Edit: please disregard any attribution to the author of the false assumptions about human latency perception; that was a citation from other sources they were also refuting. Thanks to all HNers who corrected me.
Edit: please disregard any attribution to the author of the false assumptions about human latency perception; that was a citation from other sources they were also refuting. Thanks to all HNers who corrected me.
> "[...] it’s common to hear people claim that you can’t notice 50ms or 100ms of latency because human reaction time is 200ms. This doesn’t actually make sense because there are independent quantities. This line of argument is like saying that you wouldn’t notice a flight being delayed by an hour because the duration of the flight is six hours."
Separately, I'm very much in the "can notice sub-50ms latencies," but a lifetime of work in digital audio and video will do that.
The author does not believe that, the section you’re referring to is titled “counter-arguments to common arguments that latency doesn’t matter”. If you read the paragraphs that follow you will see a rebuttal to the argument that 100ms is insignificant.