@clint
Just to say anything:
I can't say anything.
At least not something that explains anything.

You compare the two paths in a clean way and you tried everything you can. Unless someone tells us about the signal- and processing paths (block-schema?) of the Sylphyo and the Link, we can not even guess what is going on.

—

But, aside of your technical interest, are you complaining about the 12 ms latency or worried that the time via cable and wireless route is different, or do you feel that the jitter of 1-12 ms affects your playing? If I were a perfect player, I would be worried about the random jitter that cannot be compensated while playing. But I don't feel it.

Don't talk them into a new device. I have no money for that ;-)

I don't have pixel errors, no moisture problem and I use internal sounds as well as MIDI. I do not play every day and no long gigs, so my experience may be different from other people.

But – although I do not hold back from criticizing a device or it's programming (positive and negative), I don't find much in the Sylphyo. It plays well since I got used to it.

Don't forget, there is only one programmer. Ok, this is risky, but the Sylphyo is unique on the market. If you insist on an instrument with more support and a larger user base, take the Akai EWI. For harmonica, take the Lekholm, for a plastic sax take the odisei. Like it simple? Take the Warble. If you are adventurous and don't mind a broken device every 2-3 years (if you are unlucky like me), take and old Yamaha WX7 or WX5. If you want an instrument that can react to every breath nuance and to body motions and if you do not necessarily need a sensitive mouthpiece, take the Sylphyo.

I found only one instrument that allows better and polyphonic control and with a greater potential in internal sounds, at least for my taste. The Eigenharp. But they went out of business before a general overhaul of the software could happen.

However, I am waiting for a Sylphyo update too. There are some issues and room for improvement we already discussed here.

Same problem here on a kind of pedal board. Not with Anyma Phi but with a Sylphyo Link. No MIDI Thru.

I do not understand why a device with DIN MIDI in and out does not have a thru function. MIDI was invented 40 years ago and is industry standard since 20-30 years or so. Why do modern designers think that USB could replace DIN and don't implement MIDI thru, after myriads of in/out/thru devices over decades?

Same goes for Waldorf, their desktop Blofeld doesn't even have a MIDI out jacket.

Terrible ideas which make our musical live harder and force us to spend a lot of additional money for MIDI splitters and mergers.

Oh my God ...
... and the Link follows the Sylphyo volume ...

I apologize for giving wrong information!

At the moment I play only software instruments and forgot about this volume setting.

@cbec
With Apple EarPods I have almost the same volume on Sylphyo and Link. Pretty loud. I don't have a special adapter from 6.35 mm 3-pole to the 3.5 mm 4-pole plug. A standard 3-pole (stereo) big-to-small adapter works well.

I do not know a way to adjust the headphone volume, neither on the Link nor on the Sylphyo. I think you should discuss this issue directly with Aodyo support, your Link box may not be ok.

If you want other headphones, try any affordable studio headphones between 30 and 80 ohms, closed or half-open, whatever you prefer. The less ohms, the louder. I wouldn't go lower than 30 ohms just to avoid overloading the headphone outputs. Check if the phones have the small plug and a 6.35 mm adapter. Most have. An angled small plug is fine for the Sylphyo.

@clint
No problem here with CC5 on Roll, it works.
Maybe there is something on the path, that swallows CC5. Another mapping somewhere, restriction in the receiving program etc.

Hm ... pretty large standard deviation ...
What can be the cause for such variations and do they play a role for general latency?

That's maybe Jitter. The higher the breath rate, the more jitter you get. Here are MIDI Jitter measurements from a Sylphyo connected via USB:

The first graph is just a breath example for the test, don't compare it to the other graphs. Please do not trust the 1000 Hz graph because this seems to go beyond the border of my measurement possibilities.

If a "jitter interpreter" drops unrealistic jumps instead of interpolating the history, you may get less "good" events and therefore, in an unlucky moment, more latency with a high breath rate than with the tamer jitter of lower rates. An unlucky moment could be right at the start of playing, at least this may be part of explanation why you get the best attack at the lowest rate, where almost every event counts. This is just a wild theory but as good as many others :-)

But the most important question, after you switched back from technician to musician again:
Do you actually feel a better attack with the lowest breath rate? It's clear that slow rates do not allow advanced techniques like flutter tounge, but is the overall feeling different? Specifically for the attack I would expect a timing difference between Sylphyo's audio out and any MIDI process but not so much between settings of MIDI processes. Well, for a MIDI guitar the attack is very important, but for a wind instrument ... ?

I'm not a trained horn player, but I can't create a puff of air that is comparable to the attack of a string or a key.

@join
The built-in delay of the Harrachi sound did not matter in my test. I just recorded audio from the Sylphyo and parallel via the link and measured the distance of the two attacks in a DAW. I just needed a sharp attack from both at the same time, no matter what they were thinking before (!) they sound.

There is however another uncertainty. For the first test I felt free to assume, that both devices have the same synth and both synths are triggered by MIDI. But I do not know if this is true. The Sylphyo could get controlled directly by converted sensor data while MIDI generation happens somewhere else, in parallel or not. Then the Sylphyo may be at a disadvantage, timing-wise. Maybe you can provide a block/flow schema to help us understand the principle.

@Clint
Wow. What a tough job.
I will also need a while to study your text and possibly add comments

MIDI:
Sylphyo>USB and Wireless>Link>DIN MIDI: Link is 4.4 ms late (average).
It can become more sometimes, I don't know why.
This fits to your theory of 4.35 ms for the radio link.

Audio:
From Link and from Sylphyo to the interface: Link is 2.1 ms late.
Oops. The difference should be over 4 ms, not? There are wireless MIDI and a synth in the path.

I tested audio with high notes from the "El Harrachi" sound. The attacks are clearly visible in the DAW and I measured 102 samples difference at 48 kHz.

The radio link must be faster than 4 ms, rather around 2 ms. But I've never seen audio arriving faster than MIDI. Maybe my single measurement was not correct or the Link box eats up MIDI speed.

Not quite a rig schematic, but a rigging schematic, somehow :-)

This is the first part of my Sylphyo interface to play with software instruments.

Originally I wanted it in Logic or Mainstage or another DAW I own, but the basically simple task went more complicated than I had expected. So I decided to make my own Sylphyo DAW in Max and enjoy the graphical possibilities.

Screenshot overview:

Top left, Sylphyo MIDI comes in through moving faders and is routed by a 12x12 matrix. Horizontal top is incoming, vertical right matrix border is outgoing. Each matrix output can be scaled, slowed down (Glide) and can have a curve applied. The right side of the screenshot is the graphical live display and shows all used Sylphyo messages after processing. Breath is the filled circle, blue background is Elevation, the two lines are Roll and Compass.

The screenshot tells that the Sylphyo is blown with medium force (thin outer circle is maximum). The instrument is held down and slightly rolled to the left with a bit of left Compass. The played note is a G4 with velocity 115. All other values are also shown in several colored faders.

—

Have not played much yet, but it seems to work well. Not many refinements needed, just a little technical elegance is missing (you have to look at the backside of the screenshot to see that).

Click on the image to show it in original size.

Next part to do are connections and mappings to a handful of virtual instruments.