Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community (http://duc.avid.com/index.php)
-   Pro Tools 2019 (http://duc.avid.com/forumdisplay.php?f=158)
-   -   Low Latency Monitoring question (http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=406268)

secutanudu 09-11-2019 12:29 PM

Low Latency Monitoring question
 
Hello,


Since I have issues with clicks/pops at low buffer sizes, I typically use higher buffer rates along with low-latency monitoring when tracking.



The problem comes when tracking vocals. I rely on plugins for reverb, and singers typically want to hear reverb on their voice during tracking. So when I have low-latency monitoring enabled, they obviously don't hear any plugins that are present on the vocal track.



What I have been doing is turning OFF low-latency monitoring. I mute the vocal track that they are recording onto and the vocalist hears the direct signal of the mic.


I then create a separate track with the same input as the vocal track and enable Input Monitoring. I put a reverb plugin on it, and set the mix to 100%. This works, because the latency is a non-issue when applied to JUST the reverb.



So the singer is hearing his direct signal as primary, and a reverb from pro-tools.


Is there a better way to do this without having to mute the singer's tracks? Then I have to unmute them for playback.


I feel like there's got to be a better way to achieve this....and I hope I am explaining clearly.



Thanks!

JFreak 09-11-2019 12:33 PM

Re: Low Latency Monitoring question
 
Better way would be turning low latency monitoring on and finding out why you cannot track at 256 or lower buffer

taylor4814 09-11-2019 03:54 PM

Re: Low Latency Monitoring question
 
Pro Tools 2018 should allow for reverb plug-in while Low Latency Monitoring enabled, as long as track output is to main outs 1-2

JFreak 09-11-2019 04:21 PM

Re: Low Latency Monitoring question
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by taylor4814 (Post 2537795)
Low Latency Monitoring enabled

IMO, LLM is not needed to begin with -- most can monitor themselves while tracking at 256 buffer, myself included. Those that cannot, most are fine with 128 buffer. EVERYONE is fine with 64 buffer.

Math says 64 buffer means 64/48000 = 1.33ms which is equivalent of someone whispering to your ear 1.5 feet away. Surely you have had your monitor wedge somewhere far far away and still be able to perform? Or the drum kit, are you not able to play bass if your distance to kick drum is 2 feet or more? Sounds so ridiculous, right? Well the LLM in itself is just as ridiculous.

I myself can monitor myself using 256 buffer. No problem. Using 512 there is a noticeable echo which makes it impossible. I don't care if there are sonic advantages going from 256 to 128 or lower because my brain only cares about the (absence of) noticeable echo. When I'm monitoring myself I don't need feelgood from mastered ready to release sounds, I only need the cue mix to be "fast enough".

The Weed 09-11-2019 05:38 PM

Re: Low Latency Monitoring question
 
First, have you done all the optimizations? (Look at the "Help Us Help You" link.) If so, post a Sandra report, maybe people will have suggestions.

Run LatencyMon - with all programs closed - for 10 to 15 minutes. Maybe there is something causing the clicks and pops at a lower buffer. There was a Windows update that introduced latency issues. You need the Windows update from July 26 or later to resolve those issues.

If none of the above help, try the Play/Record Fader "trick". In Preferences>Operation UNcheck "Link Record and Play Faders". Then, when the Track is in Record, drop the Fader to the bottom (Infinity) and leave the Fader when out of Record at Zero. Now when you put the Track in Record, no signal will go out from the Track and when you take it out of Record signal will go out.

kuldeepnc 09-12-2019 12:49 PM

Re: Low Latency Monitoring question
 
Make an aux with the reverb (100% wet) and use a bus send on the vocal cut track to send the desired amount of signal to it. I do that alon with separate auxes for subtle 1/4 note delays (or whatever time division feels right)

secutanudu 09-14-2019 08:21 PM

Re: Low Latency Monitoring question
 
Thanks for the replies. I've been over the optimizations many times. I've had support cases open with both Avid and Lynx on this issue.

Avid's response: "We don't support thunderbolt in Windows."
Lynx's response: "Pro tools is not built for Windows"

When I try using my exact same setup in Reaper, it works fine.
When I try using pro tools with windows built-in audio (instead of thunderbolt), it works fine.

My motherboard is an earlier one that had thunderbolt on it - an Asus X99 Deluxe II.

I think I either need to get a Mac...or try a different motherboard. Neither of which I am interested in at the moment...

Darryl Ramm 09-14-2019 08:51 PM

Re: Low Latency Monitoring question
 
Optimizations are just a start, there were other suggestions here.

What exact optimizations have you done? There are multiple lists. You got all the bios ones done? Cstate? Tried hyperthreading off ? All networking disabled? Bluetooth disabled?

and basic troubleshooting... make sure ignore errors is not checked... can you get Pro Tools to throw an error... what exact one? That would be making a lot of progress to know.

Then move all .aaxplugin files out of their folder, trash prefs and restart Pro Tools. With just the base plugins installed (that Pro Tools magically puts back) does this behave better... I don’t care if you were not using those other plugins get them all fully removed and test.

albee1952 09-16-2019 02:15 PM

Re: Low Latency Monitoring question
 
I also think your rig should be able to track at the 64 buffer(hopefully, some tweaks will help). As a work-around for vocals, one way to lighten the load on the system would be to bounce the music down(import after bounce), then make all the tracks inactive(except for the "2-mix", vocals and vocal reverb). With a thunderbolt interface, a 128 buffer should still be fine(can't comment on 256) as it was on my HDN setup.

JFreak 09-16-2019 02:21 PM

Re: Low Latency Monitoring question
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by albee1952 (Post 2538284)
With a thunderbolt interface, a 128 buffer should still be fine (can't comment on 256) as it was on my HDN setup.

I can.

256 @48k should be well within limits for monitoring, divas aside.
128 @48k should work for anyone. divas can complain if they have a bad day
64 @48k is so fast no human ear should have problem with it


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:52 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com