Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Mice › Windows audio stack sucks, anything higher than stereo 16 bit 44.1k has higher cursor lag
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Windows audio stack sucks, anything higher than stereo 16 bit 44.1k has higher cursor lag - Page 14  

post #131 of 258
That's a perfect explanation, HAGGARD, and I also urge people to try things themselves (I was surprised myself to find a difference between things that I thought had no impact, or even a negative impact instead of a positive one). That whole "human perception" argument is as falacious as the "the eye can't see more than [insert number] fps" argument. There's a difference between human perception and input lag... if someone started talking to you 1ms slower or 1ms out of sync with his/her mouth, you would notice it immediately. It's the same with input lag.

My average reaction time is 203ms in humanbenchmark.com, but I can go as low as 170-190ms (144 fps). Not that it matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazzzz View Post

Srsly man, what you are saying is an equivalent to " Without a high precision photo-finish You can't justify which racing car crossed the finish line first because the second one came only 50 ms after the first one and human reaction time is 200 ms" .

That's exactly how I see it, too.
Edited by Trull - 1/19/15 at 7:34am
Gud
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E3-1240 v3 ASRock H87 Pro4 Sapphire HD 7970 GHz Vapor-X (comes w/ free noise) KHX1866C9D3 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 840 Pro Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Home Basic Asus VN279QLB 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ozone Strike Battle (Browns) Corsair CS750M Antec P280 Logitech G100s 
Mouse PadAudio
Razer Goliathus Speed (old version) Creative SB X-Fi Fatal1ty 
  hide details  
Gud
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E3-1240 v3 ASRock H87 Pro4 Sapphire HD 7970 GHz Vapor-X (comes w/ free noise) KHX1866C9D3 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 840 Pro Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Home Basic Asus VN279QLB 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ozone Strike Battle (Browns) Corsair CS750M Antec P280 Logitech G100s 
Mouse PadAudio
Razer Goliathus Speed (old version) Creative SB X-Fi Fatal1ty 
  hide details  
post #132 of 258
Mad Pistol, I urge you to stop posting your baseless claims. Reaction time has nothing to do with spotting of a desynchronization issue between a taken action and reaction of a system. One times the body/reflexes, other times the computer. They're additive.

Be it GPU settings/driver, BIOS settings, sound device, IRQ conflicts, number of USB devices or Fans connected to mobo...the list goes on and combined with your ping and reflexes, results as an action in a game.

R0ach is pretty spot on his other thread with almost all the settings he suggested. Anyone not accepting this fact is either wrong or not sensitive enough (or just have too many bottlenecks in their system and needs to keep working their way down the list).
post #133 of 258
is it possible to get high equivalent sound quality with onboard S/PDIF -> DAC -> Amp as with internal PCI/PCI-e sound cards?
post #134 of 258
You know, roach threads would be received a lot more positively if he'd simply drop the extreme black and white rhetoric. If he notices something, he calls it MASSIVE and COMPUTER-BREAKING. A roach monitor topic would be something like "all these 144Hz monitors are swamp garbage, the 1ms of input lag is utterly unplayable, stick to CRT unless you are blind!!!"


But I know I and others have said this before, so I can only imagine he likes the negativity. He could actually have a rep as the helpful guy who lets us know about performance micro-optimizations we might look into, but instead he's the guy who thinks a computer is literally only usable if you are only using a ps2 keyboard and have nothing installed except the basics to let windows function and one game.
post #135 of 258
What about "Music Streamer III" DAC? It is connected by USB ("asynchronous" USB transmission to reduce jitter), but it doesn't need any extra drivers. It's plug'n'play on any OS.
Edited by leakydog - 1/19/15 at 9:28am
post #136 of 258
I disagree with the notion that anything under 250ms is not noticeable.
Any external latency is in addition to the latency that we currently perceive. It create a disconnect between our inputs and the movement on-screen.

This video is a good demonstration of why you still need low latency, despite average reaction times being in the 250ms range:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4#t=0m56s

I would say that even the 1ms demonstrated here is still not low enough latency.


However the issue of unstable polling rates or microsecond delays is not relevant here.
I would be very interested in knowing what kind of display r0ach is using just now.

