[Robert[_5_]]

I don't understand how people deal with latency in DAWs. I have cubase which
I am just getting into, but even the lowest latency seems to involve
recording inacurracies. How do you guys deal with it..... I'm having a tough
time understanding how to monitor what I'm playing against what's been
recorded and have it come out in sync. I know it's all a function of the
sound card and drivers, and I have the ASIO drivers for the sound card
etc.... and when I hear the direct signal and the signal from cubase it
sounds like a chorus effect. I also know about offsetting the recording a
certain number of samples to sync with what's already there, but all this
seems to be troublesome considering the advanced nature of the software and
the fact that my cheap little Roland vs880 never had any latency problems,
even though it had other serious limitations. Do all DAWs have this issue?
which software/hardware has the lowest?

[philicorda[_6_]]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:47:28 -0500, Robert wrote:

I don't understand how people deal with latency in DAWs. I have cubase
which I am just getting into, but even the lowest latency seems to
involve recording inacurracies. How do you guys deal with it..... I'm
having a tough time understanding how to monitor what I'm playing
against what's been recorded and have it come out in sync. I know it's
all a function of the sound card and drivers, and I have the ASIO
drivers for the sound card etc.... and when I hear the direct signal and
the signal from cubase it sounds like a chorus effect. I also know about
offsetting the recording a certain number of samples to sync with what's
already there, but all this seems to be troublesome considering the
advanced nature of the software and the fact that my cheap little Roland
vs880 never had any latency problems, even though it had other serious
limitations. Do all DAWs have this issue? which software/hardware has
the lowest?

Cubase will always automatically sync the recording with the existing
audio, but only on playback.
This is not affected by the latency, it's just as accurate at the very
lowest settings as the highest.

The live *monitoring* latency however, cannot be compensated for. If it
bugs you, just listen to the direct signal, and don't monitor through
Cubase.

Try recording a click track out of your computer, and looped back to the
inputs. It should play back exactly in sync regardless of latency.

[Scott Dorsey]

Robert wrote:
I don't understand how people deal with latency in DAWs. I have cubase which
I am just getting into, but even the lowest latency seems to involve
recording inacurracies. How do you guys deal with it..... I'm having a tough
time understanding how to monitor what I'm playing against what's been
recorded and have it come out in sync. I know it's all a function of the
sound card and drivers, and I have the ASIO drivers for the sound card
etc.... and when I hear the direct signal and the signal from cubase it
sounds like a chorus effect. I also know about offsetting the recording a
certain number of samples to sync with what's already there, but all this
seems to be troublesome considering the advanced nature of the software and
the fact that my cheap little Roland vs880 never had any latency problems,
even though it had other serious limitations. Do all DAWs have this issue?
which software/hardware has the lowest?

You use a mixing console, and when you track, you provide a mix-minus
submix from the DAW that contains everything BUT the live track. You
mix that with the live track on the console so that the performer gets
a cue mix that contains their own microphone with no delay.

My tape machine has a latency of about half a second. That's 500 ms.
It's never been a problem, since I never provide a cue mix off the tape.
They're all like that.

I don't understand the obsession with latency, when even a Mackie 1202
will fix all the latency issues with tracking.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:47:28 -0500, "Robert"
wrote:

I don't understand how people deal with latency in DAWs. I have cubase which
I am just getting into, but even the lowest latency seems to involve
recording inacurracies. How do you guys deal with it..... I'm having a tough
time understanding how to monitor what I'm playing against what's been
recorded and have it come out in sync. I know it's all a function of the
sound card and drivers, and I have the ASIO drivers for the sound card
etc.... and when I hear the direct signal and the signal from cubase it
sounds like a chorus effect. I also know about offsetting the recording a
certain number of samples to sync with what's already there, but all this
seems to be troublesome considering the advanced nature of the software and
the fact that my cheap little Roland vs880 never had any latency problems,
even though it had other serious limitations. Do all DAWs have this issue?
which software/hardware has the lowest?

