From Newsgroup: rec.audio.pro
So I found a utility called 'RTL' that measures true latency by
actually timing the round trip from input to output through a cable.
Mind a little blown. Buffer size is only tangentially related
to hard latency figures. The Presonus, using a 256 sample buffer
scores around 12ms, same as the Scarlett with a 64 sample buffer!
The best figure I could get out of the Scarlett with any buffer
size (safe mode off) was about 10ms. The Presonus can do 3.855ms
at 16 samples, although as I mentioned, the best stable buffer
size I can use with the Presonus is 128, but that yields around 7ms.
There are always so many layers to peel through with this stuff.
On 1/25/2026 4:25 PM, Tobiah wrote:
I've never been able to get reliable low-latency audio under windows.
I've spent many hours looking through lists of tweaks, like power profile settings and countless other magic incantations that never seemed to
make a difference.-a I've also never gotten LatencyMon to run for very
long without the red flag.
My largest need for the low latency is for playing sampled pianos
and other instruments.-a I've been using a PreSonus Studio 18|10,
and the smallest buffer size I can use without clicks is 256 samples
at 44100Hz.-a Any smaller than that, and it mostly works, but I get
little clicks periodically.-a Now, some would say that 256 samples
is small enough, but I can really tell the difference when playing
a digital piano; I can feel the difference between 128 and 64 as
well.-a After that the change is imperceptible.
So I came across a Scarlett 2i2 and tried it out and found that
I could use a 64 sample buffer size (this is using Reaper) and it
seems rock solid.-a This got me to thinking maybe Focusrite does a better
job with drivers, so I started shopping for a more capable
Scarlett.
Then I thought that the Presonus, having so many channels, is probably
taking most of the USB bandwidth, and the lowly 2 in, 2 out Focusrite
is may be enjoying an unfair advantage.
Now, I'm on a ThinkPad at the moment, so I get that I may not be
able to expect as much as from a well-built desktop.-a I went through
dozens of tweaks though, and all I got to show for it was the laptop
fan running more often, and louder.
Having spent so long Googling and performing low-latency tweaks, I
didn't know where to start backing out the changes, so I went for a
fresh Windows install, which was badly needed anyway.
The Scarlett still dutifully handles a 64 sample buffer.-a I'd
spring for a 18i16 4th gen, but I still have my concern that the
2i2 may only be performing better because of the low number of
channels.
Another question:-a if the large number of channels over usb 2.0
is indeed a concern, would I do better with a USB-C interface?
What if that cable also carries the monitor signal?
Thanks
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2