Profile photo of Stix


Originally posted by millst


In theory, if you double your sampling frequency then the sample leaves the AD converter sooner. At 48k the sample takes longer which increases the latency. 96k samples are ‘smaller’ and more frequent.

Toby I’m not sure this is correct. See here: https://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf
While this white paper doesn’t specifically talk about converter latency it does misspell some myths about sample rates and audio timing. As I suggested the sample rate and the converter latency are not directly related. The time it takes for a converter to process audio is not sample rate dependent as far as I can tell – a converter at 96k has to process twice the amount of data so could well be slower to do this!

From page 5 of the above white paper: “The only effect that having more “dots on the curve” has is to enable the capture and reconstruction of ultrasonic frequencies. There is NO IMPACT on the timing of the signal.”. So from that I take it that the conversion time is the key to latency along with the DSP of the device. As the dsp has to deal with twice the amount of data at 96k this might explain why 48k systems ARE generally lower latency.


Richard Howey
Audio Dynamite Ltd
Dual M-Dante/DVS, 17″MBP/Logic 9/Custom Mackie Control