On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:22:20 -0700 (PDT), Len Ovens wrote: >On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Joe Hartley wrote: > >> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:17:29 +0200 >> Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> For professional hard disc recording OTOH it's >>> completely irrelevant as long as you aren't doing software >>> monitoring with your onboard audio for "Professional audio". >> >> Isn't it important when overdubbing? > >no :) Btw. I give up and don't continue editing the Wiki. Maybe, just maybe, I'll add a note that more important than the lowest possible latency for at least HDD recording is good latency compensation. Some apps providing HDD recording don't provide latency compensation at all and/or if you change the frames, the already recorded tracks don't fit anymore to the changed latency. Did somebody read the Wiki or is it just bikeshedding to discuss the details of lowest possible latency? I like low latency a lot, but I always thought that a good tuned audio production environment is a chain of well considered tuning, where super low latency is not the first point you mention. I would expect this from advertisings to sell pro-sumer gear. What about 1000Hz and the other questions? No opinions? Regards, Ralf -- "Michael" described Floyd as "an idiot savant", and added, "Give him any two numbers, and he can multiply them in his head, just like that." Homer, testing Floyd, said, "Five times nine", and Floyd instantly responded "Forty-five", which impressed Homer. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
