This doesn't mean the higher bandwidth offered by USB 3.0 does not benefit some situations, e.g., for hard drive transfer times it makes a huge difference. This is the same when comparing USB 3.0 and USB 2.0 in terms of the way they transfer audio data. This means that it could allow a greater number of tennis balls (more data) to travel down the pipe, but the balls would not travel down the pipe any faster– there is no latency improvement. In terms of our analogy, USB 3.0 offers a much wider pipe.
That's your latency, the time it takes to go from end to end. With the drainpipe set at the same angle, letting go of the ball at the top of the drainpipe will see it arrive at the bottom in a given amount of time. The tennis ball is the data, and the width of the pipe signifies available bandwidth. Useful AnalogyĪ good analogy is to think of it as a drainpipe and a tennis ball. The stack schedules data transfers to and from audio drivers at millisecond frame intervals which means that, no matter how fast the data moves over the USB bus, this defines the limit on minimum latency achievable. This is due to the architecture of the host computer driver stack and its handling of USB audio (isochronous) data. Why do many manufacturers not produce interfaces that use the USB 3.0 protocol? Bandwidthįirstly, although USB 3.0 offers greater bandwidth than USB 2.0, for these devices it will deliver no round trip latency benefits over USB 2.0. Applies to: Scarlett Range, Clarett USB Range, Clarett+ Range
0 kommentar(er)
