[Arny Krueger]

"anidealworld" wrote in message


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?

Please define big latency.

Is the processor in the synth better than the
3GHz one in my computer?

The big advantage of the synth's processor is that it is not being run by a
general-purpose multitasked operating system.

I don't think so. Heck, with my
10 yr old Sound Blaster wave table card there's no
noticeable latency whatsoever.

If software synths are inherently this bad, why do so many use them?

[We Can Do It]

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?

Could have something to do with MIDI running at 9600baud.
When playing live and monitoring through your sequencer (DAW)
each command from your keyboard being 8 bits that makes the
note on, velocity etc messages 1ms each or so. Then what if
there is something else being transmitted or the UART is not
ready. This all before the commands get to the PC for
processing by your sequencer that has further latency.

The problem goes away when your delay compensated sequencer is
playing recorded MIDI tracks however.

Some people are blessed with the ability to not to hear or be
bothered with this delay and others are not. Many of the ones
blessed with the tolerance will call you crazy, just ignore
them like they ignore the latency and you should be alright.

peace
dawg

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:35:23 -0700 (PDT), anidealworld
wrote:

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..

That's not a softsynth. It's a rudimentary hardware synth built in to
your sound card. Its lack of latency delay made it a very useful tool
in the days before low-latency soundcards and drivers became
mainstream.

What's your soundcard? What softsynth are you using? What do you
call "big" latency? With an appropriate soundcard and ASIO driver
it's easy to achieve latency as low as a couple of ms. This is in the
same ballpark as the latency of a hardware synth. But you're not going
to get this with a gamer's card (Soundblaster, Audigy) or with many
USB cards.

Leave the Microsoft Synth out of the discussion. It uses a rather
different system and will have high latency despite the soundcard.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:35:23 -0700 (PDT), anidealworld
wrote:

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..

That's not a softsynth. It's a rudimentary hardware
synth built in to your sound card. Its lack of latency
delay made it a very useful tool in the days before
low-latency soundcards and drivers became mainstream.

That kind of performance did seem to have an impact on the host PC - it
really liked to have a lot of RAM.

What's your soundcard? What softsynth are you using?
What do you call "big" latency? With an appropriate
soundcard and ASIO driver it's easy to achieve latency as
low as a couple of ms.

Please name the relevant components, hopefully something on a PC card or at
the end of a USB cable.

My problem is that I have a keyboard guy with Native Instruments Kore2
running on a laptop, who is complaning about latency. He has considerable
experience with hardware synths, particularly those built into keybaords.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:34:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

My problem is that I have a keyboard guy with Native Instruments Kore2
running on a laptop, who is complaning about latency. He has considerable
experience with hardware synths, particularly those built into keybaords.

Why a problem? The onboard audio will be inadequate. He can attach
something better. Or accept whatever latency he gets with ASIO4ALL. Is
he arguing he shouldn't HAVE to?

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:43:43 -0400, Les Cargill
wrote:

A note on/note off is 24 bits on a 31,000 bits per second
stream - about 0.8 ms. A dedicated synth should be able to
achieve latencies in the 1 ms range. 0.2 ms is a long

Dont forger Running Status.

[anidealworld]

On Jun 13, 10:34*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message



On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:35:23 -0700 (PDT), anidealworld
wrote:

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..

That's not a softsynth. *It's a rudimentary hardware
synth built in to your sound card. *Its lack of latency
delay made it a very useful tool in the days before
low-latency soundcards and drivers became mainstream.

That kind of performance did seem to have an impact on the host PC - it
really liked to have a lot of RAM.

What's your soundcard? *What softsynth are you using?
What do you call "big" latency? *With an appropriate
soundcard and ASIO driver it's easy to achieve latency as
low as a couple of ms.

Please name the relevant components, hopefully something on a PC card or at
the end of a USB cable.

My problem is that I have a keyboard guy with Native Instruments Kore2
running on a laptop, who is complaning about latency. He has considerable
experience with hardware synths, particularly those built into keybaords.