Latency as such isn't the problem. We made excellent multitrack
recordings without the need for manual alignment in the days before
low-latency systems were available (well, we did when the software and
hardware got it sorted out, which the better programs did eventually.
Early days:-)

What's the exact problem? Are you trying to monitor an input BOTH
directly AND looped back from Cubase?

[Geoff]

Robert wrote:
I don't understand how people deal with latency in DAWs. I have
cubase which I am just getting into, but even the lowest latency
seems to involve recording inacurracies. How do you guys deal with
it..... I'm having a tough time understanding how to monitor what I'm
playing against what's been recorded and have it come out in sync. I
know it's all a function of the sound card and drivers, and I have
the ASIO drivers for the sound card etc.... and when I hear the
direct signal and the signal from cubase it sounds like a chorus
effect. I also know about offsetting the recording a certain number
of samples to sync with what's already there, but all this seems to
be troublesome considering the advanced nature of the software and
the fact that my cheap little Roland vs880 never had any latency
problems, even though it had other serious limitations. Do all DAWs
have this issue? which software/hardware has the lowest?

Why are you mixing the direct and and thru-DAW signal ?

Apart from that I suspect you have an expectation of a problem, rather than
actually have a problem.

geoff

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Robert wrote:
I don't understand how people deal with latency in DAWs. I have cubase which
I am just getting into, but even the lowest latency seems to involve
recording inacurracies. How do you guys deal with it..... I'm having a tough
time understanding how to monitor what I'm playing against what's been
recorded and have it come out in sync. I know it's all a function of the
sound card and drivers, and I have the ASIO drivers for the sound card
etc.... and when I hear the direct signal and the signal from cubase it
sounds like a chorus effect. I also know about offsetting the recording a
certain number of samples to sync with what's already there, but all this
seems to be troublesome considering the advanced nature of the software and
the fact that my cheap little Roland vs880 never had any latency problems,
even though it had other serious limitations. Do all DAWs have this issue?
which software/hardware has the lowest?



If you know what you're doing and your hardware supports it, you can
have 0 latency.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:06:10 -0500, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:

If you know what you're doing and your hardware supports it, you can
have 0 latency.

That's marketing-talk :-) You can't reduce latency to zero. You can
monitor by a path that avoids latency altogether. Not quite the same
thing.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:06:10 -0500, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:

If you know what you're doing and your hardware supports it, you can
have 0 latency.

That's marketing-talk :-) You can't reduce latency to zero. You can
monitor by a path that avoids latency altogether. Not quite the same
thing.


You can have direct monitoring and with the new RME stuff is damn near
0. You sure as hell ain't gonna notice 0.25 ms.

[Tom[_13_]]

On Jun 9, 5:04*pm, Romeo Rondeau wrote:
You can have direct monitoring and with the new RME stuff is damn near
0. You sure as hell ain't gonna notice 0.25 ms.

Zero delay in RME digital products refers to the delay (or lack of it)
in the digital mixer implemented in the on-board FPGA.

However, since it's a digital mixer, you still have to include latency
of the ADC and DAC themselves, specifically their filters.
e.g. AKM AK5394 (a typical 24-bit delta-sigma ADC): the digital filter
alone has group delay of 0.66ms at 96kHz sampling rate.
Add some more for the contribution of the DAC.

OK, still low, but you can't exactly call it zero!

Tom

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 16:47:28 -0400, Robert wrote
(in article ):

I don't understand how people deal with latency in DAWs. I have cubase which
I am just getting into, but even the lowest latency seems to involve
recording inacurracies. How do you guys deal with it..... I'm having a tough
time understanding how to monitor what I'm playing against what's been
recorded and have it come out in sync. I know it's all a function of the
sound card and drivers, and I have the ASIO drivers for the sound card
etc.... and when I hear the direct signal and the signal from cubase it
sounds like a chorus effect. I also know about offsetting the recording a
certain number of samples to sync with what's already there, but all this
seems to be troublesome considering the advanced nature of the software and
the fact that my cheap little Roland vs880 never had any latency problems,
even though it had other serious limitations. Do all DAWs have this issue?
which software/hardware has the lowest?



Hello Robert,

Are you using a USB interface?

