3 ms·
IANA neuroscientist but it seems reasonable that the brain will fix up small errors. It has to anyway, because it has its own input latency. Besides, the articl
by shub 12y ago
IANA neuroscientist but it seems reasonable that the brain will fix up small errors. It has to anyway, because it has its own input latency. Besides, the article is referring to discrepancies between multiple audio tracks, which don't depend on vision at all.
For a real-world example, listen to 2 TVs several meters apart and tuned to the same channel. At least with OTA or cable you can expect them to be playing ~simultaneously but the skew between the received signals is easily perceptible.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago>Besides, the article is referring to discrepancies between multiple audio tracks, which don't depend on vision at all. They do depend upon vision or touch if it is an interactive app. >For a real-world example, listen to 2 TVs several meters apart and tuned to the same channel. At least with OTA or cable you can expect them to be playing ~simultaneously but the skew between the received signals is easily perceptible. I believe what you're experiencing is the difference in decoding latency between different models of TV set. Several meters (3m) represents only about ~9ns (practically, low tens of ns if the cables are longer than necessary) maximum delay. It would not be directly perceptible by a person. Signal delay in a cable is ~1ns/ft.
- Dylan16807 12y ago>They do depend upon vision or touch if it is an interactive app. Discrepancies between tracks are totally unrelated to the visuals. It's much easier to tell if two sounds are synced than a sound and a visual. > Signal delay in a cable I don't know what comment you read but it's not the one you replied to. Same model, synchronized visuals, easy to hear audio desync when you're closer to one.