That's the thing, is I'd like to take advantage of the flexibility of
the software synths and it's much cheaper than a $3000 keyboard. I can
get a reasonable latency when using my Mbox with ASIO (I don't know
what it is exactly), when I used my Soundblaster wave table/sound
fonts though there's no delay whatsoever. Granted, it's different
technology, fewer calculations, etc... but it sure feels like a step
backwards going with VSTi.

If you just want a piano sound, then sure, just use a dedicated synth
and listen to the keyboard output, but if you're using a software
synth with a unique sound/effect whose sound actually influences how
you play the part, then that won't really work. You just have to deal
with it.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:12:14 -0700 (PDT), anidealworld
wrote:

That's the thing, is I'd like to take advantage of the flexibility of
the software synths and it's much cheaper than a $3000 keyboard. I can
get a reasonable latency when using my Mbox with ASIO (I don't know
what it is exactly), when I used my Soundblaster wave table/sound
fonts though there's no delay whatsoever. Granted, it's different
technology, fewer calculations, etc... but it sure feels like a step
backwards going with VSTi.

So what latency CAN a Mbox be set at with its ASIO driver? If it
won't go down to a few ms maybe you should choose more appropriate
hardware? The ubiquitous M-Audio 2496 is still a good choice if
you've got a pci slot available. Otherwise I'd go Firewire. There's
no reason why a USB2 soundcard couldn't perform well, but too many of
the ones currently available seem to still be USB 1.1 compatible and
rather poor performers.

[philicorda[_6_]]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:15:38 -0400, We Can Do It wrote:

snip
Some people are blessed with the ability to not to hear or be bothered
with this delay and others are not. Many of the ones blessed with the
tolerance will call you crazy, just ignore them like they ignore the
latency and you should be alright.

I think you have to be quite careful about this kind of thing, especially
when providing keyboard sounds for other people.

If you are recording a keyboard player, they won't necessarily say 'could
you lower the latency of your soundcard please?', they just won't play at
their best. They might not know exactly why it doesn't feel right.

A latency of 15ms can lower the funk quotient of a Clav part by up to
38%, and that's a scientific fact.


peace
dawg

[WillStG]

On Jun 13, 3:31*pm, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:12:14 -0700 (PDT), anidealworld

wrote:
That's the thing, is I'd like to take advantage of the flexibility of
the software synths and it's much cheaper than a $3000 keyboard. I can
get a reasonable latency when using my Mbox with ASIO (I don't know
what it is exactly), when I used my Soundblaster wave table/sound
fonts though there's no delay whatsoever. *Granted, it's different
technology, fewer calculations, etc... *but it sure feels like a step
backwards going with VSTi.

So what latency CAN a Mbox be set at with its ASIO driver? *If it
won't go down to a few ms maybe you should choose more appropriate
hardware? * The ubiquitous M-Audio 2496 is still a good choice if
you've got a pci slot available. *Otherwise I'd go Firewire. *There's
no reason why a USB2 soundcard couldn't perform well, but too many of
the ones currently available seem to still be USB 1.1 compatible and
rather poor performers.

Well - audio latency and MIDI latency are really not the same
subject. The M-Box has no midi i/o, if you're using VSTi's/Softsynths
ASIO drivers are pretty much a peripheral issue.

The original poster mentioned specifically problems recording
audio. For problems with recording MIDI, you look at problems and
solutions with your MIDI interfacing primarily, not the audio
interface. Most are plenty fast to use as an output spigot for a soft
synth, you are more limited by issue of processing power and MIDI
issues.

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

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:43:23 -0700 (PDT), WillStG
wrote:

Well - audio latency and MIDI latency are really not the same
subject. The M-Box has no midi i/o, if you're using VSTi's/Softsynths
ASIO drivers are pretty much a peripheral issue.

The original poster mentioned specifically problems recording
audio. For problems with recording MIDI, you look at problems and
solutions with your MIDI interfacing primarily, not the audio
interface. Most are plenty fast to use as an output spigot for a soft
synth, you are more limited by issue of processing power and MIDI
issues.

It's difficult to read anything from the above except that you have
not the slightest idea what a VSTi softsynth is or how it works. Or
am I completely misunderstanding you?

[We Can Do It]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
We Can Do It wrote:
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?
Could have something to do with MIDI running at 9600baud.
When playing live and monitoring through your sequencer
(DAW) each command from your keyboard being 8 bits that
makes the note on, velocity etc messages 1ms each or so.