I haven't had that problem with PTLE and the 001, 002 or 003.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Mike Rivers]

Robert wrote:
I don't understand how people deal with latency in DAWs. I have cubase which
I am just getting into, but even the lowest latency seems to involve
recording inacurracies. How do you guys deal with it.....

We don't use DAWs, at least not a DAW that's nothing more than a
computer and a sound card. But in order to discuss this topic to death,
we need to look at all forms of latency.

The most obvious latency, for most people, is monitoring latency. If
what you hear in the headphone when you're playing is the output of the
sound card, you'll hear a lot of delay. Software and hardware that
supports ASIO can get this latency down to just a bit longer than the
delay through the A/D and D/A converters, but the way to eliminate this
latency entirely is with direct hardware monitoring - feed your
headphones from the mic preamp output (usually through a mixer). Some
computer audio interfaces claim to do this, but the "turnaround" is on
the digital side, so you still have the converter delay to deal with.

Then there's the problem of recorded tracks not ending up in the right
place because the DAW program itself doesn't (or doesn't completely)
compensate for the delays during recording. Some programs do this better
than others. Most now have a feature that performs a timing test and
plugs the measured time into the program to put the track in the right
place. But sometimes processing delays in plug-ins aren't properly
compensated.

Then there's control latency. You're mixing with a mouse and you make a
change in level, pan, eq, or an effect and don't hear anything change
for a short period of time. So that means you can't mix like you're
playing an instrument. You can learn to anticipate the delay, but then
your changes will come out in the wrong place.

All in all, it's just a different process than with straightforward
analog designs. Some people adjust to it better than others.




--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

If you know what you're doing and your hardware supports it, you can
have 0 latency.

True, but only for large values of zero.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[We Can Do It]

I don't understand the obsession with latency, when even a
Mackie 1202
will fix all the latency issues with tracking.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

because they want to hear their synths or their guitars with
all the plug ins effecting them while they record.

peace
dawg

[Scott Dorsey]

We Can Do It wrote:

I don't understand the obsession with latency, when even a
Mackie 1202
will fix all the latency issues with tracking.

because they want to hear their synths or their guitars with
all the plug ins effecting them while they record.

That ain't gonna happen. Sorry.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
We Can Do It wrote:
I don't understand the obsession with latency, when even a
Mackie 1202
will fix all the latency issues with tracking.
because they want to hear their synths or their guitars with
all the plug ins effecting them while they record.

That ain't gonna happen. Sorry.
--scott

It already happens on some computer systems, you just need one hell of a
powerful computer and a lickity split interface. The thing is that most
people who spend that kind of money on a computer already own a guitar
amp, nice mikes and a ProTools HD rig and don't need or use the plugins :-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
We Can Do It wrote:
I don't understand the obsession with latency, when even a
Mackie 1202
will fix all the latency issues with tracking.
because they want to hear their synths or their guitars with
all the plug ins effecting them while they record.

That ain't gonna happen. Sorry.

It already happens on some computer systems, you just need one hell of a
powerful computer and a lickity split interface. The thing is that most
people who spend that kind of money on a computer already own a guitar
amp, nice mikes and a ProTools HD rig and don't need or use the plugins :-)

Nahh, no matter HOW much compute power you can throw at it, folks will
want something that takes more.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mark]

On Jun 9, 2:02*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
We Can Do It wrote:
I don't understand the obsession with latency, when even a
Mackie 1202
will fix all the latency issues with tracking.
because they want to hear their synths or their guitars with
all the plug ins effecting them while they record.

That ain't gonna happen. *Sorry.

It already happens on some computer systems, you just need one hell of a
powerful computer and a lickity split interface. The thing is that most
people who spend that kind of money on a computer already own a guitar
amp, nice mikes and a ProTools HD rig and don't need or use the plugins :-)

Nahh, no matter HOW much compute power you can throw at it, folks will
want something that takes more.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

its not just a matter of computing power...

if you sample at 44.1 (or 48 or whatever) and you have calculations to
do that need X amount of samples, its going to take X/T amount of
delay no matter how much computing power you have avaialble.... For
example, a 48 tap FIR filter has a 24 sample delay (latentcy) no
matter what.

