Core Audio or Bit Accurate..? whats the design difference?

Right, someone please tell me.. whats the benefits, pro's/Con's? i find latency is significant.. also in its automatic adjustments.. if i change the Latency adjust it does F'All
New Mac Laptop 10.10 if that matters in your replies ?
obviously the latency is a massive issue when recording pads & Qlinks..
Respect ya intelligence if ya have a clue..Blessup

Moderators.. programmers.. anybody with a clue.. seems a few have been lookin but nobody got answers.. Really... dig a little deeper folks .. im sure we wld appreciate it
thanks

Almost Lazy wrote:Moderators.. programmers.. anybody with a clue.. seems a few have been lookin but nobody got answers.. Really... dig a little deeper folks .. im sure we wld appreciate it
thanks

Try rephrasing the question ..

Best explanation i could find out there.
I didnt really want to read all that, man. But here you go...

Props to Bpatel on gearslutz.



https://www.gearslutz.com/board/9852296-post27.html

nice find. good explanation.

"Bit Accurate and Core Audio drivers--
There is a huge difference between the core audio driver and the bit accurate driver. The bit accurate driver is a HAL driver which is an ASIO-like driver. HAL means „hardware abstraction layer“. An abstraction layer is implemented in software, between the physical hardware of a computer and the software that runs on that computer. Hardware abstraction layers are of an even lower level in computer languages than application programming interfaces (API) because they interact directly with hardware instead of a system kernel, therefore HALs require less processing time than APIs.
The bit accurate driver also bypasses the sample rate conversion that is always operating when the core audio driver is used. Apple „hides“ the latency induced by the sample rate conversation, which makes comparison less transparent leading to mis-interpretations.
For example a 32 samples input buffer under core audio is as fast as a 256 samples input buffer with the bit accurate driver. And a 32 samples output buffer under core audio is as fast as a 768 samples buffer with the bit accurate driver (both examples @ 48kHz sample rate). Therefore the bit accurate driver delivers a more stable system performance because bigger buffers can be used and at the time offering a faster performance with less latency.

When to use Bit Accurate and Core Audio drivers?
If you connect the input to the output and you want the loop to stay under 20ms, there is no way to achieve this with the core audio driver.
If you need to play a song with iTunes, there is no way to achieve this with the HAL driver, because system audio cannot be played back with a HAL driver.
If bit accuracy is important for you, e.g. because you want to master a CD, you can only achieve this with the HAL driver.


Here are three spreadsheets showing (see attached files)
A) the buffer size and corresponding latency of bit accurate and core audio drivers
B) Equivalent input speeds and corresponding buffer sizes of bit accurate and core audio drivers
C) Equivalent output speeds and corresponding buffer size of bit accurate and core audio drivers"

So, at first I was like yeah right - core audio drivers should be faster since that's what Apple's OSX uses - but what do I know - I am not a programmer by any means. So, reading Audient's lower latency figures I felt compelled enough to buy it.

Simply put, Bit Accurate has less latency and responds quicker.

DJ Hellfire wrote:Simply put, Bit Accurate has less latency and responds quicker.

Took a wall of text to arrive to that, yes.

So does anyone here actually use Bit Accurate? This is the first I've heard of it.

Ocular wrote:So does anyone here actually use Bit Accurate? This is the first I've heard of it.

It's the only one I use.