A note on/note off is 24 bits on a 31,000 bits per second
stream - about 0.8 ms. A dedicated synth should be able to
achieve latencies in the 1 ms range. 0.2 ms is a long
time.

Then what if
there is something else being transmitted or the UART is
not ready. This all before the commands get to the PC for
processing by your sequencer that has further latency.


The UART in question is dedicated. If you happen to have
multiple channels running over the same MIDI connection,
you might get additional delay, but not much.

The problem goes away when your delay compensated sequencer
is playing recorded MIDI tracks however.


Exactly.

Some people are blessed with the ability to not to hear or
be bothered with this delay and others are not. Many of the
ones blessed with the tolerance will call you crazy, just
ignore them like they ignore the latency and you should be
alright.


I would use something more realtime - a dedicated synth -
for
tracking, then play back through the plugins. Makes it all a
non problem.

Exactly!

peace
dawg
--
Les Cargill

peace
dawg

[WillStG]

On Jun 14, 4:09*am, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:43:23 -0700 (PDT), WillStG
wrote:

* * * *Well - audio latency and MIDI latency are really not the same
subject. The M-Box has no midi i/o, if you're using VSTi's/Softsynths
ASIO drivers are pretty much a peripheral issue.

* * The original poster mentioned specifically problems recording
audio. *For problems with recording MIDI, you look at problems and
solutions with your MIDI interfacing primarily, not the audio
interface. *Most are plenty fast to use as an output spigot for a soft
synth, you are more limited by issue of processing power and MIDI
issues.

It's difficult to read anything from the above except that you have
not the slightest idea what a VSTi softsynth is or how it works. *Or
am I completely misunderstanding you?

You don't understand. I am pretty familiar with softsynths, I have
Native Instruments "Komplete 2-3-4".

Look, the original poster said

.....when I hear the direct signal and the signal from cubase it sounds like a chorus effect.

Softsynths have no "direct signal" as this describes, do they? But a
Keyboard maybe being tracked line in or a guitar amp miced, does. So
this sounds like an problem with audio monitoring attempting punch ins
on audio tracks, which is common with M-Boxes. This is what I
addressed and gave a workaround for, if you still don't get it ask
Romeo to explain it to you offlist, He mentioned the problem with M-
Box's is not improved any by recent Pro Tools software, as a working
audio guy apparently he's also seen this.

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

[Mike Rivers]

anidealworld wrote:

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.

Think again. Your computer is designed to do anything that a program
throws at it, and it has a bulky operating system running all the time
that takes up much of the computer power. A dedicated synthesizer just
has to be told when to play a sound and it comes right out. A sample
player (which is what a computer-based virtual instrument is) is a
little slower because data has to be read out of memory and pass through
a D/A converter before you hear it, but it can still be very fast with
dedicated single-purpose software. But when you have to first run
Windows and an associated driver (both for input and output) before you
can play a note, there's going to be some time lost.

Heck, with my 10 yr old Sound Blaster wave table card there's no
noticible latency whatsoever.

Your wavetable card is functionally more like a dedicated synthesizer
than a modern virtual instrument. But if it sounds as good, then you're
playing the right instrument. (or you're playing the wrong soft synth).


--
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:
anidealworld wrote:

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.

Think again. Your computer is designed to do anything that a program
throws at it, and it has a bulky operating system running all the time
that takes up much of the computer power. A dedicated synthesizer just
has to be told when to play a sound and it comes right out. A sample
player (which is what a computer-based virtual instrument is) is a
little slower because data has to be read out of memory and pass
through a D/A converter before you hear it, but it can still be very
fast with dedicated single-purpose software. But when you have to
first run Windows and an associated driver (both for input and
output) before you can play a note, there's going to be some time
lost.

Synth processor - most from last century likely run on a 12MHz or
thereabouts clock.

I think the average 2GHz + computer has a bit of lee-way to play with.

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

geoff wrote:

Synth processor - most from last century likely run on a 12MHz or
thereabouts clock.

I think the average 2GHz + computer has a bit of lee-way to play with.

