Home Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

RE: Thanks everyone, one more question.

Dawnrazor wrote:

""What is more important, low latency or smaller memory size, if one has to pick?"


I'd say latency, every time. I'm convinced it's a critical parameter for RAM in a slow computer.

As you know, memory is slow compared to processors with a trade-off between clock speed and latency. RAM able to "keep up with" a fast CPU needs more cycles to do so - i.e. it generally has a higher latency than RAM that can only keep up with a slower device. (Not all slow RAM inevitably has low latencies but low latency RAM will be on the slow side.)

As you are slowing down the CPU to lower RFI (watch out for the Herz Police), there is no need for fast RAM but there is benefit to be had from low latency. OTOH, the extra power drawn by larger capacity chips is modest.

Back in January, I asked inmates "Does RAM quality matter?" and got some interesting replies (and a few witty ones, as you'd expect). Eventually, I changed the RAM in my cMP2 box for Kingston KHX6400D2UL/1G (2 x 512 MB, 3-3-3-10) as recommended by, I think, carcass93 and adjusting settings as suggested by (again, I think) Greg to 3-3-3-6. The difference was clearly audible.

The above is only a hypothesis (OK, a guess) though I find it credible. However, even with the same latency spec, different makes of RAM do seem to sound different. As to why that is, I'm at a loss.

Hope that helps,

Dave


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Signature Sound   [ Signature Sound Lounge ]


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.