I feel a difference between 5
>> and 2.6ms.)  And I only need 2 channels; only use stereo monitors.
>>
>> So a "professional" sound card is totally wasted here.  I just need it to be
>> low latency with JACK.
>
> you seem to be describing a process that seems a bit contradictory to
> me: on the one hand, you say "its rendered directly from the software
> to a .wav file", but then you later say "i need [] fast respond for my
> MIDI keyboard", and mention software synthesis, which to me implies
> that you want to listen to what you're playing on a MIDI keyboard.

That's just the real-time preview while compositing and arranging.  It 
has not effect on the final rendering which goes straight to disk.  I'm 
sure you used something like that before?


> now, if its true that you only ever do playback via the audio
> interface, and never accept audio input from it, then these design
> considerations are not as important. but do you really want to buy a
> device for doing musical stuff and then later find out that your
> ability to process incoming audio (note that i did not say
> "recording") is compromised by its inferior technical design?

A) I do not have any kind of incoming audio (not even when talking on 
Skype; I have a USB mic.)

B) I don't have the money for a pro card, which means I have to find 
something affordable that suits my requirement.


> also, if you really believe you can tell the difference between 5 and
> 2.6msec, i suggest you try that in a double blind test sometime.
> unless you're in the upper echelon of time-sensitive humans, my guess
> is that you won't reliably be able to say which one is in use. I'm
> guessing you're already aware that the air distance between you and
> your monitors is probably adding 3msec of latency compared to when you
> wear headphones ...

My theory is that the 2.6ms just bring the overall down.  Might be 
something like 10ms total. If it gets down to 7ms, that's a difference 
that can be felt.

I sort of did double blind tests by accident.  Brought up the whole 
stack with the 5.33ms target by mistake.  I felt something was off, 
especially when playing sixteenths at over 140bpm.  This happened a few 
times.

1325348116.4143_0.ltw:2,a <jdncdr$rem$1 at dough dot gmane dot org>