3 ms·
If you've got to send it from stage to the mixing console at the back and then back to the stage or wherever the amps powering the line array is, then latency b
by 72deluxe 11y ago
If you've got to send it from stage to the mixing console at the back and then back to the stage or wherever the amps powering the line array is, then latency becomes more important? What if the console is half a km away?
Also, if the sound processors are performing calculations in the idle time between samples (like calculating FIR filters or something like that) or in the idle processor time remaining after processing the sample, a higher sample rate will mean the calculation gets done faster (and is therefore audible faster). Else you'd change a setting and wait to hear it (and it would be noticeable perhaps), I guess?
- Joeboy 11y ago> What if the console is half a km away? Then a ninety-six thousandth of a second's worth of latency seems pretty irrelevant? Even if you were decreasing the latency by using a higher sample rate, which you aren't. The signal coming out of a FIR filter will come out at the same time whatever the sampling rate. I guess it's conceivable, if you have no buffering whatsoever, that the very first sample will come out slightly quicker, but that is honestly irrelevant. The overall signal will have the same timing at either sample rate. Unless you've had to introduce more latency to cope with the demands of the higher sample rate.
- 72deluxe 11y agoI meant that the FIR might be calculated between samples, so the higher the clock the faster the calculation.