2009/12/16 david <gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > I didn't say I thought 64msec was fine, but that it works and I was just > wondering what value going lower would be. Yes of course - no problem. 2009/12/16 Arnold Krille <arnold@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tuesday 15 December 2009 22:37:53 Dan S wrote: >> If you think 64ms is fine then you're probably not doing live >> beatboxing processing ;). For percussive sounds especially, the >> latency is immediately obvious to a live musician - for many >> performers a high latency also manifests in a tendency to slow your >> tempo down (lagging your performance to keep in sync with the lagged >> output)... > > So if you know your sound has a (constant) delay before its heard, why don't > you anticipate for that and just make your sound earlier? > It works, for centuries organists have done so. 2009/12/16 david <gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > When performing live, *when* I hear a sound is much more important than > when it originated. I think a musician's brain/neural processing quickly > picks up the various latencies (distance between the different > musicians) and adjusts quite well. Yes, I've performed in latent environments too and I know how it feels to adjust to the latency and play the music in time. But it can interfere with the flow especially of fast-and-improvised music in my experience (personally and observing other beatboxers). So that's why, for my kind of music performance, I find low latency to be important. The more general point I made was that latencies tend to cause performers to slow down. ``Chafe et al. measured the effect on ensemble tempo for a simple rhythmic task when performers were separated by various latencies (as in wide-area networking); they found significant deterioration around 20 ms one-way latency (Chafe, et al. 2004)'' (quote is from Wright 2004) Dan _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
