On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:24:22 -0500 Dave Phillips <dlphillips@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Scott Ecker wrote: > > david wrote: > > > >> ... > >> > >> I see people on the list running much lower latencies than 64msec, and > >> seemingly trying to get even lower ... > >> > > > > You can't punch-in at 64ms and expect it to sound good. At 4ms it's > > seamless, literally. > > > > > Indeed. I think the ll issue is of real importance when recording. At 64 > ms multitrack recording/playback is a not very satisfying experience. > > Best, > > dp Having said that a cathedral organist has to cope with horrendous 'latency'. Partly due to the organ mechanics, but also due to the variable 'response time' of the choir! -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
