In Reply to: Re: Not necessarily posted by cics on April 6, 2007 at 20:28:27:
*** There is a connection between latency jitter (variations in latency) and transmitted jitter. ***That could well be true. But I'm not sure what you mean by latency - do you mean bus latency, or audio delay latency?
As I've pointed out before, *increasing* audio delay latency (through buffering) actually *reduces* jitter.
*** I found that reducing latency helped in overall sound quality. ***
If you mean bus latency, then possibly. Although ThomasPf and I disagree on this - I feel it could make a difference, Thomas seems to think (and I'm paraphrasing him) as long as the buffer on the soundcard never becomes starved, PCI bus interrupt processing should have a negligible effect.
If you are interested in reducing bus latency, you may want to consider using Vista with a WaveRT audio driver - Microsoft promises that WaveRT has much lower latency than either WavePCI or WaveCyclic (which are the traditional models for audio drivers used in XP).
*** On IDE, I found its best to avoid this interface as it lends itself to electrical noise pickup ***
That's probably due to EMI generated by the IDE cable. You can take various steps to reduce this. For example, you can try shielding the IDE cable.
Since you are interested in latency, are you aware that some SATA drivers generate more interrupt processing latency than IDE? There have been cases of SATA drivers causing audio/video stutter. So in that respect, I'm surprised that you consider IDE to be non-optimal.
*** I'm keen to use CF technology implemented as a disk drive. ***
I'll be keen to find out whether you notice any differences switching to CF. I've noticed an improvement getting rid of my laptop hard drive and using a CF card. I've also noticed an improvement applying shielding to the audio card.
Pricing is pretty good - I bought a 4GB CF card for around $100 and you don't really need more than 4GB (provided of course the music is stored elsewhere on the network).
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Not necessarily - Christine Tham 21:11:53 04/06/07 (8)
- Re: Not necessarily - cics 03:19:40 04/07/07 (7)
- I'm not sure I understand you - Christine Tham 19:37:45 04/07/07 (4)
- Re: I'm not sure I understand you - cics 07:55:02 04/08/07 (3)
- Re: I'm not sure I understand you - KeithC 13:09:03 04/08/07 (2)
- Design goal is to elliminate all IO overheads - cics 23:04:53 04/08/07 (0)
- Hardware RAID is implemented - cics 22:49:12 04/08/07 (0)
- Re: underclocking - aljordan 16:09:02 04/07/07 (1)
- Re: underclocking - aljordan 16:12:23 04/07/07 (0)