News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Show HN: Working on a new network transport for PulseAudi... by gavv42 on Saturday May 04, 2019 @03:13PM (#19828567)
I see your point.

Many audio streaming apps requires 1-2 seconds latency (especially on Wi-Fi), that's why I called the 100-300 ms range "low". 100ms is the minimum I've seriously tested on Wi-Fi so far. 300ms is, roughly, the maximum UI delay that feels acceptable (you press "play" and hear the sound).

I'll think about the wording..

Re:Show HN: Working on a new network transport for PulseAudi... by majewsky on Saturday May 04, 2019 @05:05PM (#19829377)
300ms is still noticably laggy when the audio is part of a video. Some media players can delay their audio to account for playback delay in the audio device, if the audio stack supports that. Does Roc support that, or if not, is it on your roadmap?
Re:Show HN: Working on a new network transport for PulseAudi... by gavv42 on Sunday May 05, 2019 @01:30AM (#19831337)
> 300ms is still noticably laggy when the audio is part of a video.

Agree.

> Some media players can delay their audio to account for playback delay in the audio device, if the audio stack supports that. Does Roc support that, or if not, is it on your roadmap?

We have an open issue for implementing correct latency reports in PA modules. When we'll fix it, players that support that feature should automatically start taking the latency into account.

Thanks for reminding me, I'll test this feature specifically.

https://github.com/roc-project/roc/issues/171

Re:Show HN: Working on a new network transport for PulseAudi... by xorcist on Sunday May 05, 2019 @04:42AM (#19831817)
Many years ago we did some unscientific testing how latency affected a telephony application. Already at around 80ms there was measurable impact on the dialogue, with an increased frequency of the callers interrupting each other's sentences. Even modern VoIP applications can still be problematic in this regard and additional latency from the software stack wouldn't help.