Some notes; A remark was made about the importance of timing in dance music. I don't think sample accuracy is mandatory there, at least not for sequencing. Even a well implemented MIDI clock (Atari,old MPC's) will service there beyond what most people need and MIDI is slooooow. Bad MIDI clocks may be a issue and require work-arounds. If you can get it down to the MS range for jitter and latency you are set, I'dsay. Some attempts have been made to sync to sample accuracy over OSC, for example some wavefield synthesis systems that use a cluster of computers because more channels than a single one can take are needed (one system uses about 800 channels so that's a real issue). I think this works with time-stamped messages but to get hose to work you need a synced clock. That clock will likely be synced to a networked soure as well so the benchmark for that already has jitter. We could ask Marije Ballman for what she uses there but I'd suspect severe degrees ove Linux tweaking might be involved and some of it might be spoeciffic to SC. Most modern mainstream OS's aren't even realtime so unless you go Linux with a RT kernal no guarantees can be made at all about when messages will arrive and I'm not even sure to what degree a RT kernal will affect TCP-ip message processing. On top of that there is the inherent jitter caused by ChucK only processing such info once per block/buffer and at current CPU speeds and soundcard stats I don't think you'll be running ChucK with a block of 1sample. In short; I'd abandon this as a goal and shoot for a situation where I didn't notice any latency anymore, then simply go with that. For music what you hear and don't hear is a lot more important than arbitary yet absolute standards, IMHO. Yours, kas.