Because there are no displays which currently have less than about 4ms "motion-to-photon" as John Carmack likes to put it. If your total latency is less than say 4ms, then it should not be possible for there to be any effect on what happens on-screen - and that is on the upper scale of performance.
If you have a 144Hz display, that limit is 7ms - and it is probably higher than that when we look at real-world displays rather than theoretical performance.

And when you are dealing with a display which updates like this, you are better to have the input sampled at the last possible moment before the display refreshes, rather than sending the input at the beginning.
If the input is sampled in the first 1ms you then have a 6ms delay before anything happens on-screen.
If the input is sampled at 6ms you only have 1ms between the input and it being displayed.
post #137 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol View Post

Except that sound cards or DAC's offer a significantly cleaner and louder sound. I have never had a motherboard where if the volume was adequate, even @ 100% volume. It simply cannot push enough power to the speaker/headphones without an external power source. However, I get a Sound Blaster Z, and the thing is deafening @ 30%. Also, I have some nicer headphones, and the difference between onboard audio and a dedicated sound card is very perceivable. It's kind of like the difference between playing a game @ 720P and 1080P... the details are cleaner and more pleasing to the ear. It's because sound cards can push headphones with higher impedance... something that onboard audio cannot do.

And unlike your claim in the original post of this thread, there is an army of audiophiles that will agree with me on this. Very few will sacrifice audio quality for a few tenths of a millisecond faster response on your mouse. Get real.

In r0ach's defence, 192/24 is useless (from a human-perception standpoint.) There's a link with quantifiable evidence why this is true a couple pages back.
Sure, a DAC may raise signal-to-noise ratio or provide a voltage increase (thus raising volume) but that's not what he's referring to.

AS an audiophile, I'd sacrifice sound quality (in game) for performance increase. As long as I can hear where someone is coming from, I could care less how "accurate" their footstep sounds.
Bipolar
(19 items)
 
GF PC
(17 items)
 
Work Laptop
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i3-6300 Gigabyte H-110M-A ASUS Radeon R390 Strix 16 GB Ballistix Sport DDR4 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 240GB SSD Western Digital 500GB HDD 2.5" Coolermaster Hyper 212 EVO Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS MG279Q CMStorm Trigger Z Corsair CM750m InWin 303 White 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Roccat Lua Steelseries QCK+ Magnepan MMG Emotiva UPA-200 
AudioAudioAudio
BIC Formula F12 (x2) AKG Q701 Schiit Fulla 2 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 3570k @ 4.2 GHz ASUS P8Z77-V LX XFX R7 360 16 GB Crucial Ballistix Sport 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Mushkin Chronos 120GB Western Digital Caviar Green 800GB Coolermaster V8 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Vizio 42" E Corsair K65 RGB Corsair GS600 v2 Coolermaster Cosmos Origin Edition 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
CMStorm Xornet Razer Goliathus Control Large Klipsch Promedia 4.1 + Custom Subwoofer Xonar DG 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i7 4610M Radeon HD 8790M Dell OEM 8GB Samsung PM851 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 7 x64 Enterprise Dell E2414H Dell E2414H Logitech K360 White 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Latitude E6540 Roccat Lua Corsair MM200 Bose IE2 
Audio
Burr Brown PCM2704 USB DAC 
  hide details  
Bipolar
(19 items)
 
GF PC
(17 items)
 
Work Laptop
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i3-6300 Gigabyte H-110M-A ASUS Radeon R390 Strix 16 GB Ballistix Sport DDR4 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 240GB SSD Western Digital 500GB HDD 2.5" Coolermaster Hyper 212 EVO Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS MG279Q CMStorm Trigger Z Corsair CM750m InWin 303 White 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Roccat Lua Steelseries QCK+ Magnepan MMG Emotiva UPA-200 
AudioAudioAudio
BIC Formula F12 (x2) AKG Q701 Schiit Fulla 2 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 3570k @ 4.2 GHz ASUS P8Z77-V LX XFX R7 360 16 GB Crucial Ballistix Sport 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Mushkin Chronos 120GB Western Digital Caviar Green 800GB Coolermaster V8 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Vizio 42" E Corsair K65 RGB Corsair GS600 v2 Coolermaster Cosmos Origin Edition 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
CMStorm Xornet Razer Goliathus Control Large Klipsch Promedia 4.1 + Custom Subwoofer Xonar DG 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i7 4610M Radeon HD 8790M Dell OEM 8GB Samsung PM851 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 7 x64 Enterprise Dell E2414H Dell E2414H Logitech K360 White 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Latitude E6540 Roccat Lua Corsair MM200 Bose IE2 
Audio
Burr Brown PCM2704 USB DAC 
  hide details  
post #138 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol View Post