Mark

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:35:11 -0500, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:

because they want to hear their synths or their guitars with
all the plug ins effecting them while they record.

That ain't gonna happen. Sorry.
--scott

It already happens on some computer systems, you just need one hell of a
powerful computer and a lickity split interface. The thing is that most
people who spend that kind of money on a computer already own a guitar
amp, nice mikes and a ProTools HD rig and don't need or use the plugins :-)

You don't need anything particularly fast or expensive to give 2-3ms
latency these days. Hence the growing popularity of plugin
softsynths. Look up your old copies of "Keyboard" for the neurotics
who couldn't use MIDI because of the delay in scanning a keyboard.
They're still whinging about softsynths. The rest of us are just
playing them :-)

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Mark wrote:
On Jun 9, 2:02 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
We Can Do It wrote:
I don't understand the obsession with latency, when even a
Mackie 1202
will fix all the latency issues with tracking.
because they want to hear their synths or their guitars with
all the plug ins effecting them while they record.
That ain't gonna happen. Sorry.
It already happens on some computer systems, you just need one hell of a
powerful computer and a lickity split interface. The thing is that most
people who spend that kind of money on a computer already own a guitar
amp, nice mikes and a ProTools HD rig and don't need or use the plugins :-)
Nahh, no matter HOW much compute power you can throw at it, folks will
want something that takes more.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

its not just a matter of computing power...

if you sample at 44.1 (or 48 or whatever) and you have calculations to
do that need X amount of samples, its going to take X/T amount of
delay no matter how much computing power you have avaialble.... For
example, a 48 tap FIR filter has a 24 sample delay (latentcy) no
matter what.

Mark


No ****.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:35:11 -0500, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:

because they want to hear their synths or their guitars with
all the plug ins effecting them while they record.
That ain't gonna happen. Sorry.
--scott
It already happens on some computer systems, you just need one hell of a
powerful computer and a lickity split interface. The thing is that most
people who spend that kind of money on a computer already own a guitar
amp, nice mikes and a ProTools HD rig and don't need or use the plugins :-)

You don't need anything particularly fast or expensive to give 2-3ms
latency these days. Hence the growing popularity of plugin
softsynths. Look up your old copies of "Keyboard" for the neurotics
who couldn't use MIDI because of the delay in scanning a keyboard.
They're still whinging about softsynths. The rest of us are just
playing them :-)


For MIDI, that's true, but for guitar effects you need to be able to run
the minimum latency of 1.5ms. MIDI synths take up to 10ms to fire the
first samples from the time it receives a note on.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:03:39 -0500, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:

For MIDI, that's true, but for guitar effects you need to be able to run
the minimum latency of 1.5ms.

Why? The effect is time-aligned with the clean signal. Does it
matter if the whole thing comes back at you a few ms late? It
certainly matters no more and no less than if you were playing a
softsynth.


MIDI synths take up to 10ms to fire the
first samples from the time it receives a note on.

[Geoff]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:


For MIDI, that's true, but for guitar effects you need to be able to
run the minimum latency of 1.5ms. MIDI synths take up to 10ms to fire
the first samples from the time it receives a note on.

Jeepers, Steely Dan only have a problem with 5ms or more, and they are
pretty anal about such things.


geoff

[lawapa[_2_]]

I started with analog equipment. For some reason working around all
the short commings/limitations involving that got me to thinking how
can I DO THIS.

Now if someone can't hear his new plugin everything stops and I hear I
can't do this.

Before my computer could handel a ton of software syths I'd GM my
sequence then export using the heavy hitters one at a time.

I say watch Chasing Sound__ Les Paul's bio. What he was doing had
serrious limitations and he not only overcame them he shined.

Who's les paul? And why would I care?

[Geoff]

lawapa wrote:
I started with analog equipment. For some reason working around all
the short commings/limitations involving that got me to thinking how
can I DO THIS.

Now if someone can't hear his new plugin everything stops and I hear I
can't do this.

Before my computer could handel a ton of software syths I'd GM my
sequence then export using the heavy hitters one at a time.

