003R Round Trip Latency with PT9

[Larue]

Hi AndyJCP,

I just spent a long time researching this exact issue, and experimenting with various buffer sizes and LLM (Low Latency Monitoring) on my 002R because I've been thinking of upgrading to HD. (I'm on a Mac, so I can get it down to a 32 sample buffer on my 002.)

Here's my conclusion. Different people have different degrees of sensitivity to latency. 7ms of latency may bother you, and to someone else it may be un-noticeable. Neither person is wrong or right.

From my (non-scientific and anecdotal) research it seems like 4 to 6ms of latency is generally tolerable for most musicians, and latency over that can be disagreable for some.

However, there's a caveat. It seems that those who sing through headphones may be the most sensitive of all. It may have something to do with how the voice resonates in the skull. I only feel comfortable singing with LLM engaged. Even a 32 sample buffer rate bothers me a little. But when playing guitar through an amp sim the 32 sample buffer is reasonably tolerable, and sometimes 64 is okay.

(I'm talking about 44.1k in these examples.)

I understand the speed of sound argument, and how, for example, some of these buffer settings are equivalent to moving a certain distance in feet away from your monitors or amp, but again, I think singing is a special case. And I don't know, maybe there are psycho-acoustical issues at work that aren't fully understood. The bottom line is to do what makes you most comfortable.

[AndyJCP]

Hi Larue,

thanks a lot for this answer.
I was thinking theres either something wrong with my system or with me that I'm having these issues. Good to hear that you also feel comfortable when singing via headphones with LLM, but not with 64samples buffersize.
I also think this is something psycho-acoustical or similar, as I don't have any issues playing guitar or bass or even percussive instruments.
So, I will stick with LLM until I can afford a HD native card.

Again, thanks for this information!

Andy