I haven’t tried anything faster than 120Hz, but I think 240Hz is probably nice. Not because of the volume of frames per second but because of the latency. At 60

I haven’t tried anything faster than 120Hz, but I think 240Hz is probably nice. Not because of the volume of frames per second but because of the latency. At 60Hz there are 16⅔ milliseconds between frames, at 120Hz there are 8⅓ ms between frames, and at 240Hz it’s 4⅙ milliseconds. Does it make a difference? I think so: When working with music software, the difference between those latency numbers are very noticeable. Around 5ms you stop noticing the latency itself, but down around 2-3ms a new perceptual effect appears: It feels physically real. It’s perceived as a kind of heft or tautness. It’s quite clear when you’re playing a software synthesizer and turning knobs and try different buffer settings. The brain is capable of sensing the timing difference between touch and vision and sound if you change the delay of the stream of sound. I’m fairly sure the vision system would also allow for a difference in feel if we change the delay on the video stream. Of course, more frames per second isn’t the only way to do it. You can theoretically run at a lower framerate while simply always guaranteeing that the frames you do show are very very new.