I say watch Chasing Sound__ Les Paul's bio. What he was doing had
serrious limitations and he not only overcame them he shined.

Who's les paul? And why would I care?

Shouldn't that be "who are les Paul" ?

geoff

[WillStG]

On Jun 8, 4:47*pm, "Robert" wrote:
I don't understand how people deal with latency in DAWs. I have cubase which
I am just getting into, but even the lowest latency seems to involve
recording inacurracies. How do you guys deal with it..... I'm having a tough
time understanding how to monitor what I'm playing against what's been
recorded and have it come out in sync. I know it's all a function of the
sound card and drivers, and I have the ASIO drivers for the sound card
etc.... and when I hear the direct signal and the signal from cubase it
sounds like a chorus effect.
I also know about offsetting the recording a
certain number of samples to sync with what's already there, but all this
seems to be troublesome considering the advanced nature of the software and
the fact that my cheap little Roland vs880 never had any latency problems,
even though it had other serious limitations. *Do all DAWs have this issue?
which software/hardware has the lowest?

Punch ins are of course where the problems come up. But first
off I set Cubase/Nuendo up for ASIO Direct monitoring, and my
Monitoring preferences for Tapemachine style. For this to work you
need an interface that supports ASIO direct monitoring, which will
allow Cubase to switch monitoring on your track from "tape" to the
input of your interface. With an RME or with say my Metric Halo 2882,
the direct signal is as low latency as a digital console and you won't
notice the punch in, all things being optimally setup. Both
interfaces also have front end mix applications, with my 2882 DSP+ I
can also use digital plugins before my DAW without sacrificing timing
accuracy.

But not all interfaces are as elegant. If you are using something
like an M-Box, that has a front panel knob for mixing in the direct
signal, well... The box has limitations.

Here's a work around though, for using an M-Box for vocal punch
ins. Route the _unused_ mic input to the track you are punching in
on, and the mic channel you are using to a new record track, setting
the direct monitoring level balance to your mix with the front panel
knobs. Then set your DAW to input monitoring so you hear your mic all
the time, and when the DAW auto punches in it punches silence onto the
original track, and you smoothly overdub on the other track. Drag the
new over to the original track and you're done.

Having an audio guy makes all kinds of workarounds possible of
course. The hard thing is when you are trying to do everything by
yourself.

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away... Tom Waits

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:15:39 -0700 (PDT), WillStG
wrote:

Punch ins are of course where the problems come up.

Only if you construct problems for yourself. There's no special
alignment issue when punching in compared with recording a longer
overdub. All you can possibly be referring to is the slight delay
between hitting the red button and recording starting. But you don't
need to be accurate. On a tape system with limited track-count and
only rudimentary editing techniques available, you could sometimes
achieve a glitchless drop-in. Respect to the people who had this
skill! But it's not needed any more.

[WillStG]

On Jun 10, 7:39*am, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:15:39 -0700 (PDT), WillStG
wrote:

*Punch ins are of course where the problems come up.

Only if you construct problems for yourself. *

Lawrence... When gear has limitations the problems find *you*.
Maybe I should have posted this in the "Who doesn't like Protools LE
and why?" thread

There's no special
alignment issue when punching in compared with recording a longer
overdub. *

Look, you can overdub a whole track listening to yourself on an
(original) M-Box's input, you mute the track you are recording to and
spin the front panel monitor dial to balance the 2 mix with your input
signal. No latency issues there. But try to punch in in PT LE,
listening to the track to hear where you are, the track's signal back
when you switch to input is delayed - latency. If you listen to the
direct input from the front panel of the M-Box instead you can't
reference the track, if you listen to both you hear the chorusing/
delayed effect when you punch in. I suggested punching in silence on
the original track and your vocal overdub on a different track at the
same time as a work around.

Maybe you have a better suggestion, have not had this problem, or
know something about Protools LE I am missing? I'm only up to LE 6.x.

All you can possibly be referring to is the slight delay
between hitting the red button and recording starting. *But you don't
need to be accurate. *On a tape system with limited track-count and
only rudimentary editing techniques available, you could sometimes
achieve a glitchless drop-in. Respect to the people who had this
skill! *But it's not needed any more.