Here's a good bit of data for you and the OP.

http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/statistics

Average human reaction time is around 250ms. A pro athlete or gamer has a lower reaction time than that, but I'm having a hard time finding quantifiable data on that topic.

ASUS ROG swift monitor reaction time: 1ms GTG

Assuming we use a framerate of 120, the average frametime is 8.33ms

So we're up to about 9.33ms. I'm going to give gamers the benefit of the doubt here and say our reaction time is usually around 200ms (lower than the average 250ms by most normal people). That means the FASTEST you're going to see a new frame and then react is around 209ms

This is why a few microseconds seems like an inconsequential loss to me. We're talking about less than 1% difference in reaction time. When you take human perception/reaction time into account, it really is very difficult to feel the difference between 209ms and 208.5ms. However, the difference between 120fps (8.33ms), 60 FPS (16.7ms) and 30 FPS (33.4ms) is definitely perceivable.

In other words:

120 fps: 208.33ms
60 fps: 216.7ms
30 fps: 233.4ms

There's a pretty large gap between 30 and 60, but I can also attest to the fact that 120 fps on a good monitor feels smoother than 60fps. Therefore, I am agreeing that perceptibly, there is a huge difference between 30, 60, and 120 fps, but we are talking about a difference of 25ms per frame! Compare that to the less than 1ms that r0ach is trying to explain here, and it becomes even more crazy when human reaction time is usually over 200ms.

TL;DR Human Reaction time makes it nearly impossible to feel a 0.5ms or even 1ms difference in reaction. The synapses in our brain and nerve endings in our arm are simply too slow. When you amp that up to 16ms (60 fps) or 33ms (30 fps), though, that's when the perception becomes quantifiable and real. We're not robots, so honestly, I'm not going to pretend that I can feel the difference between 5 microseconds and 1 millisecond.

Yawns*

Maybe I should start quoting myself a few pages back?

I said this before, people need to get outside of their little box thinking. I indeed doubt a person can feel the difference between for instance 1 ms or 2 ms (using mouse 500 vs 1000 Hz as an example).

There are OTHER factors at play:
  • The human brain might just be way more accurate when it comes to sensing things being "out of sync" between 2 senses (in this case: touch and sight)
  • Butterfly effect: That 1 ms or frequency difference has more effect on your gameplay then just the delay in mousemovement, something which has also been shown by someone in another thread

I agree we're not robots, but some people need to get out of there "mathematical" box and realize that changing 1 ms here or there could have a way bigger effect down the line. After all there's alot that has to be done by your system before the final result is finally being displayed on your monitor.

In the case of 1000 hz vs 500 hz for instance it's more an effect of "smoothness". 1000Hz yields much smoother results then 500 Hz. Can we notice the 1 ms? I doubt it. Can we notice the difference in smoothness? Yes it's possible.

Also I do agree r0ach needs to approach these topics with less of a black or white attitude. He'd get alot less flack from people.

Oh and fyi, I've seen an AWP'er in CSS back in the day who could consistently get sub 100 ms reactions on click reaction games. Though it got worser as he grew older, in his prime between age 16 to 18 he did 80 to 100 ms.

