On 02/19/2013 09:25 AM, Jeff Sandys wrote:
>> From: jonetsu@email-addr-hidden
>>
>> If a better response time from the kernel is something that's Good, why
>> isn't lowlatency kernels a default in Linux distros (well, at least in
>> Linux Mint and Fedora) If it is So Good, what are the arguments for not
>> having a lowlatency kernel by default ? Any drawbacks ? I presume the
>> Audio-oriented Linux distros do have lowlatency kernels by default, do
>> they ?
>>
>
> The Fedora Musicians Guide has a good topic on Real-Time and Low-Latency:
>
> http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/Musicians_Guide/chap-Musicians_Guide-Real_Time_and_Low_Latency.html
>
> My understanding:
> * A Real-Time kernel will give you more consistent, reliable latency.
> - But not necessarily lower latency
> * Useful, proven, RT features migrate into the main kernel.
> - So use the RT patches to test and prove them.
> * Current main kernels give reasonable performance for most musicians.
> - Your mileage may vary, if you get some annoying x-runs use the RT patch.
> - Sound travels ~1 foot per millisecond, 8 feet from the speaker =
> 8ms latency
So what's the latency for headphones?
-- David gnome@email-addr-hidden authenticity, honesty, community http://clanjones.org/david/ http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/ _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-userReceived on Wed Feb 20 12:15:06 2013
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 20 2013 - 12:15:06 EET