That's what a 16-sample buffer would get you. In reality, there are many devices on the market that can get close to 2.5ms. For example, Line 6 claims 2.8 ms end-to-end, BOSS claims 2.3 ms [2], the NUX B8 is at 2.5ms [3].
Longer buffers allow for jitter in processing further upstream. If you get a buffer every 0.6ms, you need to be able to process it always within 0.6ms.
Comments
Wait so you can get the latency down to 0.6 ms end to end?
That's what a 16-sample buffer would get you. In reality, there are many devices on the market that can get close to 2.5ms. For example, Line 6 claims 2.8 ms end-to-end, BOSS claims 2.3 ms [2], the NUX B8 is at 2.5ms [3].
[1] https://line6.com/support/page/kb/relay-d-v-digital-wireless...
[2] https://www.boss.info/global/support/by_product/wl-20_wl-20l...
[3] https://www.proaudiostar.com/nux-b-8-professional-2-4ghz-gui...
What's the drawback of a 16 sample buffer over 128 samples?
Longer buffers allow for jitter in processing further upstream. If you get a buffer every 0.6ms, you need to be able to process it always within 0.6ms.
Ah right that makes sense