[amluto]

> Higher sample rates are lower latency for the same block size

This a truly bizarre statement. On the one hand, of course higher sampling rates are lower latency for the same block size measured in samples. But all sampling rates have (almost [0]) identical latency for the same block size measured in time and lower sampling rates allow less computation for those shorter blocks.

[0] If you are concerned about needing to know future samples in order to calculate the actual signal amplitude at a time between samples, then (a) this matters less at higher sampling rates and (b) this is at most a small number of samples and we're talking about block sizes that presumably exceed, say, 5, so this isn't really a big deal.

[duped]

The unit of a block size is samples (frames, technically), not seconds. When configuring audio devices for playback you tune both sample rate and block size for latency. It used to be far more common to tune sample rate than block size alone for tracking. This is getting into the weeds of actual devices though.

Also to your point, this is why compliant peak meters use a mandatory 4x upsampling at 48k.

[Sesse__]

> Also to your point, this is why compliant peak meters use a mandatory 4x upsampling at 48k.

This isn't due to latency, it's because the true peak (in the analog waveform) could be between samples.

[duped]

I didn't say it did?