Well, latency is certainly a broader issue than a delay in punching
in.

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:03:39 -0500, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:

For MIDI, that's true, but for guitar effects you need to be able to run
the minimum latency of 1.5ms.

Why? The effect is time-aligned with the clean signal. Does it
matter if the whole thing comes back at you a few ms late? It
certainly matters no more and no less than if you were playing a
softsynth.

The latency is a lot more noticeable when you pluck a string rather than
hit a key.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:15:39 -0700 (PDT), WillStG
wrote:

Punch ins are of course where the problems come up.

Only if you construct problems for yourself. There's no special
alignment issue when punching in compared with recording a longer
overdub. All you can possibly be referring to is the slight delay
between hitting the red button and recording starting. But you don't
need to be accurate. On a tape system with limited track-count and
only rudimentary editing techniques available, you could sometimes
achieve a glitchless drop-in. Respect to the people who had this
skill! But it's not needed any more.

I'm not talking about doing a punch, it will happen fine no matter what,
it's the monitoring of the punch that's ****ed up. As far as punching
skills are concerned, I can punch with the best of them, trust me :-) I
got's a lot of hours under my belt with an autolocator. If you have the
correct interface, you are set, if not you have problems. Those whom
have never been in that situation will disagree with me.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

WillStG wrote:
On Jun 10, 7:39 am, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:15:39 -0700 (PDT), WillStG
wrote:

Punch ins are of course where the problems come up.
Only if you construct problems for yourself.

Lawrence... When gear has limitations the problems find *you*.
Maybe I should have posted this in the "Who doesn't like Protools LE
and why?" thread

There's no special
alignment issue when punching in compared with recording a longer
overdub.

Look, you can overdub a whole track listening to yourself on an
(original) M-Box's input, you mute the track you are recording to and
spin the front panel monitor dial to balance the 2 mix with your input
signal. No latency issues there. But try to punch in in PT LE,
listening to the track to hear where you are, the track's signal back
when you switch to input is delayed - latency. If you listen to the
direct input from the front panel of the M-Box instead you can't
reference the track, if you listen to both you hear the chorusing/
delayed effect when you punch in. I suggested punching in silence on
the original track and your vocal overdub on a different track at the
same time as a work around.

Maybe you have a better suggestion, have not had this problem, or
know something about Protools LE I am missing? I'm only up to LE 6.x.

It's not any better in 7.3. BTW, Laurence... this would be one of those
situations :-) Thanks Will!

[Boris Lau]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
For MIDI, that's true, but for guitar effects you need to be able to run
the minimum latency of 1.5ms. MIDI synths take up to 10ms to fire the
first samples from the time it receives a note on.

Oh really? I've heard about guitar players who listen to their guitar
amp when playing and are very happy with that. If the amp is two meters
away from the ear, you've already got a latency of 6.7ms, just because
of the speed of the soundwave.
So if you switch to head phones and an amp simulation, 5ms should not be
a problem.

Best,
Boris

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:56:09 -0700 (PDT), WillStG
wrote:

Only if you construct problems for yourself. *

Lawrence... When gear has limitations the problems find *you*.
Maybe I should have posted this in the "Who doesn't like Protools LE
and why?" thread

Well, maybe you should :-) I agree, PTL plus a M-Box is the digital
equivilent of a Portastudio. Remarkably good for the money (though
the price is inflated by the brand-name - cf iPod:-). But it lacks
the routing flexibility that makes some jobs easier

But this thread is about "Latency in DAWs" not "the restrictions of
lite-version hardware and software".

[WillStG]

On Jun 10, 1:48*pm, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:56:09 -0700 (PDT), WillStG
wrote:

Only if you construct problems for yourself. *

* *Lawrence... When gear has limitations the problems find *you*.
Maybe I should have posted this in the "Who doesn't like Protools LE
and why?" thread

Well, maybe you should :-) * I agree, PTL plus a M-Box is the digital
equivilent of a Portastudio. *Remarkably good for the money (though
the price is inflated by the brand-name - cf iPod:-). *But it lacks
the routing flexibility that makes some jobs easier

But this thread is about "Latency in DAWs" not "the restrictions of
lite-version hardware and software".

