Thanks to everyone who has replied to this question - your responses have already been very helpful! Especially the reports of latency that you've measured on various systems. Could anyone else who has measured latency (just an impulse or something through adc~ -> dac~) let me know what their system setup was (hw, os, etc..), and the corresponding latency? (if you want to send just to me I can compile a summary and post it to the list)
Also, if anyone has experience wiht specific usb or pcmcia solutions that could dramatically improve latency I'd love to hear about them. thanks, -DM
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I used to have a ThinkPad running Win2k and the built-in audio never did better than 300ms latency no matter what I did. I think you'll have to get a USB or pcmcia soundcard to get good performance.
.hc
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Matthew Allen wrote:
And here I guess would be the problem with windows.
I get much, much better performance with windows 2k than I ever did with win98 (I keep up to date on all service packs and updates). Latency for me has always depended on the soundcard and the drivers, so for the original post, my initial reaction would be to look at the built in soundcard on the laptop. Make sure your Bios is completely up to date for your machine. To be honest though I'm not sure you are going to be able to get an acceptable latency with the built in sound. You may want to look at other laptop sound options.
m.
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Lundén [mailto:plu@tii.se] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 7:46 AM To: dmerrill@media.mit.edu Cc: pd-list@iem.kug.ac.at Subject: Re: [PD] windows 2000 latency?
My expericen is that Win 2000 is the worst version window when it comes to latency. Win XP is much better or even Win98.2 has better performance.
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
zen
\[D[D[D[D
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list