From: toby@tobiah.org   
      
   I've never been able to get reliable low-latency audio under windows.   
   I've spent many hours looking through lists of tweaks, like power profile   
   settings and countless other magic incantations that never seemed to   
   make a difference.  I've also never gotten LatencyMon to run for very   
   long without the red flag.   
      
   My largest need for the low latency is for playing sampled pianos   
   and other instruments.  I've been using a PreSonus Studio 18|10,   
   and the smallest buffer size I can use without clicks is 256 samples   
   at 44100Hz.  Any smaller than that, and it mostly works, but I get   
   little clicks periodically.  Now, some would say that 256 samples   
   is small enough, but I can really tell the difference when playing   
   a digital piano; I can feel the difference between 128 and 64 as   
   well.  After that the change is imperceptible.   
      
   So I came across a Scarlett 2i2 and tried it out and found that   
   I could use a 64 sample buffer size (this is using Reaper) and it   
   seems rock solid.  This got me to thinking maybe Focusrite does a better   
   job with drivers, so I started shopping for a more capable   
   Scarlett.   
      
   Then I thought that the Presonus, having so many channels, is probably   
   taking most of the USB bandwidth, and the lowly 2 in, 2 out Focusrite   
   is may be enjoying an unfair advantage.   
      
   Now, I'm on a ThinkPad at the moment, so I get that I may not be   
   able to expect as much as from a well-built desktop.  I went through   
   dozens of tweaks though, and all I got to show for it was the laptop   
   fan running more often, and louder.   
      
   Having spent so long Googling and performing low-latency tweaks, I   
   didn't know where to start backing out the changes, so I went for a   
   fresh Windows install, which was badly needed anyway.   
      
   The Scarlett still dutifully handles a 64 sample buffer.  I'd   
   spring for a 18i16 4th gen, but I still have my concern that the   
   2i2 may only be performing better because of the low number of   
   channels.   
      
   Another question:  if the large number of channels over usb 2.0   
   is indeed a concern, would I do better with a USB-C interface?   
   What if that cable also carries the monitor signal?   
      
      
   Thanks   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)