Where I have veered off topic, Laurence? The original poster
asked for workarounds for dealing with latency and specifically
mentioned the "chorusing" effect problem typical when punching in
with M-Boxes. Even if he's using a different soundcard he can use my
work around.

Or he can buy a better interface; a Metric Halo 2882 +DSP ( mine
just upgraded with the new D2 processing card) has basically zero
latency with ASIO direct monitoring.

But a big part of an audio guy's job description is problem
solving, and whether you like the gear you are working with or not.
If you have fun in the process, you just count it as having had a good
day.

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Boris Lau wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:
For MIDI, that's true, but for guitar effects you need to be able to run
the minimum latency of 1.5ms. MIDI synths take up to 10ms to fire the
first samples from the time it receives a note on.

Oh really? I've heard about guitar players who listen to their guitar
amp when playing and are very happy with that. If the amp is two meters
away from the ear, you've already got a latency of 6.7ms, just because
of the speed of the soundwave.
So if you switch to head phones and an amp simulation, 5ms should not be
a problem.

Best,
Boris


If you can get it to only 5ms, then you are doing great, the plugins
take time as well.

[Mike Rivers]

Boris Lau wrote:

Oh really? I've heard about guitar players who listen to their guitar
amp when playing and are very happy with that. If the amp is two meters
away from the ear, you've already got a latency of 6.7ms, just because
of the speed of the soundwave.

Why does everyone always use that example? Truth is that when playing a
virtual instrument through MIDI, it just doesn't feel the same. It's a
whole new getting-used-to. It's not bad, but it's different. Guitar
players never think about the distance between their ears and their amp
so I guess it never bothered them.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Geoff]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Boris Lau wrote:

Oh really? I've heard about guitar players who listen to their guitar
amp when playing and are very happy with that. If the amp is two
meters away from the ear, you've already got a latency of 6.7ms,
just because of the speed of the soundwave.

Why does everyone always use that example? Truth is that when playing
a virtual instrument through MIDI, it just doesn't feel the same.
It's a whole new getting-used-to. It's not bad, but it's different.
Guitar players never think about the distance between their ears and
their amp so I guess it never bothered them.

Possibly largely physco. A hardware synth has processing and latencies of
it's own as well.


geoff

[Boris Lau]

Mike Rivers schrieb:
Why does everyone always use that example? Truth is that when playing a
virtual instrument through MIDI, it just doesn't feel the same. It's a
whole new getting-used-to. It's not bad, but it's different.

Well, why not? If I reduce the buffer sizes of my DAW to the minimum it
feels perfectly fine playing Synthog Ivory (Piano Virtual Instrument),
not very different from the onboard sound of my Nord Stage. It just
sounds a lot better...

Boris


--
http://www.borislau.de - computer science, music, photos

[Geoff]

Les Cargill wrote:


Possibly largely physco. A hardware synth has processing and
latencies of it's own as well.


geoff



So do pianos.

Depends on how sloppy the hingy bits are too I guess.

Actually many synths convert the keyboard to serial MIDI before the sound
generation side of things even get at look !

geoff

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

A hardware synth has processing and latencies of
it's own as well.

So do pianos.

Sort of. You don't get sound the instant you start moving a key. It's
a more complex process than that. For a start, volume is controlled
by key velocity. It takes a certain amount of time, of key travel, for
there to BE a velocity :-)

Playing "early" so the note comes out on time is part of the
technique of many real instruments. Musicians don't find it a
problem.

[anidealworld]

Why does everyone always use that example? Truth is that when playing a
virtual instrument through MIDI, it just doesn't feel the same. It's a
whole new getting-used-to. It's not bad, but it's different. Guitar


That's exactly it- why is it that if you play on a synth live the
sound is instantaneous but the moment you plug in MIDI and use a
software synth there's suddenly big latency? Is the processer in the
synth better than the 3GHz one in my computer? I don't think so.
Heck, with my 10 yr old Sound Blaster wave table card there's no
noticible latency whatsoever.