You could make a great synthesizer if you used that modern CPU and wrote
a dedicated program for it, particularly using the programming style
that they used to use that made efficient use of the resources. Because
we have 2+ GHz processors and gigabytes of memory, we can use tools that
make it easier to write programs, but which don't produce very efficient
code, so you don't have all of those gigahertz working toward playing
the sounds. Most of them are working toward executing the program.
Oversimplification, I know but show me a computer-based instrument that
responds faster than a dedicated synth of the last century (at least the
last few years of the last century). In fact, show me a Windows computer
than runs Word faster than a 486 runs Wordstar (I still have one that
does).


--
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
)

[WillStG]

On Jun 15, 9:04*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
You could make a great synthesizer if you used that modern CPU and wrote
a dedicated program for it, particularly using the programming style
that they used to use that made efficient use of the resources. Because
we have 2+ GHz processors and gigabytes of memory, we can use tools that
make it easier to write programs, but which don't produce very efficient
code, so you don't have all of those gigahertz working toward playing
the sounds. Most of them are working toward executing the program.
Oversimplification, I know but show me a computer-based instrument that
responds faster than a dedicated synth of the last century (at least the
last few years of the last century).

Mike, ever play around with a MUSE Receptor?
http://www.museresearch.com/ It is supposedly optimized for
VSTi's. I just wish it had more than 2 analog outputs.

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

[Mike Rivers]

WillStG wrote:

Mike, ever play around with a MUSE Receptor?
http://www.museresearch.com/ It is supposedly optimized for
VSTi's.

I've never actually tried to make music with one since I don't play
electronic instruments, but that's an example of a computer dedicated to
playing sounds and running effect processes. I think it runs Linux,
which means that the operating system could be (and probably is)
stripped down so that only the things necessary to run the I/O that's
needed are included, and nothing is running that doesn't get used.

Still, it doesn't eliminate the delay through the D/A converter,
wherever that happens to be located in the chain.

--
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
)

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
WillStG wrote:

Mike, ever play around with a MUSE Receptor?
http://www.museresearch.com/ It is supposedly optimized for
VSTi's.

I've never actually tried to make music with one since I don't play
electronic instruments, but that's an example of a computer dedicated to
playing sounds and running effect processes. I think it runs Linux,
which means that the operating system could be (and probably is)
stripped down so that only the things necessary to run the I/O that's
needed are included, and nothing is running that doesn't get used.

Still, it doesn't eliminate the delay through the D/A converter,
wherever that happens to be located in the chain.


The D/A latency is always there even in a hardware synth, since they're
all digital now.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

WillStG wrote:
On Jun 15, 9:04 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
You could make a great synthesizer if you used that modern CPU and wrote
a dedicated program for it, particularly using the programming style
that they used to use that made efficient use of the resources. Because
we have 2+ GHz processors and gigabytes of memory, we can use tools that
make it easier to write programs, but which don't produce very efficient
code, so you don't have all of those gigahertz working toward playing
the sounds. Most of them are working toward executing the program.
Oversimplification, I know but show me a computer-based instrument that
responds faster than a dedicated synth of the last century (at least the
last few years of the last century).

Mike, ever play around with a MUSE Receptor?
http://www.museresearch.com/ It is supposedly optimized for
VSTi's. I just wish it had more than 2 analog outputs.

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

The Muse receptor is an amazing device. I wouldn't mind having one, I
just couldn't justify buying one for the very little I do with synths.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:MWt5k.764$Ni1.126@trnddc01

I've never actually tried to make music with one since I
don't play electronic instruments, but that's an example
of a computer dedicated to playing sounds and running
effect processes. I think it runs Linux, which means that
the operating system could be (and probably is) stripped
down so that only the things necessary to run the I/O
that's needed are included, and nothing is running that
doesn't get used.

One of the more probable sources of latency in a software synth running
under a general purpose OS is the general purpose nature of the OS itself.
It's designed to multitask multiple processes. This implies overhead and
delays that are likely to be well in excess of overhead due to competing
processes or less-than hyper-efficient code. Certainly true of XP, but a
possible significant issue with standard-issue Linux.

A software synth would probably be most effective when run under an OS
designed for industrial process control.

[Geoff]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:



The D/A latency is always there even in a hardware synth, since
they're all digital now.