Never understood how he did it, I always did 100 to 150 ms at that age and it has gotten worse as I grew older to about anywhere in between 150 to 250 ms.
Edited by CorruptBE - 1/19/15 at 11:34am
Desktop (Main)
(21 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 5820K ASUS X99-A/USB 3.1  ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1080 Kingston HyperX 16GB 3Ghz  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro Seagate Barracuda 1.5 TB Seagate Barracuda 2.0 TB Seagate Barracuda 4TB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Barracuda 4TB Le random dvd writer Corsair Hydro Series™ H100i Windows 10 Professional 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
iiyama ProLite G2773HS Corsair K70 Super Flower 1200W (Platinum) Corsair 600T Black 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Nixeus Revel Allsop Raindrop XL ASUS Xonar Essence STXII Sennheiser HD650 
Audio
Musical Fidelity X-Can v3 
  hide details  
Desktop (Main)
(21 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 5820K ASUS X99-A/USB 3.1  ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1080 Kingston HyperX 16GB 3Ghz  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro Seagate Barracuda 1.5 TB Seagate Barracuda 2.0 TB Seagate Barracuda 4TB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Barracuda 4TB Le random dvd writer Corsair Hydro Series™ H100i Windows 10 Professional 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
iiyama ProLite G2773HS Corsair K70 Super Flower 1200W (Platinum) Corsair 600T Black 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Nixeus Revel Allsop Raindrop XL ASUS Xonar Essence STXII Sennheiser HD650 
Audio
Musical Fidelity X-Can v3 
  hide details  
post #139 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by r0ach View Post

Except you're wrong as usual. If you can't feel the difference in how much more sluggish mouse movement is when raising bitrate from 16bit 44.1k to anything higher, then you don't have arms. Some audio guy already posted about how there is little difference in sound quality of anything higher anyway.
16bit 44.1k didn't change anything on my system as well (probably depends on the sound card), whereas uninstalling Windows Components (Win7) has made a huge improvement. TY r0ach, great guide, especially for people without arms I believe.
post #140 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_ak57 View Post

You know, roach threads would be received a lot more positively if he'd simply drop the extreme black and white rhetoric. If he notices something, he calls it MASSIVE and COMPUTER-BREAKING. A roach monitor topic would be something like "all these 144Hz monitors are swamp garbage, the 1ms of input lag is utterly unplayable, stick to CRT unless you are blind!!!"


But I know I and others have said this before, so I can only imagine he likes the negativity. He could actually have a rep as the helpful guy who lets us know about performance micro-optimizations we might look into, but instead he's the guy who thinks a computer is literally only usable if you are only using a ps2 keyboard and have nothing installed except the basics to let windows function and one game.

You make it sound ridiculous, but it really isn't. Those 144Hz monitors you mentioned are well beyond 1ms of input lag (it's only 1ms GTG), it's more like 6-7ms and higher, so yeah, I would say that if you're a serious gamer that cares about input lag and cursor response then you should definitely stick with CRT's until OLED comes out (and even then, OLED is worse than CRT and not necessarily optimized for gaming).

Same goes for the PS2 vs USB keyboard topic, if you really care then you should only use a PS2 keyboard and only have your mouse plugged into your USB hub.

As for Windows stuff: you should use only what you need, why would you want a bloated OS?
Edited by Trull - 1/19/15 at 1:32pm
Gud
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E3-1240 v3 ASRock H87 Pro4 Sapphire HD 7970 GHz Vapor-X (comes w/ free noise) KHX1866C9D3 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 840 Pro Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Home Basic Asus VN279QLB 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ozone Strike Battle (Browns) Corsair CS750M Antec P280 Logitech G100s 
Mouse PadAudio
Razer Goliathus Speed (old version) Creative SB X-Fi Fatal1ty 
  hide details  
Gud
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E3-1240 v3 ASRock H87 Pro4 Sapphire HD 7970 GHz Vapor-X (comes w/ free noise) KHX1866C9D3 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 840 Pro Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Home Basic Asus VN279QLB 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ozone Strike Battle (Browns) Corsair CS750M Antec P280 Logitech G100s 
Mouse PadAudio
Razer Goliathus Speed (old version) Creative SB X-Fi Fatal1ty 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mice
  • Windows audio stack sucks, anything higher than stereo 16 bit 44.1k has higher cursor lag
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Mice › Windows audio stack sucks, anything higher than stereo 16 bit 44.1k has higher cursor lag