] [Thread Prev
RE: laptop audio I/O hardware
> From: Rainer Thelonius Balthasar Straschill
> say you have a fixed computer system (same installation, same
> application), and use two different interfaces. Then you reduce
> the latency (of the driver, as you point out) up to the point
> where you get artifacts. If the setting of one interface is
> considerably lower than that of the other one, it's in my eyes
> safe to say that "the interface has lower latency"
True. My claim is that this is usually not the case for most mid to
high range audio interfaces designed for musicians. If they're both
using the same physical interface (USB, FW, PCI) and there is still a
big difference in the lowest buffer size, it means the device driver
is poorly written. It isn't that hard to write an ASIO device driver.
If there is a problem in a driver, it tends to get fixed quickly because
this is a very competitive market.
> From: Jeff Kaiser [mailto:email@example.com]
> But I can honestly state my experience, which is, and remains:
> On the same system, same settings, same software: latency is
> different between the m-audio I used and the motu.
This can only be because the buffer sizes were different. Did you
specifically set the ASIO buffer sizes (or whatever the equivalent is
on the Mac) after swapping devices? Installing a new audio device can
sometimes change the default ASIO buffer size. Some drivers may be
more conservative than others. If you had never manually changed your
buffer size, then my belief is that the MOTU install lowered your
buffer size without you knowing it. This then wouldn't be a fair
comparison. You would have to return to the M-Audio with the new
lower buffer size and see if it works without clicks. If it does then
the latencies are effectively the same.
If you are claiming that the buffer sizes were the same and you can
detect the minute differences between the digital/analog converters,
well congratulations because you're one of the very few people
on the planet that can do that. :-)