And manyconvert the keyboard to MIDI before it gets to the sound generation
side of things anyway !

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

The D/A latency is always there even in a hardware synth, since they're
all digital now.

Oh, so THAT'S what's wrong with 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
)

[Mike Rivers]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

The Muse receptor is an amazing device. I wouldn't mind having one, I
just couldn't justify buying one for the very little I do with synths.

Actually, the initial concept of the Muse was to run processor plug-ins,
providing a hardware box that could connect to a console and offer many
of the tools that people with computer-based DAWs use. But the idea of
using it as a dedicated instrument caught on faster.

--
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
)

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

The Muse receptor is an amazing device. I wouldn't mind having one, I
just couldn't justify buying one for the very little I do with synths.

Actually, the initial concept of the Muse was to run processor plug-ins,
providing a hardware box that could connect to a console and offer many
of the tools that people with computer-based DAWs use. But the idea of
using it as a dedicated instrument caught on faster.


Originally there were two devices, I can't remember the name of the
other one. I remember reading about it in the late 90's sometime.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:25:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

One of the more probable sources of latency in a software synth running
under a general purpose OS is the general purpose nature of the OS itself.
It's designed to multitask multiple processes. This implies overhead and
delays that are likely to be well in excess of overhead due to competing
processes or less-than hyper-efficient code. Certainly true of XP, but a
possible significant issue with standard-issue Linux.


That's not a cause of latency as such. It's a situation that requires
a soundcard and drivers to be designed with sufficient buffering to
tolerate a multitasking host.

[Mike Rivers]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Originally there were two devices, I can't remember the name of the
other one. I remember reading about it in the late 90's sometime.

Plugzilla. I was trying to think of that name yesterday. It was
conceived by Tony Agnello and Marc Lindahl, both of whom worked with
Eventied (I think Tony still does). Marc went on to consult for the Muse
folks after Plugzilla died young.

Info at http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT5551778698.html

--
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
)

[Doug Lauber]

When you add comp'd tracks, the main concern is getting in the feel
of the groove.
I mean, when you add a lead guitar part, as an example, you should
monitor the
guitar before it goes into the computer, with any mixer, so there's no
latency
while plucking the strings. Also, monitor the new track with some
(unrecorded)reverb to
make the performance more enjoyable. Soon after that tracking session,
nudge all of
the appropriate waveforms in your DAW. Nudging is an important step,
in the mixing process. (nudge nudge, wink wink)

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.....

[Doug Lauber]

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.

Don't outboard guitar effects blow away DAW effects?

[Les Cargill]

Doug Lauber 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.

Don't outboard guitar effects blow away DAW effects?



No.

--
Les Cargill

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message g.com...

Doug Lauber 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.

Don't outboard guitar effects blow away DAW effects?

No.

Don't bet on it. ;-)

And, one and one half thousands of a second is irrelevant... so is
10/1000 in most cases... and so is 'nudging' tracks. Nudging notes,
perhaps... if there's a real performance error somewhere. 1/100th
of a second simply isn't a performance killer.

DM

[HKC]

Unless you have new converters, like the latest RME or Apogee, the
converters adds more latency than the actual soundcard if you can run on a
1.5 setting. If you have a firewire soundcard you probably have a
safety-buffer so the 1.5 setting may very well be a lot more. I find that I
can track very well with a 3 ms buffersetting on my old Hammerfall 9652. I
have never experienced any costumers saying that the latency was too big for
them to perform.
On the other hand I can easily hear the difference between 0 and 10ms when
held up against a drumtrack and I think everyone can, it's actually quite a
lot and can change the whole feel of the song but I find that much more and
issue while listening back than during reording.
If you by outboard guitar effects mean Sans Amp, POD etc I think the plugins
are just as good although I do like the hands on thing.
If you mean guitar-amp and stompboxes in my mind that's totally superior to
plugins but you need a nice amp, the right stomp-boxes, mics, preamps, a
place where there are no neighbours etc so very often it's easier just to
let the software do the work.
Of course during pre-production it may even be an advantage to be able to
change the sound of the guitar which can only be achieved when using
software.
Remember there are no rules, if it sounds right it is right.