kong, I already answered your questions and wrapped it into one post. In my defense from many unwanted guests trying to make it sounds absurd to try, I have to make my words clear that I'm making low latency audio patch not better sound for voodoophile. I apologize if that sounds offensive to you and I already said I'm more appreciated to help in explaining about low latency thing.
As for bedalus' remarks, low latency is one of the most promising measurements worth chasing in world of pro audio and computer audiophile. I don't see why it's wrong to use scientific pro audio terms that audiophiles can make some sense with. And sonic degradation suffered from lower latency is real thing because random jitter added in latency will be wider. But you have to know how latency jitter can cause problems in quantization. It's pretty deep and easiest way is just try it and decide if you want to keep it or not. I've been in this circle numerous times already in computer audiophile.
I hope to hear your test report soon as I'm also looking forward to see how it'll work in your case too. Personally, I don't see anything wrong in here trying to have lower latency for audio playback regardless of getting better sound quality or not.
I'm interested in what Bedalus can find though. While I am in no way a certified audio engineer, I have done more than a few installations of professional hardware (MOTU & M-Audio mostly) and worked with professional software (AVID) and fully understand the concept of reducing the latency in lag sensitive cases.
I do not however ever remember encountering an instance where the latency proved to cause deterioration of the sound quality using DACs.
Either way, as I said twice before, to each their own. If you can reduce the latency while keeping the overheard to a practical level (not having to use the performance governor) then I see nothing wrong with that. At worst, it'll improve the apparent responsiveness of the device.